Politico Test Prep #9
May 13, 2012
1. The Supreme Court has both appellate jurisdiction and original jurisdiction. Original jurisdiction is the power to hear a case for the first time, and appellate jurisdiction is the power to review a case from a lower court.
2. Interest groups do play a role in appointing of Supreme Court justices because interest groups influence all aspects of government. By interest groups influencing the president, they also influence his decision on who to appoint to the Supreme Court.
3. The US Supreme Court is much greater than politics because once a justice is appointed, they hold their position for life. Because of this life tenure, the Supreme Court justices do not have to worry about campaigning and getting re-elected as all other politicians do. Because of this, it allows them more time and effort to be spend on their actual job, rather than spending a lot of time on pleasing the public.
4. This was an interesting article because I now understand the Supreme Court more fully. I would declare the healthcare law unconstitutional.
Politico Test Prep #8
May 10, 2012
1. To me, the most important role the president plays is Commander-in-Chief of the military. This is the most important because the president has the most power in protecting our country with military tactics. National security is an issue in our country that continues to rise with terrorism, so it is important that the president has a good understanding and controlling of the armed forces.
2. The least important role of the president is Chief-of-Party. I believe this because this is more of a honorary title rather than an important position. This position has no real effect on the government, making it the weakest presidential power of all.
3. A continuous campaign basically means that presidents are more worried about getting re-elected rather than actually running the country, making him extremely cautious about what he says and does.
4. This was a good article because it explains the presidential powers and motives, which is important to take into consideration during this 2012 presidential election.
Politico Test Prep #7
May 9, 2012
1. Federalism offers Americans advantages in getting involved in the federal government through state and local governments. Also, federalism gives the states certain rights, allowing policies to vary from state to state. Federalism also allows for the separation of powers, giving certain powers to the states rather than giving all the power to the federal government. The disadvantages of federalism include how laws and policies can be different depending on the state, which can create conflict.
2. Laws that expand the federal government's power over the states include the interstate commerce laws, currency laws, and the food and drug administration laws.
3. Laws that increase the states' power over the federal government include liquor laws, gay rights laws, voting laws, and gambling laws.
4. I enjoyed this article because it clearly explained and pointed out the advantages and disadvantages of federalism. The Arizona law is definitely constitutional because immigration is a huge problem in Arizona. I believe immigration should be a federal power, however, certain states need stricter laws on immigration than others, which should allow the federal government to make stricter immigration laws throughout the entire country.
Politico Test Prep #6
May 8, 2012
1. Government farm subsidizes were originally used to balance out the economy by disallowing an overproduction of crops. Since there was an abundance of crops, the government attempted to slow this down by paying farmers an income to not grow as many crops. This government given income came from taxpayers' money.
2. Transportation and energy industries are other examples of businesses that the federal government subsidizes.
3. Interest groups use methods to attempt to shape public policy by gathering the support and backing of the American people. They use advertising on the internet, television, radio, etc. to spread their message to the general public in order to gain power.
4. This article was helpful in explaining government subsidizes. I believe policy changes are difficult to complete because many Americans do not like change and it makes it tough to pass through into law.
Politico Test Prep #5
May 7, 2012
1. The 112th Congress consists of:
House: Majority Republican: 241 Republicans, 198 Democrats, 2 Open steats
Senate: Majority Democrat: 47 Republicans, 51 Democrats, 2 Independant
2. Legislation is mostly formed in the House, and then revised and approved in the Senate. Finally, the legislation goes to the president for final approval. If the House and Senate cannot agree on the legislation, the bill will be sent to a committee where they equal out the bill to satisfy both the House and Senate. Finally, the revised bill will be sent to the President for approval.
3. Powers that the Senate have that the House does not includes interacting with foreign affairs, removing fellow members, and impeaching government officials from office.
