Politico Prep 6

 

1. Explain why governmental farm subsidies were first used?

 

Farm subsidies were originally used to prevent the recession of the food markets. The government pays farmers not to farm to prevent the saturation and over supply of farm products in the market.

 

2. What other American industries are subsidized by the federal government?

 

Energy and transportation are also subsidized by the government.

 

3. What techniques do interest groups use in shaping public policy?

 

They use their ties to the legislature and the media to generate popular support for their view on an issue.

 

4.  What do you think about the topic of this POLITICO article?  Which do you think is more difficult, passing policy changes or implementing policy changes?

 

Interesting, a better look at something I don’t feel I spent enough time on.

It depends on the policy, but passing policy changes tends to always be very difficult.

 

Politico Prep 5

 

1. Describe the demographics of the membership in the 112^th Congress.

 

“Currently in the House of Representatives there are 241 Republicans, 198 Democrats (including

5 Delegates and the Resident Commissioner), and 2 vacant seats. The Senate has 47 Republicans,

51 Democrats, and 2 Independents, who caucus with the Democrats.

The average age of Members of the House at the beginning of the 112th Congress was 56.7 years;

and of Senators, 62.2 years. The overwhelming majority of Members have a college education.

The dominant professions of Members are public service/politics, business, and law. Protestants

collectively constitute the majority religious affiliation of Members. Roman Catholics account for

the largest single religious denomination, and numerous other affiliations are represented.”

 

http://www.senate.gov/reference/resources/pdf/R41647.pdf

 

2. Explain how the House and the Senate differ in their legislative procedures.

 

The house relies much more on the regulations set forth by the Rules Committee, where the Senate relies much more on tradition and an honor system.

 

3. Describe the powers that the Senate does not share with the House.

 

Where the senate can confirm presidential appointments and ratify treaties, the house can pass bills regarding revenue.

 

4. What do you think about the topic of this POLITICO article? What strategy would you recommend for congressional freshmen running for reelection?

 

Anything with congress is always interesting in one way or another… As for congressional freshmen, use incumbency to your advantage, ride the sophomore surge. Get the word out about what you’ve done and how you plan to keep helping your district.

 

Politico Prep 4

 

1. What are the most important steps in building a successful presidential campaign?

 

Fundraising, pleasing your base, and reaching out to the moderates, particularly in battleground states, are key to running and winning a presidential campaign.

 

“A successful presidential candidate must employ a giant marketing campaign with the ultimate task of staying on message during more than two years of planning and execution.”

 

2. Explain why campaigns have become more candidate-centered and less party-centered.

 

“In the end, voters are judging the character of candidates and are looking for a message they can trust.”

 

As people grow more and more tired with Washington, the best way for a candidate to win election is to run against the current establishment. The more a candidate can make themselves stand out, the better.

 

3. What are the positives and negatives of allowing party supporters to nominate candidates in primary elections?

 

Positives: no strategic nomination of a candidate doomed to fail against the candidate of another party. Candidate will be well supported by his/her base. Candidate is ideologically aligned with the party’s interest.

 

Negatives: Sometimes the ideology is too extreme, and the candidate cannot appeal to moderates.

 

4. What do you think about the topic of this POLITICO article? What’s your opinion about candidates being held accountable for comments made by supporters?

 

Good topic in light of the 2012 election year. Candidates, if they are supported by organizations such as PACs, and by that token, are receiving money to run their campaign from these organizations, should be responsible for what they say. Its like if I paid workers to make a product and one of them makes a mistake. The blame doesn’t fall directly on them; it falls mainly on the company that hires them.

 

 

Politico Prep 2   

 

1. Are interest groups fundamental to a strong democracy? If so, how? How can they be dangerous?

 

Interest groups can influence public policy much greater than the average voter. They are, to me, a side effect of allowing people to vote and giving them the freedom to assemble, so yes, they are fundamental to a strong democracy. However, this comes at the price of seemingly unbalanced sway in the influencing of policy makers.

 

2. List some of the most influential interest groups.  What interests do they promote?

 

AARP – Retired Folk, promote rights of retirees

 NAACP – African American interests

NRA – Gun Law, protecting the 2^nd amendment

 

3. What interest group techniques seem to work best when influencing public policy?

 

Most rely on voting drives to promote their interests. This relies on membership, but can certainly sway a vote in their favor. AAPR, for example, certainly publishes information about issues retirees face in the political arena to their magazines and newsletters. This gets members informed and quite possibly influences them to vote in favor of the interest group’s views, which may or may not be the voter’s own.

