I think that blogging started off as a great idea, but as the semester got going, it lost its effect. The part that I found the most annoying was trying to respond to two blogs each weeks, especially because most people didn't blog, or didn't blog until 11PM on Sunday. I think that if you continue to have people respond to blogs, you should make the blogs due on Saturday and have the responses due on Sunday... that way people can get their responses in.
I think that blogging was a good alternative to a paper. For one, it gave us a number of chances to think about questions that may be on an exam. It was also nice because it took only a couple of hours a week, rather than a huge midterm paper that would take up much more time. Overall, I think blogging was a good experience.
I think that I deserve an A. For one, I am one of very few people who blogged on time every week. In addition, I responded to two blogs every week. I put a lot of thought into my blogs, and connected articles and pictures to almost every single blog. I tried to make my blogs interesting so that other people could respond to them, and I think for the most part people responded to mine.
Monday, December 10, 2007
Wednesday, December 5, 2007
Will this be the year?!?!
Why don't young adults vote? It seems so peculiar to me that they are often the first one's to open up their mouths to complain about stuff, but they are the last ones to go vote on election day. I CONSTANTLY hear people complaining about the high cost of tuition, the high cost of books, blah, blah, blah... but come election day, is anything done? No. People my age are too lazy to get to the polls, so why would the candidates for ANY office listen to them? Not only do we not get out and vote, but we also don't make campaign contributions... neither time nor money.
As the article points out, our age COULD be the swing vote. We could finally get a candidate willing to listen to us, but we have to get out and vote. The article says 60 percent of people our age think we are headed in the wrong direction with the war in Iraq. Our age group is also the one's FIGHTING in Iraq. If we want anything changed, it is simple, make them listen.
Unfortunately, no matter how much people like me preach, no matter how many people you try to get to register early and remind to vote, less than 50 percent of people under 30 will vote in 2008. Could this finally be the year that we wake up? Probably not, but we can at least hold out hope.
As the article points out, our age COULD be the swing vote. We could finally get a candidate willing to listen to us, but we have to get out and vote. The article says 60 percent of people our age think we are headed in the wrong direction with the war in Iraq. Our age group is also the one's FIGHTING in Iraq. If we want anything changed, it is simple, make them listen.
Unfortunately, no matter how much people like me preach, no matter how many people you try to get to register early and remind to vote, less than 50 percent of people under 30 will vote in 2008. Could this finally be the year that we wake up? Probably not, but we can at least hold out hope.
Saturday, December 1, 2007
Critical Eras
A critical era occurs when a stable era is interupted by a critical election, one that arouses unusual intensity and interest and that changes voting patterns substantially, followed by another stable era. According to "Why Parties" by John H. Aldrich, the first critical period occurred in 1790 with the formation of the first parties (Aldrich 279). The most recent critical period occurred in the 1960s with the political realignment of southern blacks to the democratic party. However, many people believe that the 1990s was also a critical era, and that the 1994 election was the critical election. After reading the attatched article by Aldrich, I would agree.
As we discussed in class, some key elements of a critical era are elite generational transitions, a change in public belief and action (in particular party identification), and changing relations between the people and the elites. The candidates in the 1990s went from the World War II veteran to the Vietnam veteran. Instead of a glorified war hero, dissenters and those who oppossed the conflict rose as the elite candidates. Party identification was marked by stronger partisan ties, a reduction in split ticketing, and a trend of the public being able to tell distinct differences in the two parties. In addition, as Aldrich points out, incumbency was not as strong as an advantage as it had been since the 1960s. The relationship between the public and the elites changed drastically due TV advertising and, most importantly, the internet. Candidates could now reach the public easier and did not depend on the help of the party as much. In addition, partisan realignment was seen with the 1994 Republican take over of the house. After reading Aldrich's article, it is obvious to me that the 1990s was indeed a critical era, though it may not have been as dramatic of a era as the 1960s.
I also think that we are in a stable era. I could not find any articles on this, so I'm going to go off of my own observations and hope that feedback from others will correct me if I'm wrong. The candidates, as we saw in the 2004 election, are still the Vetenam vets... who could forget all of the mudslinging about that?!?! Partisan ties remain strong, and are on a rise. People can still tell distinct differences between the two parties, and there have not been any major realignments. One problem with my theory that this is a stable era would be the 2006 election when the Republicans lost Congress to the Democrats. However, I still think that there is overwhelming support for us being in a stable era. However, I do know that this next election will be very competitive and it may end up being the critical election for this era.