4. I liked this article because it pointed out the similarities and differences between the House and Senate. This is a topic that is often discussed and debated over. Not many Americans can pinpoint the differences between the House and Senate, and it is important as American citizens to be able to distinguish the differnces.
Politico Test Prep #4
May 7, 2012
1. When building a presidential campaign it is important to have sufficient funds, resources, and a strong campaign message to deliver to the people. Also, your staff must be dedicated to the campaign and a strong supporting staff. It is also important to travel and get well-known across the entire country instead of just an isolated area.
2. Campaigns are no longer based on party affiliation but instead on the individual candidates themselves. Because political parties are getting weaker, the individual candidates and their views are more focused on now more than ever. Candidates are becoming more independant and no longer sticking to their parties as strong as they did in the past.
3. By allowing party supporters to nominate candidates for primary elections, the true democracy of our country is shown. This gives all American voters a chance to have a say in the election, which is exactly what this country was based on. The negatives that could exist include the people not choosing the stronger candidate and electing a weaker official to run for the presidency. In today's age, voters are more likely to vote for the candidate who they can most relate to rather than the candidate who is more eligible to do the job.
4. I enjoyed this article because it really spelled out the importance of voters and campaigns. It shows the key factors involved in elections and the behavior of voters, not only in presidential elections, but also in primaries.
Politico Test Prep #3
May 3, 2012
1. The number of swing voters this year is significantly smaller because of President Obama's strong following and contraditcting strong haters. For example, so many Americans love President Obama and are behind him no matter what. And on the other side you have those Americans who strongly disapporve of Obama, leaving little room for those in the middle, which we would call the "swing voters".
2. The demographic factors that seem to influence voter behavior and public opinion include how the South is mostly Republican, which will result in Mitt Romney winning many of the southern belt states and the Northern cities tend to vote more Democratic, which will help Obama win the popular vote.
3. Political messages that candidates use to reach out to suburban women tend to be more liberal than conservative because a large percentage of suburban women lean toward the liberal side of the spectrum.
4. I think this article points out a good understanding of how swing voters will react this election and it describes why the number of swing voters is decreasing. I believe more swing voters will lean toward Barrack Obama because since 2008 the economy has gotten better and Mitt Romney has not proven that he can better the economy, leaving the swing voters to most likely favor Obama.
Politico Test Prep #2
May 2, 2012
1. In any Democracy, interest groups play a large role in how and why some things get done in the government. Interest groups allow average citizens to join together and fight for something that they all believe in by raising money and support. They could also push government officials to work to help their cause and maybe even get it placed into law. At the same time, interest groups could discourage government officials and drive them further away from their cause.
2. National Rifle Association: interest group that tries to protect the rights granted under the second amendment, which allows for Americans the right to bear arms.
American Association of Retired Persons: interest group that aims to aid and protect those who are retired.
American Medical Association: interest group that pushes for healthcare reforms
National Association for the Advancement of Colored People: interest group that aims to ensure the equality of rights to all persons and aim to end racial discrimination.
3. When attempting to influence public policy, it is crucial to get members of a group involved. This means that instead of rallying and protesting, interest groups should write to Congressional members explaining what their group aims to do and try to recruit members of Congress.
4. This article explains how interest groups recruit former members of Congress who can influence current members of Congress to accomplish a shared goal. This is a perfect example of how to influence public policy via interest groups. Only good can come from this idea, which could be the reason why many interest groups are on the rise and gaining success.
Politico Test Prep #1
May 1, 2012
1. The Deomocratic coalition consisted of the southern workers along with Lationos, African Americans, and women. The Republican coalition consisted of southern farmers and those who focused on religion. This has changed in recent years. The old Democratic voters in the south have generally turned Republican, creating a strong Republican powerhouse in the south.
2. Gerrymandering could create a district where a super majority of one party controls the district, allowing the opposite party little chance at winning.
3. Most of Pennsylvania's representatives are registered Republican, however around the urban areas of Philadelphia and even a little of Pittsburgh, Democrats reign supreme.