 

4. What do you think about the topic of this POLITICO article?  What’s your opinion about interest groups hiring former members of Congress to influence current members of Congress?

 

Again, good questions, good thinking, ect. I don’t think an interest group should be able to hire these ‘consultants’ to edge their way into congress. Now, if an interest group member was elected to congress, that’s a different story, but hiring someone because of their ties is unethical to a democracy.

 

 

Politico Prep 1

 

1. Which groups traditionally made up the broad-based coalition of the Democrats? Which groups traditionally made up the broad-based coalition of the Republicans? How have these coalitions changed over time?

 

Traditionally, democrats tend to be hispanics, blacks, women, and union/workers.

 

Republicans tend to be white men, high wage earners, and southerners.

 

Over time, these groups have changed internally, some of these groups have changed parties, but for the most part, as this article suggests, these coalitions are losing their grip on rank-and-file voters. Moderates on both sides have started voting more like independents.

 

2. Describe the strategies that can be used in redistricting in order to gerrymander a moderate representative into a district that is less favorable to his/her prospects.

 

They can do the exact opposite of what they’re currently doing, that is, instead of redistricting to put their most ideologically aligned voters behind their candidate, district for more moderate voters to have a majority.

 

3. Analyze your home state representatives. Where do they fall on the political spectrum?

 

They both lean towards the right, Pat Toomey is a more conservative republican where Bob Casey is only a moderate democrat.

 

4. What do you think about the topic of this POLITICO article? What’s your opinion about the impact of increased partisanship in Congress?

 

I like this review, it keeps us thinking. The increased partisanship in Congress has only lead to dreadlocks of the legislative process. We need more moderates to smooth over the bumps of dreadlocks.

 

 

 

Politico Prep 3

 

1. Why do you think the number of swing voters this year is “small as ever”?

"Due to our hyper-partisan political arena" The country is in a difficult spot, there is so much partsian-ship today that the middle ground has slowly gotten lost in the quarrels of the always left and always right voters. More people today are backing one candidate for whatever the reason may be.

 

2. Explain the demographic factors that seem to influence voter behavior and public opinion the most.

The most common demography-predictive voters are usually the educated, blacks, and women that vote democrat and the southerns, white men, and business owners that vote republican.

 

3. What political messages do candidates use to resonate with suburban women?

It varies by age and geographic location.

"Sophisticated polling operations will most likely recommend ways to win female votes in specific locales within these states so that a message can be directed at women who live in the suburbs of Cincinnati, for example, while slightly altered for women who live outside Des Moines."

That being said, family values help republicans and anti-big business helps democrats.

 

4. What do you think about the topic of this POLITICO article? Will Democrats or Republicans have the advantage attracting swing voters in 2012?

 “downscale Midwesterners, suburban women and other better-educated, higher-income white Americans.” 

The republicans can attract them all through lower taxes and family values.  Democrats can get them with 'tearing down big business' balanced with 'supporting the middle class.' It'll be close, but I feel the republicans will score the high income voters while the democrats will score the midwesterners, women, and educated.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

#36 - Bradley Patterson

Patterson sheds light on the less-than-popular Chief of Staff, you know, the guy we always hear about, but never think twice of? He’s the guy who helps the president in the day to day operations of the White House, as well as somewhat of a go-between for the secretaries and the president. He’s in a precarious position, on one hand, his job is to make everyone else’s job a little easier, but in the process, he has to reject tons of requests on behalf of the president. This is like shaking a box of nitroglycerine without letting it explode. On one hand, he has the president, who he has to keep happy and unstressed by trivial things, and on the other, he has his party and congress, which he has to keep happy by allowing what they see as key requests through him to the president. The president and congress, as we know, don’t always get along, and so, the Chief of Staff  is in a bit of a pickle, he has to decide who to make happy in a lot of cases, and in politics, decisions that make people happy, tend to also make other people, unhappy… and unhappy people in politics is a dangerous thing.