As we discussed in class, some key elements of a critical era are elite generational transitions, a change in public belief and action (in particular party identification), and changing relations between the people and the elites. The candidates in the 1990s went from the World War II veteran to the Vietnam veteran. Instead of a glorified war hero, dissenters and those who oppossed the conflict rose as the elite candidates. Party identification was marked by stronger partisan ties, a reduction in split ticketing, and a trend of the public being able to tell distinct differences in the two parties. In addition, as Aldrich points out, incumbency was not as strong as an advantage as it had been since the 1960s. The relationship between the public and the elites changed drastically due TV advertising and, most importantly, the internet. Candidates could now reach the public easier and did not depend on the help of the party as much. In addition, partisan realignment was seen with the 1994 Republican take over of the house. After reading Aldrich's article, it is obvious to me that the 1990s was indeed a critical era, though it may not have been as dramatic of a era as the 1960s.
I also think that we are in a stable era. I could not find any articles on this, so I'm going to go off of my own observations and hope that feedback from others will correct me if I'm wrong. The candidates, as we saw in the 2004 election, are still the Vetenam vets... who could forget all of the mudslinging about that?!?! Partisan ties remain strong, and are on a rise. People can still tell distinct differences between the two parties, and there have not been any major realignments. One problem with my theory that this is a stable era would be the 2006 election when the Republicans lost Congress to the Democrats. However, I still think that there is overwhelming support for us being in a stable era. However, I do know that this next election will be very competitive and it may end up being the critical election for this era.
Tuesday, November 20, 2007
Iraq
It is hard to deny the failure Iraq has proven to be. "Our troops continue to fight and die valiantly. And our Treasury continues to be depleted rapidly, for a peace that we seem far more interested in achieving than Iraq's own political leaders," said Reid, D-Nevada. So why hasn't anything changed? It is clear that support for the Iraq War is shrinking every year (see polling report). Why has the new Congress not done what it promised in bringing an end to this war?
Congress has been trying to force troop withdrawals by refusing funding to the war without a timetable for removal of troops. However, they have not garnished enough votes to override President Bush's veto, so that has proven impossible. How much longer does our executive branch plan on fighting a war it should not have started in the first place?
What is amazing to me, and Mr. Tofias pointed it out in lecture yesterday, is that most American's cannot even see the division between the Iraq War and 9/11. Tim McGraw's song "Have we forgotten" is perfect propaganda for this... "Have we forgotten, how our towers fell..." No, we have not forgotten, but we are not avenging that any longer. I support our efforts in Afghanistan against the Taliban, but have we forgotten about our soldiers there? How often do we here about Osama Bin Laden and our troops fighting in Afghanistan? Not very often.
In my opinion, we rushed into this war without an understanding of the most crucial facts. We did not have an understanding, or we did not respect the fact, that a muslim country does not believe in our democratic institutions. We had to get the bad guy out of power, right? Well, we better start invading North Korea, Iran, Sudan, Somalia, should I continue with the list? We cannot force our ideals through military actions. We cannot continue to be the watchdog, especially when our motives are not as innocent as the administration would like us to believe (oil is the obvious reason for invading Iraq, not liberating the people from Hussein). Oh yeah, what about the Taliban... they are in Iraq and we need to destroy them, right? Oh wait... Hussein was AGAINST Islamic fundamentalists and it wasn't until we entered Iraq that they did. So, not for 9/11, not for the Taliban, we cannot possibly rid the world of all 'evil' rulers, so what for then... why continue this war?
I commend our new Congress for standing up to this war as long as they have. If the Department of Defense wants to continue this blood bath, then I agree with Congress (first article) that they should fund it themselves. "We need to get our troops everything they need," said Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Kentucky. "We need to get it to them right now." What they need is to come home... right now. I have a former Marine, his name is Mike (I will leave his last name out as I promised not to use it) in a history class of mine. He served and was injured in Iraq. This actually ended up being the best thing that could have happened to him he said because 18 months after he and his friends returned they, minus Mike, were sent back to Iraq. Two of them were killed. He supported the war at first, but after serving he understands that this is not a battle we can win. Two of my cousins said the same thing, and believe it or not they are Republican (shocking, I know). After serving two tours in Iraq, they understand that this war has gone on long enough.