4. This was an interesting article because it shows how the actions in Congress could be weakening the government, which would lead to an even larger divided government. This is bad for our government because it leads to things not getting done which can cause gridlock.
Federal Workers Under Siege
3/12/12
In this article, Seung Min Kim explains the decline and rise of working Americans from the years 2006 to 2010. What Kim is describing is the rise of Federal Government workers and whether or not the government should increase or decline its number of federal workers. As Kim describes, Democrats want to increase the number of federal workers, while Republicans aim to reduce the number of federal jobs. The Republicans want to cut back on government employees to add money towards other things to help out the economy.
Kim describes the conflict on this issue between Democrats and Republicans because they both hold good arguments. It does seem as if there are many useful government jobs, however, laying off employees will only create a larger unemployed percentage. It seems a bit pointless to layoff employees when the money saved will go towards the unemployment fund. In this case, I believe the Democrats have a stronger argument and I believe the current number of government jobs should be kept available and active.
The White House Staff: Lanahan 36
2/15/12
In this reading, Bradley Paterson explains the importance of the president's cabinet. Paterson tells us that the president's chief of staff controls everything that goes on in the White House. He explains that the chief of staff is vitally important in the everyday business of the White House. The chief of staff receives and delivers information to and from the president, vice president, first lady, and any other important officials in the White House. Also, the chief of staff is responsible for planning out the president's daily schedule The chief of staff reviews everything before being delivered to the president. The chief of staff acts as the president's right hand man, dealing with all things going on in the White House. This job is extremely important in the day-to-day life of the president and happenings in the White House.
As we see in this reading, the Chief of Staff does hold an extreme amount of importance not only to the president, but also the all those related to the president. The chief of staff tells the president what he is doing and when, giving him a huge amount of responsibility. Paterson did an excellent job in describing the importance of the president's chief of staff and pointed out important responsibilities he holds. The chief of staff is basically the president's personal agenda book.
"With the Stroke of a Pen" : Lanahan 35
2/15/12
In this passage, Kenneth Mayer explains the presidential powers that are often times overlooked and unchecked. He explains how the President holds powers other than those stated in the Constitution, which would include the power to persuade. Executive orders, as the author describes, are said to be "presidential directives that require some action within the executive branch. Mayer states that congressional orders are necessary to give the president powers that he does not necessarily receive in the Constitution. These executive orders give the president the freedom to enact legislation without the consent from Congress.
I agree that these powers are necessary and Constitutional because they give the president a little more freedom than he has in many other cases. Because the president has these powers to create congressional orders, he has to be careful when drafting an order. If the order he makes is Constitutional, it can be enacted. These orders give the president the power to act quickly in times of emergency. Obviously it would take Congress much longer to pass legislation, whereas the president can do things quickly and effectively.
"The Paradoxes of the American Presidency": Lanahan 33
2/13/12
In this passage, Thomas Cronin and Michael Genovese explain the different viewpoints that the American people hold with regard to the powers of the President. The two men use several different paradoxes to categorize how the people view the Presidency. One reference that they used was the idea of how the President is looked at as a superior but at the same time a normal human being. Americans want a normal, down-to-earth individual to be elected President, but at the same time we expect the President to do extraordinary things that are most likely difficult to do in office. We want the President to make extreme changes and fix all the problems surrounding us, yet, we limit the powers he possesses.
In this reading, these two men map out and successfully explain the viewpoints held by most Americans and go into detail the reasoning behind them. As Americans we use our voting system to vote in who we believe is best for the job, and if he turns out to be a poor President, instead of pointing the finger right back at ourselves, we point it towards him. What this means is that we cannot expect the man we elect into office to be both human and superhuman at the same time. Especially with all the limits we put on the President, it is difficult to satisfy the citizens of this country. I believe if anyone is to blame for most of the problems our society is faced with today, it is Congress, not the President.
