Communitarian vs. Individualistic Ideologies

The intent of this paper is to examine individualistic and communitarian cultural ideologies within two distinctly different political environments. The first challenge in comparing two nations is deciding which approach is most appropriate. There are several approaches in political science that have proven most beneficial when making comparisons. This study will use a comparative government approach to examine the political institutions, processes, constitutions, and functions of government within each of the two countries selected.

The countries that have been chosen for this study are United States and Norway, respectively. Gregory Scott believes that the fundamental aspects of human interaction in society are the need for community (unity) and the need for individuality. The argument is that the entire history of politics is largely the story of how communities and nations resolved the inherent conflict between the universal needs for community and individuality. With that, the topic that this paper tends to address has emerged, within the study of politics in this class and others, as the single most dynamic in scope and in implication.

Freedom, equality, and justice combine to build a substantial argument for the individualistic ideology. Authority, order, and democracy are all building blocks for the argument of the communitarian. Scott notes that much of what motivates individualist is a strong desire for freedom. This author also argues that we are all interdependent and authority is justified by the need to bring order to societies competing values and thoughts. In studying the history of humanity, the battleground that has been formed between the need for individuality and unity is undeniable.

A persons view of the nature of humanity is fundamental to their view of government, and its scope. If people are seen as dangerous, then a government to protect people from that danger is most appropriate. If people are viewed as capable of fulfilling their own creative potential, you may want a government that protects individual liberties (Scott, 47). These are all examples of core values for the entire foundation of government and of politics. This argument, for the use and scope of government, is divided into many different arguments that address basic issues of political science.

Political scientists believe that individuals and their actions are what lead to collective problems. The problem is that our individual actions, each perfectly consistent with our individual preferences, can and often do combine to produce collective outcomes that none of us would have chosen (Bickers, 11). And thus lead to the need for protection against those outcomes, administered through a democratic government. There are several authors that are noted for their dynamic research on the communitarian movement. The spokesperson for the contemporary communitarian movement is Amitai Etzioni.

He explains that communitarians believe that the fundamental and central political problem is finding the right amount of togetherness and common concern. He continues, if people are to individualistic, they fail to support each others efforts and to respect each others needs. If people are too unified, they become authoritarian and attempt to use the state to impose a common set of beliefs and practices. Like ancient philosophers, communitarians find the lack of unified purpose and direction in society to be a crucial problem.

Those who speak of the joys of not associating with others, but of being left alone by them, are most closely associated with individualism. And their noteworthy spokesperson is author and abolitionist Henry David Thoreau. This early author, observing the pressures, expectations, and demands made upon us by the societies in which we live, concluded that the mass of men lead lives of quiet desperation (Scott, 51). The communitarian movement seeks to shore up the moral, social, and political foundations of society.

It builds on the elementary social science observation that people are born without any moral or social values. If they are to become civil they most acquire values. Later, they may rebel against these values or seek to modify them, but first they must have them. Historically, the family was the societal entity entrusted with laying the foundation for moral education. Schools were the second line of defense. Community bonds, whether centered on religious institutions, schools, town meetings, or other establishments, serve to reinforce values that had been previously acquired.

These social institutions were the seedbeds of virtue in which values were planted and cultivated (Scott, 51). Robert Nozick makes an argument concerning the role of the government that also speaks to some individualist thoughts. He begins with his beliefs that individuals have rights, and there are things no person or group may do to these rights. So strong and far-reaching are these rights that they raise the question of what, if anything, the state and its officials may do to comprise those rights. So, how much room do individuals leave or the state?

The conclusion that is drawn from this statement about the state is that a minimal state, limited to the narrow functions of protection against force, theft, fraud, enforcement of contracts, and so on, is justified; that any more extensive government will violate persons rights not to be forced to do certain things, and is unjustified; and that the minimal state is inspiring as well as right (Scott, 65). In all this discussion surprisingly little is said about the compatibility of individuality with community.

It is important to note that there are those who believe, in spite of all the discussion to the contrary, that individuality and community are not necessarily oppositional values. In fact, not only are they both necessary, but each one is a necessary condition for the other. In other words, individuals can only be truly actualized within a community, and a political community can only be healthy and strong, if it supports the creative individuality if its members (Scott, 48).

The two countries studied in this paper both have characteristics of individualism and communitarian ideologies, but in studying the United States and Norway it became clear that each county was more heavily geared towards one ideology, individualism, or the other, community. This paper will give an account of how these underling political ideologies differ and whether these two countries are communitarian or individualist in their governments scope and power. NORWAY This portion of the paper will describe Norways political structure and relevant policies that support the concept of its communitarian ideology.

Norways political ideology is based on the concept of the community. According to Webster, a community is defined as a society of people having common rights and privileges. Norway has several public policies designed to ensure equal opportunities and protection of its citizens and immigrants. Some of these policies include an extensive health and social security, gender equality, consumer, and economic policies. All of these policies are designed to benefit the public as a whole. After Norway gained it independence, it adopted a constitutional monarchy political system.

The Norwegian Constitution was written, while the monarchy was still in control of the country. In addition, Norway has an electoral system, similar to the United States, which allow its citizens to participate in direct elections and select representatives. History Norways history included the age of the Viking from 800-1050 A. D. The Vikings were considered cruel brigands, actually came to Norway on a peaceful mission to colonize and trade. Later the establishment of Christianity played an important part in Norways political history. During the 11th century Christianity was first introduced into Norway.

Before the 1100s the first bishoprics appeared. In 1537 the Reformation was enforced in Norway by a royal Decree. This Decree gave the archbishop an important political role. As a result, Lutheran was the primary religion by the year 1060. The Monarchys power increased between 1100 and 1200. From 1319-1343 Norway and Sweden formed a joint monarchy. Norway established a union with Denmark partly due to inter-Scandinavian royal marriages. Norway suffered from economic depression during the middle ages. In addition, the Black Death and other plagues greatly reduced the population of the country.

These economic disparities caused a dramatic decrease in the Norways nobility hold on the country. As a result, Denmark assumed a more important role in Nordic lands, as Danish and German nobles were appointed to the highest offices. Consequently, in 1536 Norway ceased to be an independent kingdom. Furthermore, the Napoleonic wars eventually caused Norway and Denmark to form one kingdom. After 1905 Norway and Swedens union was dissolved, and Norway became an independent nation. A referendum was established which gave political power to a monarchy, rather than a republic.