Twelve billion. That's the amount of money we are, roughly, spending a MONTH to fund this war. Our federal defecit is continuing to rise (see website below)-though the administration doesn't like to talk about this fact. On top of that, Bush proposes tax cuts!?!?! Yes, taxes suck. But they are part of living in a democratic society. Public services and government do not fund themselves, the money must come from somewhere. Wouldn't it be nice to take that 12 billion dollars a month and put it to better use, like healthcare, feeding the poor, reduced prescription prices for the elderly, curing Cancer, etc.?
I know that the Iraq war is a touchy subject for many people. I am in no way trying to put down the troops who have fought bravely and died bravely for our country. It is time to bring them home, that's how I support them. The only thing we can do now is count our loses and accept the fact that we were all guilty of diving headfirst into a baby pool. This scenario is just all too familiar... Vietnam anyone? I refuse to believe that our government will let this drag out 10+ years only to find out nothing has changed............
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/11/16/iraq.funding.ap/index.html?iref=newssearch
http://www.pollingreport.com/iraq.htm
href=
http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/
Congress has been trying to force troop withdrawals by refusing funding to the war without a timetable for removal of troops. However, they have not garnished enough votes to override President Bush's veto, so that has proven impossible. How much longer does our executive branch plan on fighting a war it should not have started in the first place?
What is amazing to me, and Mr. Tofias pointed it out in lecture yesterday, is that most American's cannot even see the division between the Iraq War and 9/11. Tim McGraw's song "Have we forgotten" is perfect propaganda for this... "Have we forgotten, how our towers fell..." No, we have not forgotten, but we are not avenging that any longer. I support our efforts in Afghanistan against the Taliban, but have we forgotten about our soldiers there? How often do we here about Osama Bin Laden and our troops fighting in Afghanistan? Not very often.
In my opinion, we rushed into this war without an understanding of the most crucial facts. We did not have an understanding, or we did not respect the fact, that a muslim country does not believe in our democratic institutions. We had to get the bad guy out of power, right? Well, we better start invading North Korea, Iran, Sudan, Somalia, should I continue with the list? We cannot force our ideals through military actions. We cannot continue to be the watchdog, especially when our motives are not as innocent as the administration would like us to believe (oil is the obvious reason for invading Iraq, not liberating the people from Hussein). Oh yeah, what about the Taliban... they are in Iraq and we need to destroy them, right? Oh wait... Hussein was AGAINST Islamic fundamentalists and it wasn't until we entered Iraq that they did. So, not for 9/11, not for the Taliban, we cannot possibly rid the world of all 'evil' rulers, so what for then... why continue this war?
I commend our new Congress for standing up to this war as long as they have. If the Department of Defense wants to continue this blood bath, then I agree with Congress (first article) that they should fund it themselves. "We need to get our troops everything they need," said Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Kentucky. "We need to get it to them right now." What they need is to come home... right now. I have a former Marine, his name is Mike (I will leave his last name out as I promised not to use it) in a history class of mine. He served and was injured in Iraq. This actually ended up being the best thing that could have happened to him he said because 18 months after he and his friends returned they, minus Mike, were sent back to Iraq. Two of them were killed. He supported the war at first, but after serving he understands that this is not a battle we can win. Two of my cousins said the same thing, and believe it or not they are Republican (shocking, I know). After serving two tours in Iraq, they understand that this war has gone on long enough.
Twelve billion. That's the amount of money we are, roughly, spending a MONTH to fund this war. Our federal defecit is continuing to rise (see website below)-though the administration doesn't like to talk about this fact. On top of that, Bush proposes tax cuts!?!?! Yes, taxes suck. But they are part of living in a democratic society. Public services and government do not fund themselves, the money must come from somewhere. Wouldn't it be nice to take that 12 billion dollars a month and put it to better use, like healthcare, feeding the poor, reduced prescription prices for the elderly, curing Cancer, etc.?