 

#35 – Kenneth Mayer

Mayer surprised me with this excerpt about a power that I honestly did not know about – the Executive Order. Apparently there is legal ability of a president to issue an Executive Order, which, according to Mayer, loosely is an edict originally  intended to warrant action within the executive branch, but have come to be seen in a much different light, as “legal instruments that create or modify laws, procedures, and policy by fiat.” Things like the Louisiana Purchase fall under this category. It’s fascinating to see that the president can use his power of influence, coupled with the stroke of a pen, to produce legislative action or bypass the legislative process altogether, to make changes to the existing system.

 

#34 & Twitter Tuesday - home internet was not working

#arapgov12 #lan34 Craig Rimmerman traces the development of presidential power from the intent of the framers to the views of Americans now.

#araogov12 Mitt Romney. It may be a solid block of ice, thanks to all of the negative campaigning, but hey, its a heart.

 

#33 – Thomas Cronin, Michael Genovese

Cronin and Genovese discuss the paradoxes that Presidents must face in the public opinion of what he should be. “Paradox #1” is the want of a powerful leader with a skeptical view of centralized government. “Paradox #2” is the want of a charismatic, outstanding person with the want of a down-to-earth, common person. “Paradox #3” is the want of a kind, gentle leader with our admiration of “a cunning, guileful” president. “Paradox #4” is the admiration of someone who is “above politics” without the consideration of how political the position of the executive is. “Paradox 5” goes hand in hand with paradox #4 in that, “we want a president that can unify us, yet” the executive needs to make decisions unpopular to a lot of people. “Paradox 6” is the want of an independent, innovative executive with the want of a president who follows public opinion. “Paradox 7” is the want of a self-confident leadership, but the dislike of arrogance. “Paradox 8” is the outlook that the ability to campaign is the same ability as to govern. Finally, “Paradox 9. The Presidency is sometimes too strong, yet other times too weak.” I find it difficult to debate most of these paradoxes. Americans are creatures of contradiction, and it is no more prevalent than their outlook on political figures. I found it interesting to see what political scientists had to say about these paradoxes, and I am glad to find I am not alone in the finding of these things.

 

Clear Congress

 

I found it interesting that the republicans, who have the most loyal voting base between democrats and republicans, are historically more bipartisan than democrats. Overall, I love the site, it gives you a good visual representation of the mindset of the 112th session of congress.

 

 

Lanahan 75 - Earl/Merlie Black

 

Earl and Merlie Black discuss the fall of the Democratic South and the Rise of the Republicans in their piece. They pose that the initial collapse was over civil rights, but the continued support of republican candidates has not been purely for the sake of racial equality. Their support of the republican party is now largely based in their conservative nature, emphasis on family, and limitations on governmant power. Southern Republicans, they argue, have not developed "a comparably solid" political front, with several reasons, such as population increase and democratic blacks. Herein lies the reason for the Florida Swing State.

Yet another argument I find myself struggling to refute (this book is full of them, isn't it? Well, except for that "proportional democracy" piece, that was just bad.). It is easy to see the causes and effects of "the great white switch," however, what came as a shock to me was the fact that "The Republican South" as we know it today is only such a recent development. It hadn't occurred to me to think about it, but now that I see it, it is hard to un-see.

 

 

 

Lanahan 73 - Walter Dean Burnham

 

Burnham presents us with a theory to explain why certain presidential administrations have left such a lasting mark on American History. He presents us with several factors showing the difference between eras of "critical realignment" and "stable alignment eras, secular [gradual] realignments, and deviating elections," including the remarkable pattern of periodic, critical realignments.Summing up his theory as a whole, Burnham notes that "eras of critical realignment are marked by short, sharpreorganizations of the mass coalitional bases of the major parties which occur at periodic intervals on the national level." "There is much evidence... that realignments do occur with rather remarkable regularity approximately once a generation, or every thirty to thirty-eight years.

I find it difficult to refute such claims. Look at our political society today, the last major change in political policy, in my opinion, were the civil rights movements. We may be over due, but seeing the political scene today, there are emergent parties on the left and on the right, vying for the votes, promoting their candidates. I find it remarkable that such a pattern exists, but not unbelievable.

 

I Am A...

Democrat.

I am for the social welfare of the common people.

I am for the economic sustainence for the under class.

I am for taxation, to improve the general welfare of the American populous.