In 1932 Norway experience an economic upswing, which caused the nations income to rise by more than 1,400 million kroner (Norwegian money). Norway finally adopted a Constitutional Monarchy political system, which included an electoral system. In the election of 1945, the Labour Party gained the majority. The elected governor, Einar Gerhardsens main goal was to build up Norway within five years. By 1946 the industrial production and the domestic product both were greater than they had been since 1938. Subsequently, the country continued to experience a period of steady growth and progress.

Although Norway did not participate in foreign policy in the previous years, the communist takeover in Czechoslovakia in 1948 persuaded them to join NATO in 1949. The social democratic party played an important role in curbing the communist influence in political life and mass organizations. During the post-war years, the most important policy issue was whether or not to join the Common Market, or the EU as it is now known. The election of 1965 created a non-socialist government, headed by the Prime Minister of the Centre Partys Per Borten.

The Conservative Party, the Liberal Party, the Centre party, and the Christian Democratic Party supported the Prime Minister. When Great Britain applied for membership to EU, the issue of Norwegian participation became urgent. The application reviews of 1962 caused violence of political forces in the country. Despite the setback of 1973, the Labour Party maintained control until 1981 when the Conservative Party took over. Political Structure & Ideologies Norway has a constitutional monarchy. The current king of Norway is Harald Finehair who inherited the throne because of his historical ancestry.

After Norway gained its independence in 1905, the constitution was established. Shortly after that Norway elected a king to rule over the country. Norways constitution reflects the political ideology of the country. The first section of the constitution establishes the legality for the existence of the monarchy. It further states that the monarchy may only be abolished by an amendment to the constitution. Upon entering office, the king is given certain executive powers and must choose council member to serve under him. Basically, the king serves as the head-of-state and is primarily symbolic in nature.

He represents his state and his people, and serves as master of ceremonies. He is not allowed to vote, and is not obligated to pay taxes. Additionally, the monarchy is primarily responsible for fulfilling everyday assignments, such as providing endorsements and providing declarations as appropriate. Most importantly, the king and his cabinet may not exceed the boundaries of power that has been declared in the constitution. The check and balance system of Norways Constitution has the same basic concept as the United States Constitution. Political Parties The largest political party is the Norwegian Labour party.

This party, a social democratic political group, is concerned with the welfare and social rights for citizens. On the left, the Socialist Party, which is also rooted in social democratic tradition, places greater emphasizes on the governments responsibilities to ensure the health and welfare of the people. The main conservative group is Hoyre (the Conservatives), which follows European standards. Their views of Norways economic policy is directly opposite from the Labour partys views. In between the two parties are the Liberals, the Christian Democrats, and the Centre Party.

Whereas, the Progress Party, which stands to the right of the Conservatives, runs on a liberalistic platform that firmly opposes state controlled taxation. In addition, Norway has two communist parties, the Communist Party (NKP) and the Electoral Alliance (RV). These communist parties do not have any significant control in the political system. Electoral System The Norwegian electoral system is based on the same principles as the United States. Direct elections and proportional representation are the foundation of the electoral system.

The country is divided into 19 constituencies, and then the constituencies are divided into polling places. Furthermore, all municipalities consist of only one district. At general elections, 157 constituencies representatives must be elected to the legislature assembly, which is called the Storting. Municipal and county council representatives are selected by local government elections. Each political leader is elected for a four-year. It is up to the King to set the election date, usually for a Monday in September. Same as in the United States, citizens must be 18 years or older to vote in all elections.

Non-citizens may vote in the local government elections only. In addition, members of the Storting must have ten years of residency in Norway in order to run for office. The Constitution The Constituent Assemble at Eidsvoll established the Norwegian Constitution in May 17, 1814. The principles of the Norwegian Constitution include: sovereignty of the people, separation of powers, and basic human rights. Amendment proposals to the Constitution must have two-thirds vote of the Storting, a quorum, in order to pass an amendment to the constitution.

Moreover, The Constitution clearly defines the executive role of the King and his royal family, the Storting, the Council of State, and the official religion and role. Health and Social Security Policy Norway has a well-developed, extensive health care system, which is designed to benefit the citizens of its country. Approximately 35% of the states budget is spent on health and social welfare. The National Insurance Act and the Social Care Act are the main policies that provide Norwegians with their social rights. The health care system is predominantly public financed through general and individual taxation.

All wage earners contribute a percentage of their paychecks to the national insurance tax. In addition, health services are funded by block grants, with earmarked funds for priority problems or fields as needed. The health care policy is designed to stimulate the local health services to adopt priorities in hospital spending, psychiatry, and cancer treatment. The foundation of the health care system is the municipal health services. Here, citizens may receive preventive measures, general practice, rehabilitation, and nursing care from municipal health service units.

Also, the state controls and regulates all of the smaller hospitals. Recent legislation has strengthened patient rights by allowing each individual to freely choose between hospitals nationwide. In addition, social security covers treatment abroad if the patients condition if potentially fatal or practically burdensome. All employed persons receive sick pay. Additionally, workers can also receive rehabilitation benefits for job-related illnesses, injuries, and defects. Furthermore, Social security provides dysfunctional persons with medical help, home care, and other necessary services.

Old age pensions are also provided by Social Security. Whereas, women who have worked at least worked at least six months out of the last ten months are entitled to maternity leave with pay. A new legislation reform provides cash benefits for one and two year olds of families who do not use day care, or have been offered less than 30 hours per week of day care. The Day Care Institutions Act of 1996 pays 60% of child-care expenses. Most importantly, the most important law passed that affects children is the Child Welfare Act.

This act is similar to the United States in its efforts to assure healthy living conditions for all children. It allows the municipality to intervene and remove children from their homes and place them in foster care of institutions if their health and/or safety are threatened. Gender Equality Policy Equal rights play an important role in Norways political system. The womens rights activists of the 1970s were very effective in getting legislature passed to ensure the equal rights of women. The goal of gender policy is to give women and men the same possibilities, rights, and obligations within all sectors of the society.

In addition, laws were created to protect women against sexual violence, as well as give them the same economic opportunities as men. A Gender Equality Ombudsman was appointed in 1979 to enforce these laws. Immigrant Issues There are more than 100,000 immigrants within the country, which make up about 2% of the total population. Most immigrants entered into the country between 1980 and 1990. The Sami and Finnish speaking groups, which are related to the gypsies, are the most common minorities in Norway. The main political refugees included migrants from Chile, Iran, and Sri Lanka, Vietnam, Turkey, Somalia, and Yugoslavia.

Also, Muslims also constituted a majority of the people entering the country, around 70,000. A policy on human rights was established because of the existence of discrimination and racism. This prompted the formation of several organizations that were designed to protect the rights of immigrants. Because of Norways liberal policy, there are conflicting cultural issues that exist among the immigrants. For example, the country is obsessed with equality between men and women. In contrast, most immigrant cultures emphasize male-dominated societies. Another example is that marriage is based on free will in the country.