Clear Congress Project
This site was extremely unique. I never thought it was possible to view members of Congress and their activity in such an advanced way. It was interesting knowing that you could move the cursor on any dot and a picture along with information becomes available instantly. Also, being able to search any member of Congress made it easy to locate anyone I was interested in. To create a page such as this must have taken a lot of hard work and research, but it is very informational and helpful if you are interested in politics, as our whole class is. It's awesome knowing you can search your local member of Congress and see just exactly what they're doing and if they are contributing anything to Congress. This can be helpful to voters who are not really informed on Congress members and want to gather information before voting.
Alabama Literacy Test: 47/68 = 69%
I am a Republican because I believe:
- taxes should not be increased for the wealthy
- I support the death penalty
- abortion should be illegal
- individuals are responsible for their own well-being
- increased spending on the military
- wages should reflect free market
- free enterprise
- government should be close to the people
- I oppose gay marriage
- I like elephants better than donkeys
"The Rise of Southern Republicans" : Lanahan 75
12/5/11
Earl and Merle Black are siblings who discuss, in this reading, the drastic change in the South from being Democratic to Republican. These two discuss what factors influenced the South to become more Republican after being Democratic for virtually all of our country's history. The largest reasons they present are the ideas of civil rights and race. When talking about the South, one cannot ignore their strong political standing and economic background. For the most part, the South was almost entirely Democratic up until these past several years. The fluctuation of their views shows just how almost all American political participation behaves. After the Civil War, most Southerners were Democratic and as time went on, Republicans began to move closer and closer to the Southerners ideals and eventually the wide range of Democrats in the South began switching to Republican because their ideas were starting to match. Today, the population in the South continues to transition from Democratic to Republican and eventually, Republicans will dominate the South and overrun the once mighty force of the Democratic party.
"Red Over Blue": Lanahan 74
12/5/11
James Caesar and Andrew Busch are two political experts who examine the 2004 Presidential election in relation to "red states vs. blue states". As we know, red is Republican while blue is Democrat. The two opposite sides are based on the political beliefs and morals by the people of the states. Sometimes we also see states that have a mixed population and are split both red and blue. This reading clearly depicts how the Republican party has advanced over the past several years and have made local and national elections much more interesting. Also, as stated in this reading, more and more Americans are becoming "red" over "blue", which is leading to a Republican uproar. When choosing a political party, Americans base their decision on a few large issues such as: capital punishment, abortion, taxation, etc. The issue of polling was also brought up and as stated in the article, public polling does not reflect what the American people necessarily feel or believe. As we learned in class, public polling is a strong form of citizen participation in government, and for these experts to say polling is not important is shocking. However, I do have to agree that polling isn't the best form of getting Americans' opinions because many people could lie or not really have a stance on a certain topic, making it hard to be completely accurate. Another point brought up was that more religious individuals are more likely to vote Republican while the less religious are more likely to vote Democratic. Why? I do not know. As we have seen over the past several years, Republicans are growing and slowly but surely are securing the national dominance.
"Where Have All The Voters Gone?"
11/27/11
Wattenberg, in this reading, basically explains how America's youth are not politically educated and when it comes time to vote, are unenthused and uninterested in politics. One of the major reasons young Americans are not interested in politics is because they do not feel their decisions will affect them directly, making it pointless to vote. Once we reach the age of adulthood, many Americans are excited to have certain freedoms, but we see too often that the right to vote isn't among the top of these freedoms. The media also plays a huge role in Americans' lack of interest in politics because we see a stronger interest in reality shows and sports rather than world issues. World issues are more important to experienced older Americans instead of the young adults in our country and the older you are, the more interest you seem to have in politics. Americans are losing interest in politics because we are brainwashed by what the news tells us and we feel that we have no control over what goes on in our country. Because this idea is growing, more and more Americans that reach the age of 18 are not registering to vote.