I am for the idea that the the American Dream is not to become a singular powerful person, but to become a person who blazes trails, a person who builds the bridges and ladders for the rest of America to follow along an easier path.

I believe that the American Dream must be to benefit America as a whole, and that taxation is one way to do this.

I am against corporate greed.

I am against money in politics.

I am against colsing the door on the under class because "I made it and you didn't."

I am for the beleif in a dynamic America, one which can grow and adapt, one which can transcend the limitations of greed and selfishness.

I am for the rebirth of the greatest nation in the world.

I am for creating jobs, and collecting the taxes appropriate to do so, because Reganomics has become clogged with greed in its trickle-down pipes.

I am for the pride in America which allows us to say "No" to the less expensive option of transferring jobs over seas and "Yes" to the more expensive option of making jobs here, on our land, with our sweat.

I am for an America that we can be proud of; for a sky held high, not by a few hundred sky scrapers, but by the thousands of hearts of the American people.

 

Genesis 18:32 (New International Version)

Then he said, “May the Lord not be angry, but let me speak just once more. What if only ten can be found there?”

   He answered, “For the sake of ten, I will not destroy it.”

 

Alabama Literacy Test

 

41/68 ~ 60%

 

 

82 - Martin Wittenburg

 

     Wittenburg speaks of the nonvoting youth and secifically why they are not voting, but does not ofer a solution to the problem. In my mind though, he raises the issue from an angle that I feel is seldolm thought about in politics. Mass media is to blame, according to Wittenburg. Today's youth are able to avoid the political media because of the now several hundred TV channels. Years ago, there was 3, 6, and 10, and they all covered pretty much the same thing. Nowadays, theres 3, 6, 10, 1000, and everything inbetween, allowing people to watch what they want, and with DVR, when they want to. 

     Wittenburg uses one of my most favrorite mediums to support his arguement in this piece. Statistics. He shows the difference between now and 50 years ago, in general political interest and knowledge, key factors in voter turn out, affected by, he argues, the "unique socialization" of our youth.

     I generally aggree with Wittenburg, Jersey Shore and the Kardashians are #occupying the minds of much of my age group much more than the republican primaries. And when it comes to politics, most of the time, they have not a clue whats going on, and they openly admit to it. As for a solution, I'm just as lost as Wittenburg here, unless we get rid of the garbage on television and make PSA's during importaint political seasons. (by that, I don't just mean the residential election.)

 

 

55 – Walter Lippmann

 

Lippmann speaks, rather poetically, about the private citizen and the burden placed on him by American politics, the “impossible task… to know what is going on and to have an opinion worth expressing on every question which confronts a self-governing community.”“[Today’s theories] assume that either the voters are inherently competent to direct the course of affairs or that they are making progress toward such an ideal,” as Lippmann notes, and that these ideals prove to be false and a hindrance to polity, because “we have other things to do.” This is not condescending toward the American people, rather, a wake-up call for the political experts of today, showing them that Americans do not know what theorists believe we know, nor do Americans generally care or have the time to care about each and every issue in politics.

It is hard to argue against this idea, that people are simply unaware of politics and decision making. To thrust people into the situation of decision making “when the officials fail,” is like a swinging at a piñata at a birthday party, the right decision will be made after swinging a bat around in the air like a mad man, trying to hit the piñata. I am not discounting the public’s right in a democracy to vote, but I feel the government needs to do more to educate people in the ways of politics and the issues at hand, to present people with facts, and all the facts, not mudslinging and partial truths.

 

56 – V. O. Key

 

Key delves into the world of public opinion, but doesn’t leave the public isolated from their elected leaders. He argues that the public opinion is what dictates the actions of their leaders, keeping them from overstepping their boundaries; allowing laws and policies to be passed that are acceptable to the public opinion. He closes with a paragraph similar to Lippmann in topic, but vastly different in conclusion. Key argues that “if a democracy tends toward indecision, decay, and disaster, the responsibility rests here [on the leadership], not in the mass of the people.”

This, though at first glance appearing contradictory to Lippmann, actually coincides well with my previous opinion that the government needs to do more in the way of educating the public on topics and policy. Key makes the point that, if there is an issue in the democracy, it falls on the government. The public opinion may be uninformed, as Lippmann says, but it is the responsibility of the government to promote people to make the best decisions possible, not heard them into the dark where truths are hidden and mud is slung.