Whereas, most immigrant cultures value arranged marriages, some even with multiple wives. Other cultural issues include native language and religion practices. Consumer Policy The Consumer Council was established in 1953, and the Ministry of Family and Consumer Affairs came into existence three years later. The main focus of the Consumer Council was to protect the commercial interests of the consumer in relation to public administration. Later, two other special consumer institutions, the Consumer Ombudsman and the National Institute for Consumer Research, were established to further promote consumer interests.

All of these institutions fall under the Ministry of Children and Family Affairs. The Norwegian Competition Authority, established in 1994, is responsible for controlling the supply, production, and competition within the market. Their responsibilities include eliminating price fixing, preventing the division of the market, promoting free competition, and assisting the EFTA Surveillance Authority and the European Commission in the enforcement of competition rules. The Consumer Ombudsman administrative body is an independent institution established in 1973 in conjunction with the Market Council.

Its primary responsibility is to ensure the Marketing Control Act is complied with in practice. The Marketing Control Act is intended to protect consumers from unfair marketing practices and methods. In addition, the institution has the authority to prohibit and pass resolutions to prohibit illegal marketing. The Consumer Council is mandated to increase the influence of consumers in social and commercial affairs, and contribute towards consumer-friendly development within the society. The council plays an active role in the preparation of all new legislation and regulations as they relate to consumer policy.

The Consumer Councils highest body is the National Conference. The National Conference elects their members, and then the King appoints the head of the Council. The National Institute for Consumer Research is the center for investigation, research, and trial projects that benefit customers. The institutions primary task is to disseminate the final results the proper authorities, manufacturers, and other research establishments and consumers. In addition, the institute also keeps abreast of developments in consumer affairs outside of the country.

Special regulation of television advertising was created in April 1991. The responsibility is divided between the Norwegian Media Authority and the Consumer Ombudsman. The Mass Media Authority must ensure that television advertising does not exceed the stipulated 15 percent of daily broadcasting time, and that the commercials are broadcasted in blocks between programs. For example, advertising can be only aired once during the course of a feature film. In addition, advertising is only allowed during the breaks of plays or sports events.

Most importantly, Norwegian rules prohibit advertising that directly targets children, even during children programs. The Norwegian integration with the EU internal market has led to organizational changes in product security. Therefore, the Norwegian Electrical Safety Directorate was established to control and enforce the markets product security regulations set by the European Economic Area (EEA) agreement. A new law, that took effect in January 1999, sets opening hours for all local establishments within the entire country.

According to the law, maximum weekend hours are between 6. and 21. 00. Kiosks and grocery stores (up to 100 square meters), and filling stations (up to 150 square meters) are exempted from this law, and are allowed to stay open on Sundays. In addition, the County Governor has the authority to give exceptions for the areas with high tourist traffic. Economic Policy Norwegian per capital income ranks among the worlds highest. The North Sea oil and gas fields are the main cornerstones of the economy. Norwegians rely on fishing, pulp and paper, forestry, mining, manufacturing, and shipping as their main sources of income.

The economic growth was most favorable in 1993 with the dramatic economic upswing in 1993. During this period unemployed decreased, and the stable budget allowed the development of sound budgetary policy and successful income policy cooperation. In addition, price and cost inflation remained at a very low level. The main challenge facing Norways economic policy is to reduce inflation. Norway still remains higher than any of its other trading partners. Currently, Norways gross domestic product is 1192. 8 NOK billions.

The volume for 2000 was 3. and 2. 6 for 2001. In addition, the wage growth has remained higher than its other partners over the past two years. The fiscal policy is responsible for ensuring growth in demand for goods and services is balanced with the economy. Furthermore, the policy is very important in determining competitiveness within the markets. The monetary policy stabilizes the krone (Norwegian money) exchange. The labor market policy is designed to assistant job seekers in finding jobs by posting the job vacancies and qualifications.

Norway uses the tax policy to ease pressures experienced by the economy. Also, the government has put several measures in place to reduce the number of loopholes in the system. The main tax proposals for 2001 are: supplemental payroll tax of 1. 5%, dividend tax of 14%, reduction of 50 ore per liter on the excise duties on petrol and diesel, reduction of 17. 5 on liquor and spirits, reduction of taxes in labor and pension income by 10%, changes in the child benefit scheme, and the increase of taxes in electricity and heating oil consumption.

Political Effects of the Renaissance

History has shown us how civilizations evolve over time. Broadly interpreted, the age of Diocletian marked a decisive stage in the transition from the classical, the Greco-Roman, civilization of the ancient Roman Empire to the Christian-Germanic civilization of the early Middle Ages. Similarly interpreted, “the age of the Renaissance marked the transition from the civilization of the Middle Ages to the modern world”(Ferguson 1). Therefore, the Renaissance is the beginning of the modern world and modern government.

In law the tendency was to challenge the abstract dialectical method of the medieval jurists with a philological and historical nterpretation of the sources of Roman Law. As for political thought, the medieval proposition that the preservation of liberty, law, and justice constitutes the central aim of political life was challenged but not overthrown by Renaissance theorists. They contended that the central task of government was to maintain security and peace.

Machiavelli maintained that the creative force (virtj) of the ruler was the key to the preservation of both his own position and the well-being of his subjects, an idea consonant with contemporary politics. Italian city-states were transformed during the Renaissance from ommunes to territorial states, each of which sought to expand at the expense of the others. Territorial unification also took place in Spain, France, and England. The process was aided by modern diplomacy, which took its place beside the new warfare when the Italian city-states established resident embassies at foreign courts.

By the 16th century, the institution of permanent embassies spread northward to France, England, and the Holy Roman Empire. Renaissance churchmen, particularly in the higher echelons, patterned their behavior after the mores and ethics of lay society. The activities of popes, cardinals, and bishops were scarcely istinguishable from those of secular merchants and political figures. At the same time, Christianity remained a vital and essential element of Renaissance culture. Preachers, such as San Bernardino of Siena, and theologians and prelates, such as Sant’Antonino of Florence, attracted large audiences and were revered.

Moreover, many humanists were concerned with theological questions and applied the new philological and historical scholarship to the study and interpretation of the early church fathers. The humanist approach to theology and scripture may be traced from the Italian scholar Petrarch o the Dutch scholar Desiderius Erasmus; it made a powerful impact on Roman Catholics and Proteezts. Some medievalists contend that the inflated eloquence and dull neoclassicism of much humanist writing undermine the claim that the Renaissance was a turning point in Western civilization.