I know that the Iraq war is a touchy subject for many people. I am in no way trying to put down the troops who have fought bravely and died bravely for our country. It is time to bring them home, that's how I support them. The only thing we can do now is count our loses and accept the fact that we were all guilty of diving headfirst into a baby pool. This scenario is just all too familiar... Vietnam anyone? I refuse to believe that our government will let this drag out 10+ years only to find out nothing has changed............
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/11/16/iraq.funding.ap/index.html?iref=newssearch
http://www.pollingreport.com/iraq.htm
href=
http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/
Thursday, November 15, 2007
Who's the most strategic of them all?
Clinton
Hillary Clinton is an obvious strategist. She does what is popular in order to gather the most votes both in the electorate and in the primaries. She follows along party lines, and in some cases tends to be more left than the electorate would choose to be; for example, her health care plan. She has been known to be a flip flopper, especially in cases such as the Iraq war where she once supported it and now speaks against it.
Her campaign image is that she cares for everyone; she's everyone's best friend. She wants to be protrayed as the serious politician that is working to make America a better and happier place. I would say that this is actually a very well planned route to go. She knows when to put her foot down and act tough on issues such as healthcare, while at the same time being very motherly and friendly with opposition, as we all saw in the debate where all of the candidates attacked her. In that debate, instead of being nasty, she responded politely while still making her stance known. I think this is a smart move because her compassion will reach the hearts of Americans, though I'm not sure its enough to get her elected.
As far as electability... I think that in the primary she has very high electability because she has raised a lot of money, she has support from the electorate in polls, and she supports the Democratic party platform. I believe the party sees her as the strongest candidate with the highest chance of being elected president. In the electorate I think she is electable, though she may not be the candidate with the highest electability. I believe because of her flip flopping, many American's see her as going with popular policy rather than setting her own agenda; I believe that this will hurt her chance of being elected president. Also, her far left views on healthcare may also hurt her because, as we've discussed in class, the electorate prefers moderate policy choices.
Giuliani
Rudy is more of a purist than a strategist. His stance on abortion and gay marriage contradicts that of his party, but he is very vocal on his beliefs anyway. He is a policy seeker, even if that costs him the party nomination. He is running under the Conservative platform, but could easily run as a third party candidate because of his social stances. He understands that being part of a major party is crucial to being elected president in our system, so he chooses to run under the Conservative platform while still maintaining his moderate policies.
Giuliani has been doing a great job of building his image around 9/11. To many American's he is responsible for rebuilding the infrastructure and economy of New York post September 11. His image is also very moderate. He is fiscally conservative but more moderate, or even liberal, as far as social issues are concerned. His image is very independent of his party, and very individualistic compared to the rest of the candidates running as conservatives.
Because of his policy stances, I believe that Rudy has a very high electability in the electorate, but not such a high electability in the primary. The Republican party, especialy the Religious Right, is very oppossed to his stance on abortion and gay marriage. Some have even gone as far to say it is better to lose the election and stand by their policy than win an election and lose their platform and ideals. His moderation is very popular in the electorate, but not so much in the party. However, the party may also recognize his popularity and see this as their best option to keep the Republican party in control of the executive branch.
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/candidates/hillary.clinton.html
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/candidates/rudy.giuliani.html
Monday, November 5, 2007
New Whigs
Sweet name, we know.
Our platform is going to be economically conservative and socially more liberal than the current Republican party. We would aim to keep morality less of a central issue. On policy such as gay rights, we would support a more liberal view than the republican party, but less liberal than the democratic party... we would support a civil union. The same idea would hold true for most social issues, we would push for regulated, but legal, abortions. We would support government assistance with healthcare, but not government control. We would advocate for a flat tax based on percentage of income. We would still be strong in defense, but we would focus more on diplomacy and foreign relations/support of our actions.
Our strategy is to get the younger voters mobilized while still retaining a lot of our older supporters. We would focus the most heavily on the swing states and the midwest, but also maintain our relationships with the south. We understand that we will lose a percentage of the religious right, but we would still be more desirable to the religious groups than the democrats. At the same time, we would aim to take moderate votes away from the democratic party.
Our base would be the younger and older crowds and also moderates and minorities.