 

POWERS

1.       Pass Laws (Legislative), Veto (Executive)

2.       Veto (Executive), Veto Override (Legislative)

3.       Veto Override (Legislative), Judicial Review (Judicial)

4.       Presidential Impeachment   (Legislative), Chief Justice sits as president of the Senate during presidential Impeachment (Judicial)

5.       Chief Justice sits as president of the Senate during presidential Impeachment (Judicial), Trial of Impeachments (Senate)

6.       Ability to Declare War (Legislative), Commander in Chief of the Military (Executive)

7.       Judicial Review (Judicial), Appointment of Judges (Executive)

8.       Department appointments (Executive), Approval of Department appointments (legislative)

9.       Court Cases Held by Judicial Branch (Judicial), Power to Pardon (Executive)

10.   Election of Executive Branch (President/Vice President) (Executive), Selection of President/Vice President in the case of no majority of electoral votes (Legislative)

 

Beard Oct. 22 2011

 

                Beard presents undeniable evidence to prove the founding fathers’ intentions had economic motives behind them; framing the constitution minding their own economic standing. He shows evidence relating their careers, their holdings, their debts, their properties, and their economic affiliations. Through this, one may easily assume their motives were heavily driven by personal economic gain; however, this is hard to conclude definitively. It is impossible to say all of the 55, or even most of them, were primarily concerned with their own economic gain. Yes, it is always possible that some of them were there to get as much out of it as they could, but considering where they came from, what they fought, most of the framers had a keen eye to avoid tyranny and unrighteousness.

 

Lanahan 42

Oct 19, 2011

 

     Eugene Rostow says, " The separation of powers under the Constitution serves the end of Democracy in society by limiting the roles of the several branches of government and protecting the citizen, and the various parts of the state itself, against encroachments from any source." This single satement is enough to support his entire arguement that the Judicial branch of the government is not "antidemocratic." Some would argue that, because the supreme court judges serve life terms, and judicial review serves to limit actions taken by congress -- congress being the most democratic area of our government through representative elections -- the supreme court serves to limit the actions of democracy, and is therefore antidemocratic. Those who argue this miss the point of the judicial branch. They serve to protect us. The ability to limit congress in such a severe is the most fortified protection against mob rule. If congress is 100% republican, and they try to take control of the government by passing a law stating, lets say, "The head of the Senate, if voted upon by congress in 4/5ths favor, would replace the current president of the united states," judicial review would protect us from losing our voice in the democratic vote for president.

 

Lanahan 11

Oct 19, 2011

 

     Lani Guinier attempts to fight for the minority in this excerpt from her The Tyranny of the Majority by using several examples from her childhood as a Brownie, her son's Sesame Streetmagazine, and the founding fathers themselves. All of these examples are off base, the fact that a fellow Brownie cheated by having her mother make her project has little to nothing to do in the situation of Majority v. Minority. The connection lies in the emotions after feeling cheated, but there are so many better examples she could have used, for sake of politics, Prop. 22 (2000) vs Prop. 8 of California. The magazine reference is all well and good, it provides an alternative to the situation, the positive-sum solution, as she calls it. This, however, is impractical, if not impossible, when you're dealing with 300,000,000 people. Lets take that 2/5 minority and apply it to prop 8 in California, how would you be able to say "For now, because the majority voted against same-sex marriage, it will be illegal, but 3 years from now, because 47.76% of you voted in favor of same-sex marriage, it will be legal." You just cannot do that. It doesn't work. (personally, I could care less if you're homosexual and want to get married, I don't see why so many people fuss about it, how does it negatively affect them if their neighbors are a married gay couple? but i digress) Lastly, she tries to back her argument up with the words of our founding fathers, saying that they were pro minority because the majority rule would lead to tyranny. Yes, they feared mob rule just as much as monarchical, and the system they developed reflects this. Our representative democracy has a system of buffers built into it to prevent pure mob rule. Now, yes, this goes without saying that it is possible for one group to win out consecutively for an extensive period, but this has nothing to do with the minority of race, this has to do with political ideology. Our system was designed to reflect the opinion of the majority, so that the majority of people would be happy. Attempting to alter the power of a person's vote or allow them to elect representatives based on race would upset the system we have. It would force the incumbent to become the minority, the minority to become the incumbent, and the deadly cycle would repeat endlessly.