Although these contentions are valid to some degree, the Renaissance clearly was a time in which long-ezding beliefs were tested; it was a period of intellectual ferment, preparing the ground for the thinkers and scientists of the 17th century, who were far more original than the Renaissance humanists. The Renaissance idea that humankind rules ature is akin to Sir Francis Bacon’s concept of human dominance over nature’s elements, which initiated the development of modern science and technology.

Medieval notions of republicanism and liberty, preserved and defended with classical precedents by Renaissance thinkers, had an indelible impact on the course of English constitutional theory and may have been a source for the conception of government espoused by the Founding Fathers of American constitutionalism. Above all, however, “the age of the Renaissance marked a decisive stage in the transition from Middle Ages to the modern world”(Ferguson 1).

The Presidential Election of 1972

2,870,990,000 km from the Sun, Uranus hangs on the wall of space as a mysterious blue green planet. With a mass of 8. 683e25 kg and a diameter of 51,118 km at the equator, Uranus is the third largest planet in our solar system. It has been described as a planet that was slugged a few billion years ago by a large onrushing object, knocked down (never to get up), and now proceeds to roll around an 84-year orbit on its belly. As the strangest of the Jovian planets, the description is accurate. Uranus has a 17 hour and 14 minute day and takes 84 years to make its way about the sun with an axis tilted at around 90X with retrograde rotation.

Stranger still is the fact that Uranus’ axis is almost parallel to the ecliptic, hence the expression \”on its belly. Uranus is so far away that scientists knew comparatively little about it before NASA’s Voyager 2 undertook its historic first encounter with the planet. The spacecraft flew closely past distant Uranus, and came within 50,600 miles of Uranus’s cloud tops on Jan. 24, 1986. Voyager 2 radioed thousands of images and mass amounts of other scientific data about Uranus, its moons, rings, atmosphere, interior and magnetic environment.

However, while Voyager has revealed much about the gas giant, many questions remain to be answered. The history of the discovery of the planet is the first we have of its kind; Uranus was the first planet to be discovered with a telescope. The circumstances surrounding the discovery of the object are befitting of the odd planet. The earliest recorded sighting of Uranus was in 1690 by John Flamsteed, but the object was catalogued as another star. On March 13, 1781 Uranus was sighted again by amateur astronomer William Herschel and thought to be a comet or nebulous star.

In 1784, Jean-Dominique Cassini, director of the Paris Observatory and prominent professional astronomer, made the following comment: \”A discovery so unexpected could only have singular circumstances, for it was not due to an astronomer and the marvelous telescopeKwas not the work of an optician; it is Mr. Herschel, a [German] musician, to whom we owe the knowledge of this seventh principal planet. (Hunt, 35) Four years passed before Uranus was recognized as a new planet, the first to be discovered in ‘modern’ times.

The discovery poses an interesting question however. Why was it Herschel and not someone like Cassini – a director of a prominent Observatory? It was by no accident that he discovered the first new planet. William Herschel had more than a passing fancy for the telescope. By purchasing the materials and even grinding the lenses himself, he built telescopes (namely reflectors) of exceptional quality for the period. That same quality afforded Herschel better observational conditions than his contemporaries did, and the result was a changed view of astronomy.

A new planet had been discovered, and our view of the solar system was never to be the same again. The atmosphere and geology of the first new planet is fascinating. Uranus is primarily composed of rock and various ices; with only about 15% hydrogen and a little helium – in contrast to the compositions of Jupiter and Saturn, which are mostly hydrogen. Uranus’ average temperature is around 350a Fahrenheit and the atmosphere is made of 83% hydrogen, 15% helium, and 2% methane. The blue color we often see is the result of absorption of red light absorbed by methane in the upper atmosphere.

There may be colored bands like Jupiter’s but they are hidden from view by the overlaying methane layer. Just below the clouds visible to earthbound observers are enormous quantities of ammonia, hydrogen sulfide, and water. Still deeper inside Uranus, under the crushing weight of the overlying atmosphere, is an invisible rocky surface – discovered only by its subtle tugs on the moons of the planet. A big Earth-sized planet is hiding down there, swathed in an immense blanket of air. Like the other gas giants, Uranus has bands of clouds that blow around rapidly.

However, they are extremely faint and visible only with radical image enhancement of the Voyager 2 pictures. Recent observations made with the Hubble Space Telescope show larger and more pronounced streaks. In the past two years, the speculation has been that the difference is due to seasonal effects. The speed of the winds on Uranus is changing, and while that is not exciting for a person inhabiting the Earth and used to its changeable weather, the news is noteworthy for a gas giant. The winds of Jupiter and Saturn have remained constant over time.

The winds of Uranus blow at velocities of 90 to 360 mph; whereas on Earth, jet streams in the atmosphere only blow at about 110 mph. Astronomers are excited that these observations could foreshadow dramatic atmospheric changes in the future. Compared with recent pictures from space, black and white drawings of Uranus – rendered by visual astronomers in the early 1900’s – \”depict a vastly different planet, decorated with bright, broad bands, and even the hint of something that might be a great spot.

Flanagan, 56) Significantly, they were drawn at a time when Uranus was between its solstice and its equinox, the same phase the planet is approaching now. There is more to the puzzling features of Uranus than changing winds. Data from Voyager 2 indicates that Uranus’ magnetic field is not centered on the midway point of the planet and is tilted at nearly 60 degrees with respect to the axis of rotation. The magnetic field of Uranus – which is roughly comparable to that of Earth’s – is not produced by an iron core like other planets.

The magnetic field source is unknown; the electrically conductive, super-pressurized ocean of water and ammonia once thought to lie between the core and the atmosphere now appears to be nonexistent. The magnetic fields of Earth and other planets are believed to arise from electrical currents produced in their molten cores, but if Uranus possessed one, it would be too small and too deep for it to create such a magnetic field. As with Mercury, Earth, Jupiter, and Saturn, there is a magnetic tail extending millions of miles behind Uranus.

Voyager measured the tail to be at least 6. 2 million miles behind the planet. The extreme tilt of the magnetic axis, combined with the tilt of the rotational axis, causes the field lines in this cylindrical magnetic tail to be wound into a corkscrew shape that spins like a lawn sprinkler across the galaxy. The exotic magnetosphere of Uranus is contrasted by the rather mundane ring system of the planet. Like the other gas planets, Uranus has rings.

They are very dark in color like Jupiter’s, but more like Saturn’s ring in size and composition with both fine dust and large particles ranging up to 10 meters in diameter. There are 11 known rings, all relatively faint, the brightest of which is known as the Epsilon ring. The Uranian rings were the first after Saturn’s to be discovered – which was of considerable importance since we now know that rings are a more common feature of planets than first thought, and not a peculiarity of Saturn alone.