If Americans can see the importance of voting, a more Democratic society will exist. The reason older people seem to have a stronger interest in politics is because they have more experience and know the impact they can have on our country. If the young adults in our country can see this and change their interest in politics, this country will become more unique and Democratic. Because the youth are not participating, the government doesn't pay much attention to the issues that the youth are concerned about. If the youth in our country showed more enthusiasm in government, the issues we feel are important will hold more importance in the government, leading to a more Democratic society. Obviously, the students in this class hold a strong interest in government and there are very few of us, which makes us unique. If the rest of our nation's young adults held as much interest in politics as we do, our country would show a huge shift in who has a say in government in the near future.
"Public Opinion and American Democracy" V.O. Key
11/16/11
In this reading, V.O. Key connects the government leaders' positions with the public's opinions. Key basically explains how our elected government officials are afraid of the public's opinions because they have the greatest impact on government. Obviously politicians want to satisfy the public as much as possible and when the public opinion contradicts a politician's opinion, the politicians are in big trouble. This idea that the American public is the most powerful force is completely different from Walter Lippmann's idea. Key says the public opinion keeps government officials in their place so they do not travel too far off their path. In this idea, the public controls how government works because after all, the elected officials were elected by the public and therefore represent the general public.
Key is correct when he says government officials do things that the public opinion do not agree with, and by doing so, these politicians injure their own cause to get reelected. This is why we see so many politicians making false promises that will satisfy the public, but then they never actually follow through with those promises. If the public hears what they want to hear from politicians, they will elect them, but it happens too often that these politicians do not follow through with their promises. Because of this, politicians are more likely to keep their promises and take more consideration in the public opinion. If the general public has a stronger say in the government, the majority of people will be satisfied with the way the government works.
"The Phantom Public" Walter Lippmann
11/16/11
In this reading, Walter Lippmann describes the American public and how they are involved in our government. When talking about the American public, Lippmann explains how we are generally uninterested and uneducated in our government and how it functions. He explains that because the majority of us don't know what goes on behind the scenes of government, we don't really have a say. He says most Americans don't have a REAL opinion when discussing public issues because we are not very interested. Lippmann says that even if it seems the public is more involved at certain times, the overall lack of care is clear in our society. He blames private organizations for our lack of care simply because they hide important information from the public, making it near impossible for the public to get a real say. The organizations he describes are the ones that control government simply because they are educated and involved in our country's affairs. The general public is left out in most cases of government.
Lippmann makes a very good point but he is a bit too rough on the public. It's true, a lot of Americans do not participate in government, but for the most part it is because they can't...not because they don't want to. For example, if the public were asked to take part in a government affair, most people would accept without regret because people want a say in government. However, because the public is held out of most important issues, it is impossible for the public to even have the smallest say in government. The organizations Lippmann discusses are the ones who handle most of our governmental issues, and the public's opinion is ignored for the most part. In conclusion, it isn't necessarily lack of interest that keeps the public out of government, yet, it is the overriding power of private organizations that keeps the public out of our government.
Charles Beard “An Economic Interpretation of the Constitution”
10/25/11
In this reading, Charles Beard states his thoughts on the real reasons why the founding fathers wrote the Constitution. He believed the framers of the Constitution wrote it solely for their own enjoyment and only intended to gain something out of it themselves rather than keep it a lasting document that people would live their everyday lives by. Beard examines the framers and in his studies finds that most needed economic help and he even found what they spent their money on: slaves, land, etc. As he finished his research, he found that most of the framers automatically gained economic wealth off of the Constitution. Beard argues that these framers were only interested in their own economic status rather than the entire country at large.
At first, viewing Beard's research troubles me, but after reexamining it, he may have some truth in what he writes. Even though none of us can be 100% certain that his allegations are true, some evidence does support it. As he researched he did find that each of the 55 framers gained some kind of wealth or status boost from the writing of the Constitution. Rather than trying to form a perfect government for us to live in forever, these framers were just interested in their own economical status. However, we cannot look at the Constitution differently now because of one man's ideas. That document has held our great country together for over 200 years and who are we to question the "motives" behind it now? Whether or not the framers were only after personal satisfaction or not is irrelevant because the document has proven to work and hold together a strong national government.