Our key members would be Denzel Washington and Condi Rice.
Although we understand that we may not be able to pull of a majority of the electoral college in a couple of years, we believe that eventually we will get a majority support.
I do think that change is needed in the system, but I do not think that replacing one party with another will help. I know I continue to bring up this point, but I firmly believe that if we want more accountable parties and we want the electorate to feel more represented, we need more than two parties. I also think that by replacing one party with another, the changes that the electorate seek will not happen. If anything, I believe that a new party will be more moderate. I think that the moderates generally feel represented in our system, it is the extremists that do not. For all of these reasons, I do not think that change is realistic at this point.
Our platform is going to be economically conservative and socially more liberal than the current Republican party. We would aim to keep morality less of a central issue. On policy such as gay rights, we would support a more liberal view than the republican party, but less liberal than the democratic party... we would support a civil union. The same idea would hold true for most social issues, we would push for regulated, but legal, abortions. We would support government assistance with healthcare, but not government control. We would advocate for a flat tax based on percentage of income. We would still be strong in defense, but we would focus more on diplomacy and foreign relations/support of our actions.
Our strategy is to get the younger voters mobilized while still retaining a lot of our older supporters. We would focus the most heavily on the swing states and the midwest, but also maintain our relationships with the south. We understand that we will lose a percentage of the religious right, but we would still be more desirable to the religious groups than the democrats. At the same time, we would aim to take moderate votes away from the democratic party.
Our base would be the younger and older crowds and also moderates and minorities.
Our key members would be Denzel Washington and Condi Rice.
Although we understand that we may not be able to pull of a majority of the electoral college in a couple of years, we believe that eventually we will get a majority support.
I do think that change is needed in the system, but I do not think that replacing one party with another will help. I know I continue to bring up this point, but I firmly believe that if we want more accountable parties and we want the electorate to feel more represented, we need more than two parties. I also think that by replacing one party with another, the changes that the electorate seek will not happen. If anything, I believe that a new party will be more moderate. I think that the moderates generally feel represented in our system, it is the extremists that do not. For all of these reasons, I do not think that change is realistic at this point.
Wednesday, October 31, 2007
Loyalty
http://www.cnn.com/POLITICS/analysis/toons/2007/05/12/lang/index.html
http://www.cnn.com/POLITICS/analysis/toons/2007/10/26/mitchell/index.html
Cartoons are often times funny, but the funniest part about them is how often they are true. The Republican party during the Newt years prided itself on loyalty and a party that was very unified. What happened??? (I am in no way defending the action that Newt took). With candidates such as McCain and Guiliani, the Republican party is expirencing a serious lack of loyalty to the party platform.
With the way the polls have been looking, Rudy Guiliani is leading many of the popular polls. This must leave the Republicans shaking in their boots. Rudy feels as obligated to follow the Republican platform as Bush feels obligated to pass Congress' bills. Will candidates like this eventually lead to the end of the two party system?
I personally think this idea is far fetched. However, if we continue to get candidates who do not feel tied to their parties, and instead move toward a more center platform that accomodates more people, will the parties have the strength in government that they do now? We know that candidate centered elections undermine the party system, but is it possible to go a step further and say that it could lead to the end of the party system? I think it is a possibility.
http://www.cnn.com/POLITICS/analysis/toons/2007/10/26/mitchell/index.html
Cartoons are often times funny, but the funniest part about them is how often they are true. The Republican party during the Newt years prided itself on loyalty and a party that was very unified. What happened??? (I am in no way defending the action that Newt took). With candidates such as McCain and Guiliani, the Republican party is expirencing a serious lack of loyalty to the party platform.
With the way the polls have been looking, Rudy Guiliani is leading many of the popular polls. This must leave the Republicans shaking in their boots. Rudy feels as obligated to follow the Republican platform as Bush feels obligated to pass Congress' bills. Will candidates like this eventually lead to the end of the two party system?
I personally think this idea is far fetched. However, if we continue to get candidates who do not feel tied to their parties, and instead move toward a more center platform that accomodates more people, will the parties have the strength in government that they do now? We know that candidate centered elections undermine the party system, but is it possible to go a step further and say that it could lead to the end of the party system? I think it is a possibility.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)