All nine of the previously known rings of Uranus were photographed and measured by Voyager 2, as were other new rings and ringlets in the Uranian system. These observations showed that while Uranus’s rings shared similarities with the systems of Jupiter and Saturn, they are also distinctly different. Radio measurements from Voyager 2 showed the outermost ring, the epsilon, to be composed mostly of ice boulders several feet across. However, a very tenuous distribution of fine dust also seems to be spread throughout the ring system.

Incomplete rings and the varying opacity in several of the main rings leads scientists to believe that the ring system may be relatively young and did not form at the same time as Uranus. The particles that make up the rings may be remnants of a moon that was broken by a high-velocity impact or torn up by gravitational effects. To date, two new rings have been positively identified. The first, 1986 U1R, was detected between the outermost of the previously known rings – epsilon and delta – at a distance of 31,000 miles from Uranus’s center.

It is a narrow ring like the others. The second, designated 1986 U2R, is a broad region of material perhaps 1,900 miles across and just 24,000 miles from the center of the planet. The number of known rings may eventually grow because of observations by the Voyager 2 photopolarimeter instrument. The sensor revealed what may be a large number of narrow rings – or possibly incomplete rings or ring arcs – as small as 160 feet in width. The individual ring particles are not very reflective, which explains why some have remained unseen.

At least one ring, the epsilon, was found to be gray, an unusual color. This ring is surprisingly deficient in particles smaller than the approximate size of a beach ball – the average ring contains smaller dust sized (relatively) particles. This may be due to the atmospheric drag from the planet’s extended hydrogen atmosphere, which may siphon smaller particles and dust from the ring. The sharp edge of the epsilon ring indicates that the ring is less than 500 feet thick and that particles near the outer edge are less than 100 feet in diameter.

The welfare system

Whether you collect it, or you pay for it (and for EVERY working American does one of the two), most citizens of our country are familiar with it. Yet as every second of the day passes, more and more of my money and yours is being allotted to this growing epidemic called welfare. The Personal Responsibility Act, signed by the President, was a monumental change in welfare as we know, or used to know it. The welfare system is still in need or more strict and stringent policy reform, yet the Personal Responsibility Act was a prodigious step in the right direction.

In the past few years, the federal governments and state governments ave tried to change and improve the welfare system. The Clinton Administration campaigned to “end welfare as we know it. ” The Administration’s proposal limits AFDC benefits to two years, during which employment services would be provided to recipients. Nearly 20 welfare reform bills have been introduced in the 103rd Congress. Besides the above mentioned bill, three major proposals were offered by Republican members: The GOP Leadership Welfare bill, The Real Welfare Reform Act, and The Welfare and Teenage Pregnancy Reduction Act.

Now the Republicans have pulled together a strong and controversial bill on welfare reform. The Personal Responsibility Act is an attempt to overhaul the welfare system by putting limits on eligibility and reducing dependency on government. This bill addresses the increasing problem of illegitimacy, requires welfare recipients to work, and caps welfare spending. Current programs will be consolidated, time limits will be placed on benefits and savings are to go to deficit reduction.

The bill’s main thrust is to give states greater control over the benefits programs, work programs, and Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) payments and requirements. Under the bill, the structure for AFDC payments will drastically change. Mothers under the age of 18 may no longer receive AFDC payments for children born out of wedlock and mothers who are ages 18, 19, and 20 can be prohibited by the states from receiving AFDC payments and housing benefits.

Mothers must also establish paternity to as a condition for receiving AFDC payments, except in cases of rape and incest and if the state determines that efforts to establish paternity would result in physical danger to the mother. The bill requires states to establish paternity in ninety percent of their cases. States are also encouraged to develop procedures in public hospitals and clinics to determine aternity and establish legal procedures that help pinpoint paternity in a reasonable time period.

Also, in order to reduce the amount of time families are on welfare, states must begin moving welfare recipients into work programs if they have received welfare for two years. States are given the option to drop families from receiving AFDC benefits after they have received welfare for two years if at least one year has been spent in a work program. States must drop families from the program after they have received a total of five years of AFDC benefits. The bill allows states to design their own work programs and determine ho will be required to participate.

Welfare recipients must work an average of 35 hours a week or enroll in work training programs. By the year 2001, 1. 5 million AFDC recipients will be required to work. The bill grants greater flexibility to states allowing them to design their own work programs and determine who participates in them and can choose to opt out of the current AFDC program by converting their share of AFDC payments into fixed annual block grants. The bill is also designed to diminish the number to teenage pregnancies and illegitimate births. It prohibits AFDC payments and housing benefits to others under age 18 who give birth to out-of-wedlock children.

The state has the option of extending this prohibition to mothers ages 18, 19, and 20. The savings generated from this provision to deny AFDC to minor mothers is returned to the states in the form of block grants to provide services to help these young mothers who illegitimate children. The state will use the funds for programs to reduce out of wedlock pregnancies, to promote adoption, to establish and operate orphanages, to establish and operate residential group homes for unwed mothers, or for any purpose the state deems appropriate. None of the unds may be used for abortion services or abortion counseling.

The bill also includes a number of other provisions to reduce illegitimacy. While AFDC is prohibited to mothers ages 17 and younger who have children out of wedlock, mothers age 18 who give birth to illegitimate children must live at home in order to receive aid. Mothers already receiving benefits will not receive an increase if additional children are born out of wedlock. States are allowed to establish their own work training and education programs to help recipients move from the welfare program to paid employment as soon as possible.

The training programs require recipients to work for an average of 35 hours a week or 30 hours a week plus five hours engages in job search activities. One parent in a two parent family is required to work 32 hours a week plus eight hours of job searching. As long as states meet the participation requirements, the federal government will not advise other parts of the program. States will design their own work programs and determine who will be required to participate in them. Part of the participation requirement is requiring a certain number of recipients to participate in the job program.

Starting in 1996, 100,000 AFDC ecipients will be required to work; in 1997, 200,000 recipients will be required; in 1998, 400,000 will be required; in 1999 600,000 recipients will be required; in 2000, 900,000 will be required; and by 2001, 1. 5 million recipients will be required to work. Identified non-parents, usually men, who receive food stamp benefits are required to work eight hours a week for those benefits. The bill caps the spending growth of AFDC, SSI and numerous public housing programs, and the mandatory work program established under the bill.