POWERS
1. Wages war as the Commander In Chief of armed forces (Executive), Has the sole power to actually declare war (Legislative)
2. Right to pass bills (Legislative), Right to veto bills passed by Congress (Executive)
3. Power to create laws (Legislative), Power to review the constitutionality of laws (Judicial)
4. May veto laws (Executive), May overrule a vetoed law by 2/3 vote (Legislative)
5. Appoints its own members (Judicial), Sets the number of justices in Supreme Court (Legislative)
6. Policies its own members (Judicial and Executive), May remove any judicial or executive members (Legislative)
7. Can make treaties with foreign countries (Executive), has power to ratify these treaties (Legislative)
8. Enacts taxes and sets budget (Legislative), may not refuse to spend money for certain purposes (Executive)
9. Court cases heard (Judicial), power to pardon those convicted (Executive)
10. Writes and enacts laws (Legislative), determines how laws are interpreted (Judicial)
#42 Eugene Rostow "The Democratic Character of Judicial Review"
10/16/11
In this selection from "The Democratic Character of Judicial Review", Eugene Rostow examines closely the power that the Supreme Court holds in the matter of judicial review. Judicial review is the power given to the Supreme Court to decide whether an act of Congress is unconstitutional or not. At first, this seems like power too strong for one branch of government to hold. Rostow explains that the United States has a government that protects the minority's rights and the rights of all individuals. The power of the Supreme Court can be used to ensure that the executive and legislative branches of government never obtain too much power. This right is to ensure that that the rights of all individuals of the United States are protected.
When looking at the power the Supreme Court holds, one may think they hold too much power, even though it is to protect the individuals. It holds more power than the other two branches of government, and rightfully so. As many people don't understand, the Supreme Court strictly interprets the Constitution in an attempt to make sure people keep their rights. Without the Supreme Court, the President and Congress wouldn't have a proper interpretation of the Constitution which would lead them to interpret it in the way they choose. The individuals in the United States wouldn't have a cushion to land on when it comes to their rights. The Supreme Court exists solely to protect our rights and to make sure our laws are legitimate by first considering our Constitutional rights.
#11 Lani Guinier "The Tyranny of the Majority"
10/16/11
Lani Guinier was running for assistant attorney general for civil rights in the Justice Department when she was taken out of the race due to her beliefs of the "unfair" elections that take place in the United States. She believed that the minority had no shot at winning elections due to the fact that powerful majority leaders would take all the votes. She used an analogy referencing Sesame Street Magazine to explain her ideals. The magazine had a picture of six kids: 4 of which had their hands raised to play tag and 2 who wanted to play hide and seek. It was then up to the reader to decide what game the children should play. Now, most Americans would pick tag simply because the majority of children chose to play tag. In America, we base our decisions on the "majority rule": that if we can satisfy the majority of people, then less people can get hurt. However, when we go with the majority, the minority is simply forgotten and not taken into consideration. Her son Nikolas answered the question: "What game shall they play" with the answer, "they should play both". Another analogy was made using a high school in Chicago who had the students pick songs they would want played at prom. The black children felt their selections would have no effect on the results simply because they were the minority of the school, which was made up of mostly white students. In conclusion, the black students broke off and organized their own prom. These two examples show how our voting system in the United States doesn't represent the minority's vote because the majority is always in control.