 

New School of Government

Oct 11, 2011

 

 

 

Lanahan - 9 - Madison - Federalist 10

Oct 11, 2011

 

     Federalist 10 is one of the most famous of the Federalist papers. In the Federalist Papers, Madison argues for the ratification of the constitution and union of the states. Specifically in Federalist 10, Madison warns of the dangers of factions in government, describing what exactly a faction can be composed of and common day examples of factions, how to control factions, and how a large republic would be better at controlling factions than a small republic or a democracy.

     It is interesting to read this document knowing what one does today. Looking at congress, we can clearly see a bipartisan government, factions dueling it out at every turn trying to get their way as the only way. We see "parties, inflamed... with mutual animosity, and rendered... much more disposed to vex and oppress each other than to co-operate for their common good." It is mindboggling to see that two hundred years ago, a man describes perfectly what we see in American politics today. 

 

Lanahan - 1 - Tocqueville - Democracy in America

Oct 11, 2011

 

     Alexis de Tocqueville's Democracy in America is an analysis of Americal politics and its history circa 1830. Starting out with an analogy of growing countries to that of a growing person, Tocqueville goes on to describe the people of America, linking their origin as immigrants from various countries in which the political system had been corrupt or broken, has lead to their establishing of a democratic society unlike the world had ever seen. He speaks of the importance of language and other common ground, such as the lack of class distinctions among the immigrants to the new world ("The happy and powerful do not go into exile, and there are no surer guarantees of equality among men than poverty and misfortune... America was opposed to territorial aristocracy"). He then tells of how inheritance was split evenly, and thus, was subject to perpetual diminuation, and how this tends to destroy the over-powerful. This forces the wealth in america to circulate more freely than in other countries.

     Democracy in America embodies the American spirit in ways only someone unfamilliar with America could speak of. It is interesting to see how America has changed since the age of non-aristocracy, where wealth circulated almost perpetually, as Tocqueville describes. Although he is speaking in comparison with other nations of the day, in which landed aristocracy usually ruled politics and the general public rarely saw any wealth outside of necessity, America in today's perspective does not have this 'perpetual circulation of wealth' as Tocqueville describes. In America today, the wealthiest 1% of the population hold more wealth than the bottom 99%. I digress. He also speaks of the commonality which Americans have, in language and in ideals. This holds true to a sense today; however, it is much less prevalent than it had been back in 1831. All in all, for its time, America was the greatest democracy in the world; however, the world has since caught up.

 

Lanahan - 8

9/23/11

 

     Hofstadter makes a genuinely convincing argument that our forefathers had much less trust in the general public than they let on. Just as Hobbes believed, Hofstadter says, our forefathers saw people as "cells of selfishness." Ideally, they sought to contain this under s rule of one; however, looking back at what they went through with England, they firmly were against a monarchy. They instead, had to shift their views slightly left, away from a pure Hobbes government. They developed their government as Madison said, "Ambition to counter Ambition." Hofstadter then goes on to point out three advantages of a federated, constitutional government: the ability of a federal government to squash single state uprisings of single groups; second, as Madison said, how a representative government would refine the public idea by putting it through a buffer of representatives; and thirdly, the natural checks and balances in place with such a government. Hofstadter then talks about the forefathers' view of liberty, about how they saw liberty chiefly as a right to property, arguing that, it was the opponents who demanded the liberties we know today as the first amendment. The liberties sought  by the forefathers were mainly economic, primarily based on property, believing that pure democracy would lead to random redistribution of property. They also believed pure democracy always lead to tyranny or aristocracy. The fathers saw that their government did need a democratic branch, however, so they based one on the belief that every class should be represented in government.  

     I Strongly agree with Hofstadter. He makes many great points, especially considering the general consensus of the times. They came from a Europe that was ruled by monarchs, and they feared the unjust rule they had just escaped. At the same time, they sought the key freedom of property ownership in a protected, regulated circumstance. They knew they could not create another monarchy, but they feared the security of property in a pure democracy, so they took the middle road and created a representative democracy. It is a theory that is hard to refute, and I strongly believe this to be one of few, if not the only, possibilities.