The cap equals the amount spent the preceding year for these programs with an djustment for inflation plus growth in poverty population. The entitlement status of these programs is ended. The bill also consolidates a number of nutrition programs into a block grant to states funded in the first year at 95 percent of the aggregate amount of the individual programs. Programs consolidated into the block grant include food stamps, the supplemental feeding program, infants, children, and the school lunch and breakfast programs, among others.

Under the block grant, states will distribute food assistance to economically disadvantaged individuals more freely. To further reduce welfare spending, welfare assistance is denied to non- citizens, except refugees over 75 years of age, those lawfully admitted to the U. S. , or those who have resided in the U. S. for at least five years. Emergency medical assistance will continue to be provided to non-citizens. The bill allows states to create their own work programs and determine who participates in them.

States can also opt our of the AFDC program and convert their AFDC payments into a fixed annual block grant and have the option to provide new residents AFDC benefits comparable to the level provided in the state in which they previously resided. To help combat illiteracy, states may reduce AFDC payments by up to $75 per month to mothers under the age of 21 who have not completed high school or earned their high school “equivalency”. Payments may also be reduced if a dependent child does not maintain minimum school attendance.

State adoption agencies are encouraged, under the bill, to decrease the amount of time a child must wait to be adopted. Specifically, the bill prohibits states from discriminating on the basis of race, color, or national origin when placing children for adoption. AFDC beneficiaries who the state identifies as addicted to drugs or lcohol must enroll in an addiction treatment program and participate in random drug testing in order to continue receiving welfare benefits. The bill is estimated to result in a net savings of approximately $40 billion over five years.

The denial of welfare to non-citizens saves about $22 billion, the cap on welfare spending saves about $18 billion, the nutrition block grant saves about $11 billion, and the requirement for paternity establishment saves about $2 billion. The costs included in the bill are $9. 9 billion for the work program and approximately $2 billion for miscellaneous state options. OK, personally, I don’t see what the big fuss these whiny little democrats are making over this bill. “You shouldn’t be so hard on un-wed teenage mothers. ” Well, lets think about this one. They’re unwed, they’re teenage, and they’re mothers.

Not a good combination. The majority of women on welfare had their first child as a teenager. Most of these births now occur outside of marriage and are unintended. Actually, I don’t think that we’re being hard enough. They’re lucky to receive any benefits at all. If this were my bill, payments to unwed teens would end altogether. It’s ridiculous to have fifteen year old pregnant and out of school sitting at home sucking up government dough. The government isn’t punishing them. They’ve punished themselves. If anything the government is giving these kids an incentive to be more responsible.

Welfare is a crutch. And people use it even after their broken leg has healed. And what about those who are not legitimately in this country? Thousands upon thousands of immigrants enter this country each year, because they know in America, they can receive benefits without even becoming a citizen. This needs to end right now. American citizens hard at work each day should not ave to waste their tax dollars on the illegal Perez family from just over the border who don’t speak a word of English nor contribute any of their money to this country.

Illegal immigrants under no circumstance should receive any money of any kind. They do not belong to this country nor do they contribute toward it. As I stated in Congress in Action, I work at Genovese. I make sixty- five dollars a week. I SHOULD be making eighty, but fifteen dollars of my money each week goes to the federal government to give to some illegal family or single mother. I pay for this family’s clothing. I pay for this family’s food. I pay for this family’s home. But of course, my fifteen dollars a week is not enough to pay for all of the family’s expenses.

So you, and your family have to pay more money each year so that some other family doesn’t have to. I’m seventeen years old. I am going to an Ivy League university next year. I can’t afford to spend fifteen dollars on some illegal family in Texas or some single irresponsible mother. And do you know what the tragic part is? This “family” does not give a single dime back to the government. And for illegal immigrants, that same government which gives them millions of OUR dollars a year, doesn’t ven acknowledge that they exist. Somehow, THAT doesn’t sound very fair to me.

And in fear or their payments ending, a great number of legal immigrants have rushed to turn in their applications for U. S. citizenship. At no time in history has the number of applicants for U. S. citizenship been so large. In Los Angeles County alone, it’s quadrupled in just two years. “In ’94 I think we were running about 75,000 applications a year. Last year, we ran about 175,000, and we’re looking at about 300,000 this year,” says Richard Rogers, who works in the Los Angeles branch of the Immigration and Naturalization service. Thanks to

The Personal Responsibility Act, hundreds of thousands more non-citizens are applying to officially be a member of our country, and in turn contribute towards it. Many crybaby liberals believe these “harsh” laws make non citizens worry about their benefits. Good. If they don’t give or do anything FOR our government, they SHOULD worry if the government decides not to give them anything. That worry is what pushes them to become a part of our nation, and be a REAL, tax paying American citizens. Only until then can they at least expect some benefits.

Limiting AFDC payment by $75 to those who haven’t completed high school r gained a high school equivalency seemed way liberal to me. High school drop- out is one of the big reasons for the enormous about of money welfare consumes each year. If you don’t have at least a high school education, you will find it tough to land a job that will support yourself, let alone a family as well. School keeps kids off of the streets, and out of trouble with drugs, sex and pregnancies- things that will run them right out of school and right onto the welfare payroll.

Democrats love making a big sob story out of welfare “victims. It makes me truly sick. Want to hear a sob story? Me hardly seeing y family for four years because I was too busy studying, and involving myself in the school and community, bettering other’s lives, so that I may improve myself as a person, go on to a good school, and make a success of myself. And the federal government didn’t give me a cent. They shouldn’t have to. So if I shouldn’t get paid for doing more than what I am have to, or am supposed to do, why should some pregnant, crackhead, sixteen year old girl get paid every week for doing what she’s NOT supposed to do?

There’s a sob story. And spare me the argument that drug addicts are victims deserving a safety net, or that at least their children are. That mentality, in psychological circles is called “enabling”-making it possible for chronically maladjusted people to indulge their self destructive behavior at the expense of themselves and others. What “enabling” actually does is help destroy the people you ought to be trying to aid. It is irresponsible. Stop and think. You have people on welfare who are drug addicts. You give them cash.

What do you think happens? They buy drugs. If there is any money left they MAY (1 in a million chance) use it as intended. If not, they fall back on their main means for scoring. This means stealing or selling their bodies to get more of a fix, or ust to survive and make ends meet. This is how it really is on the streets for those welfare recipients who are also drug addicts. So why not do them a favor and say you can’t be a drug addict and a welfare recipient at the same time. Being an addict doesn’t necessarily mean you are a complete idiot.

A substantial percentage of them aren’t happy about their addictions, but they need a big push to break their dependency cycle. The dumbest thing in the world is to give an addict cash. So why should our welfare system do that in the name of doing good? Why not make it universally clear that welfare benefits will nly go to people who, among other things, can pass a drug test at the time of application, and at random periods thereafter? Why shouldn’t welfare policy discourage drug addiction?