Guinier's examples display how the majority will always overrule the minority's opinions, and this will remain the same until our voting system changes. As the diversity of America continues to grow, the minority's votes need to represent more than they currently do. However, the voting system we have in tact is there strictly so everybody can voice their own opinion. Even if the minority represents 49% of the votes, the 51% will always win. It is nearly impossible for the minority vote to overthrow the majority vote in America for obvious reasons. It is a problem that has, and always will exist in our society.
http://www.nndb.com/people/360/000022294/george-w-bush.jpg
Kammen
October 10, 2011
Michael Kammen attempts to look deeper into the United States Constitution and interpret it in ways that most American's never saw it before. For years, Americans looked at the Constitution as a type of "machine" that told us what we could and could not do. Instead of just seeing the Constitution as a "machine" that spits out of inalienable rights, Kammen attempted to interpret it in a way no one has ever done before. Rather than just live by what the Constitution tells us, Michael Kammen believed we, as Americans have the obligation to apply it to our everyday lives and interpret it into something deeper than we were used to seeing it.
Most people didn't know exactly what the Constitution was telling us. It wasn't simply telling us what we could and could not do as Americans, but it was giving us more freedoms than we could even imagine. For example, the first amendment gives us the rights of: Freedom of press, religion, and expression. Most people just saw the outlying text of this amendment rather than the actual meaning of it. Even today, most people just see what the framers of the Constitution wrote in the actual document rather than interpret it into what it actually means. As Americans it is our duty to look deeper into the Constitution to examine exactly what it is telling us, rather than just take it for granted, as most of us do.
Tocqueville
October 6, 2011
In this portion removed from Alexis de Tocqueville's book "Democracy In America", Tocqueville describes his journey from France to America in search for a better understanding of the United States' new form of government: Democracy. In an attempt to learn and master the Democratic ways, Tocqueville traveled throughout the country gathering information from tons of different sources. He found, oddly, that in this "Democracy" power could be found in anyone, regardless of class, age, etc. By discovering this, Tocqueville realized this form of government was unlike one he had ever experienced before. To obtain power, you didn't have to be born into it through your family. You didn't have to be a millionaire. You didn't have to own land. Instead, to have power, you had to fight for what the people wanted and try to represent them to the best of your ability.
When he viewed this Democracy, it was much different than we see it today. Even though we give all people the same opportunity, we see much less diversity within our government. Yes, anybody can hold power if they have the skills and proper techniques to do so. However, today, unlike in 1831 when Tocqueville examined our Democracy, we see the rich holding much more power. It isn't necessarily because it should be that way, it is simply because they have money, which can buy them popularity. Obviously this is a problem within our government today that needs to be examined closely and fixed as soon as possible. A person's wealth should not determine their power in the government like it does today. When Tocqueville came to study our Democracy, it was much more balanced than it is today.
"From The American Political Tradition" by Richard Hofstadter
September 22, 2011
In Hofstadter's writing, he brings about a matter that most people have difficulty speaking about, simply because of the fact that they do not want to be exposed to the truth. The truth is, the writers of the Constitution really did not intend the document to be seen as we see it today. He explains that the founding fathers follow the ideals of Hobbes, which are: humans are selfish and do only what they need to assure themselves happiness. That, in any case, may be true. However, we see the U.S. Constitution as a list of freedoms and rights that we have as Americans. The framers of the document, however, had a much different motive. They basically believed that all humans are selfish, and that we will always be that way no matter what. Hofstadter tells us that because human beings will not change their selfish ways, the writers of the Constitution just attempted to "stabilize" our selfishness. Instead of trying to change the way Americans lived, the writers of the Constitution basically just tried to lower the degree of personal interest held within every citizen.
Although Hofstadter makes these framers of the Constitution out to be dishonest, we have to remember that these men were all new at this. This whole "democracy" thing was new to them and being that nobody is perfect, of course some flaws were going to appear. Hofstadter makes it seem like the framers of the Constitution had no interest in the liberties of the people. No one can be sure of this, because none of us were actually there when they were forming the document. Sure, maybe some things were left questionable and even ignored, but we all have to remember that these were ordinary men writing the Constitution. Not one person in the world is perfect, and we can't expect these men to be perfect either.
Comments (0)
You don't have permission to comment on this page.