God knows that we can’t rely on the President, seeing as how the public has re-elected a man whose first presidency showed a doubling of teen drug use, as well as a leader who admitted to smoking pot and said he would do it again. Cutting off welfare to those with a drug addiction has nothing to do with individual liberties. The individual is free to choose between continuing addiction or continuing welfare. And as for the time restraint.. hy is it even 5 years that they can stay on AFDC? One is quite sufficient. Do you know how long it took me to get my job at Genovese??? Five days, not five years!

And I am not even out of high school. It pays above minimum wage, the full time benefits are excellent, there is not a single reason why welfare recipients could not hold a job such as that. Yet year after year we continue to find them at home waiting for Bob the mailman to deliver their welfare check. Pathetic. That is the only work to describe it. No, perhaps pathetic and sickening. And are we forgetting something? There exists something called the TENTH AMENDMENT!! Those powers not given to Congress, nor specifically enumerated, are reserved for the states and respectfully to the people.

The powers specifically enumerated to Congress are found in Article I Section 8 of the Constitution. The only facet of this Article that the most loose construction liberal mind MIGHT be able to construe as a reason for increasing welfare is that “The Congress shall have Power to…. provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States. ” Providing for the general welfare of America means ensure that it’s citizen’s lives are protected, not pend hundreds of billions of dollars on the welfare system. Welfare is not a responsibility of the federal government.

It is one of the states, or respectively, the people.. The American voters sent a clear message on that November 8th of 1994. They want to see a positive change in government. Many of these same voters are pointing a finger at welfare as a perfect example of big government at work wasting taxpayer money. Congress was able to push through to legislation that greatly enhances the fight against the welfare trap. Yet it is not the end of the war. There are still several more battles to go until we may sign a peace treaty.

The Philly Election Of 1794

The Swanwick-Fitzsimmons election in Philadelphia of the most infamous elections in American history due to the fact that, it brought with it the first distinction ever between two political parties, the Federalists and the Democrats. Subsequently the election of 1794 brought America it’s first democratic congressional leader, John Swanwick. The factors surrounding Swanwick’s congressional debut were national issues, local issues, yellow fever epidemic, the Whiskey Rebellion, and the excise tax. The democratic party was led by James Madison and Thomas Jefferson.

This society was composed of mostly middle class citizens being composed of artisans and laborers. Their beliefs consisted of a central government power but with limitations, they also had a strict interpretation of the Constitution. The also supported pro-French foreign policy and opposed the Bank of the United States. This party also passed a resolution resisting the excise tax. George Washington believed that the democratic party and similar societies were the one is responsible for the Whiskey Rebellion .

On the contrary, the Federalist party, which was led by Alexander Hamilton, believed in a strong sturdy central government, and had a broad interpretation of the constitution. They believed in full payment of national and state debts, and were the ones that established the Bank of the United States. They also supported pro-British policy and the excise tax was established by their leader Alexander Hamilton. Until 1794, America was predominantly led by our first president George Washington, being a federalist.

Therefore, Fitzsimmons had seemed to be the perfect candidate, due to the fact that this country had been run by federalist leaders. Suprisingly, the election in Philadelphia did not go as expected because the federalists had a new competitor. The Democrats were now forming a strong political party and were ready to challenge the Federalists. Thomas Fitzsimmons, member of the Federalist society, entered commerce as a clerk and worked his way up the ladder, to secure his position he married into the principle merchant’s family.

During the Revolution he was the captain of the Pennsylvania militia. In 1782 and 1783 he was member of the Continental Congress, in 1786 and 1787, was elected in the Pennsylvania House of Representatives. He was a signer of the United States Constitution. In 1788 he was elected in the Federal House of Representatives. Fitzsimmons was a tremendous supporter of Alexander Hamilton’s policies and in his excise tax. He helped draft legislation chartering the Bank of the United States, and was the primary founder of the Bank of North America. He was also a Roman Catholic.

John Swanwick, member of the Democratic Society, in 1777 was hired as a clerk in a merchant firm for Robert Morris. He worked his way up by gaining full partnership by 1783. By 1794, bought out Morris’s share of the company. Swanwick was one of the leading export merchants in Philadelphia, was a stockholder at the Bank of North America. He also held minor offices (under Morris) in the confederation government. In 1792 he was elected to the state legislature and by 1793 he drifted from Federalism to become a Democratic Republican, in which he joined in 1794, soon after he became an officer.

Swanwick was also an officer for a society that aided immigrants. Furthermore, he opposed the excise tax, but thought the Whiskey Rebellion in western Pennsylvania used the wrong method to protest against what they believed in. He also a member of the Protestant Episcopal Church. Along with the complications of the election came local controversial issues. For example, friends of the two candidates filled the public with “vicious charges and countercharges in hopes of attracting voters to their respective candidates”(p 90).

Other factors that contributed to the problems of the election were the Whiskey Rebellion and the excise tax. The reason for the excise tax, a system that lay a tax on selected products manufactured in the United States(tobacco products, snuff and pipe tobacco, sugar products and whiskey) was to resolve the massive public debt to pay off the national debt and to establish government operating capital. This excise tax, raised extreme protest in western Philadelphia where whiskey was a very important commodity.

Farmers tried to prevent the collection of the tax, a protest that eventually grew into the Whiskey Rebellion of 1794. ” (P 92) Washington in return sent out 15,000 troops to stop the rebellion, but the protesting already collapsed by the time they arrived. Jefferson wrote to James Madison, December 28, 1794 of the situation: “The excise law is an infernal oneThe information of our militia, returned from the Westward, is uniform, that the people there let them pass quietly; they were objects of their laughter, not their fear. p100)

A final possible complication of the congressional election was “a disorder to have occasioned great devastation in the year 1793” (p 104), known as the Yellow Fever Epidemic. However, a person by the name of Dr. Benjamin Rush, one of the few doctors that actually stayed to help battle this epidemic. During this dark time, the city lost 10 of its most valued doctors and many other were sick. By the time of the election, the death toll reached its height at 4041 people.

Whether this situation had a direct correlation on the outcome of the election or not, will not be known, however it seriously upset the social agendas of the Democratic-Republican parties and well as the Federalist parties. Taking into consideration that Dr. Rush, in 1794 crossed over political parties to become a Democrat-Republican. “Most physicians in Philadelphia in 1794 were Federalists. “(p 105) In conclusion, the election of 1794 proved to be one of the most important aspects of our nation’s history because it clearly distinguished two political parties, Democratic-Republicans and Federalists.

The democratic-Republic win of John Swanwick demonstrated that his campaign was more aggressive, less elitist, and his appeal to the general public. For example, Swanwick opposed the excise tax, which, in turn, allowed him to receive a majority of the votes of the public. “Democratic-Republicans gained strength, so much so that by 1800 their titular leader, Thomas Jefferson, was able to win the presidential election and put an end to Federalist control of the national government. “

Potsdam Conference

Potsdam Conference, meeting of the heads of government of the United States, the USSR, and the United Kingdom, following the unconditional surrender of Germany in World War II. It was held in Potsdam, near Berlin, from July 17 to August 2, 1945. The purpose of the conference was the implementation of decisions reached previously at the Yalta Conference. The U. S. was represented by President Harry S. Truman and the USSR by Premier Joseph Stalin.

The United Kingdom was represented at first by Prime Minister Winston Churchill and later by the new prime minister, Clement Richard Attlee. A communiqu issued at the close of the conference, and known as the Potsdam Agreement, contained the decisions reached by the participants. The principal decisions related to Germany. Administration of the country, until the establishment of a permanent new government, was transferred to the military commanders of the U. S. he USSR, the United Kingdom, and France, in their zones of occupation, and a four-power Allied Control Council was created to resolve questions pertaining to Germany as a whole.

Pending definitive settlement in a peace treaty, all lands east of the Odra (Oder) and Neisse rivers were placed under Polish and Soviet jurisdiction. It was agreed that the four occupying powers of Germany should take reparations from their respective zones of occupation; but, because the USSR had suffered greater loss than any of the other major powers, provision was made for additional compensation to the USSR.

Rigid measures of control were decided on in the Potsdam Conference to prevent Germany from ever again becoming a threat to world peace. The conferees determined to disarm the country and prevent remilitarization; to outlaw the National Socialist (Nazi) Party that had been led by Hitler; to decentralize the economy and reorganize it with emphasis on agriculture; and to encourage democratic practices.

On July 26, the U. S. British, and Chinese governments issued an ultimatum, called the Potsdam Declaration, to the Japanese government, confronting Japan with a choice between unconditional surrender and total annihilation; the USSR was not then at war with Japan and was not a party to the ultimatum. The representatives at the conference also set up a Council of Foreign Ministers to draft peace treaties and confirmed their intention to try Axis war criminals.

U.S. and Swedish Trends in Tax Reform

Tax reform has become a major governmental policy issue in the United States as well as in the rest of the world. Countries are attempting to balance both economic efficiency and provide equity in taxation. Governments are looking to rewrite tax codes to minimize their impact on economic growth. Specifically, governments throughout the world are attempting to preserve incentives built into taxation to maximize economic efficiency. At the same time, these governments are trying to cope with the growth in social welfare programs throughout the past three decades.

In this paper I shall discuss two ations which dramatically overhauled their tax systems, and whether or not their goals with tax reform were achieved. In the article “The tax reform act of 1986: Did Congress love it or leave it? “, Randall Weiss discusses the attitudes about taxes in the United States. He details the events and attitudes leading to the Tax Reform Act of 1986, and shows how public perception about taxes has changed since then. He also discusses some of the tax reform proposals that are now currently being thought about in Congress.

In 1986 the United States Congress enacted the Tax Reform Act (TRA-86). The act passed with a great deal of bipartisan support. This support was made possible by two features of the act. The first was that federal income tax rates were to be cut dramatically. While this would lead one to believe that federal government receipts were cut substantially as well, it was the second important feature of the bill that allowed it to be revenue neutral. This feature was that the bill was to improve horizontal equity in the tax system.

This would be accomplished by eliminating many of the deductions that many individuals, particularly the well to do, were allowed to make. Many of the complains about the tax system in the United States that receded the Tax Reform Act were about the gross horizontal inequities that it allowed. A great deal of press preceding TRA-86 showed the public how many of the country’s wealthiest individuals were able to get away with paying little or no federal income tax. Eliminating many of these tax deductions and loopholes had been the goal of several liberal Democrats for some time.

In addition, conservatives in Congress wanted to reduce the escalating federal budget deficit at the time. Also, a prevailing attitude of the time was that reducing marginal tax rates would benefit the economy. It was believed that specific tax breaks nd deductions to support economic growth would not be needed with the greatly reduced tax rates. The combination of Democrats wanting more vertical tax equity and Republicans wanting lower marginal rates allowed the Tax Reform Act to gain widespread support in Congress.

Since TRA-86, tax policy in the United States has shifted away from base broadening and lower marginal rates toward more progressive taxation and targeted tax reductions. In 1990, and again in 1993, marginal tax rates were raised on wealthy individuals in an effort to close the mounting federal budget deficit. Also, the perception in the federal government was the special tax redits and deductions were needed to promote savings, education, and economic growth. This is a direct reversal of the ideas that lead to TRA-86.

People no longer argued that tax rate reduction would in itself provide for economic efficiency. Currently, members of the United States Congress are introducing several different tax reform plans. Some of the plans, particularly the Republican plan for a flat income tax introduced by Rep. Dick Armey, would decrease the progressivity of the current tax system. In addition, a proposal for a national sales tax would result in a tax code that is less progressive than current law. On the other hand, a tax reform plan introduced by Rep. Dick Gephardt would make the tax system more progressive.

All of these reforms are intended to reduce many of the remaining tax shelters left in place by TRA-86. The Republican plans in particular are not revenue neutral and are intended to increase investment in the economy and contribute to efficiency. However, these reforms are not in line with the policies enacted after TRA-86, and they are still years away in the future at best. In the article “Tax reform of the century – the Swedish experiment. “, Agell, Englund, and Sodersten discuss the recent Swedish experiment in tax eform in 1991 (TR-91).

As far back as 1978, the Nobel Laureate Gunmar Myrdal said that Sweden had become a “nation of waglers”. Himself being greatly liberal, even Myrdal admitted that Sweden’s highly graduated income tax was an incentive to cheat on taxes. Also, the high corporate tax rate, which originally was intended to encourage investment, created a capital lock in for corporations. This prevented companies from reinvesting their profits in different areas of their business to adapt to changing market conditions. Originally, it was believed that TR-91 would cost the Swedish government 6% GDP loss in revenue.

In actuality it cost about 1-2% of GDP in revenue. The top marginal tax rate on income dropped from 80% to 50%. In addition, the corporate tax was greatly reduced. To compensate for these losses, besides reducing the number of tax loopholes, VAT was broadened to include more products and housing was less subsidized by the tax code. In the short run this lead to sizable losses in read estates, and effective demand shifted from housing to capital instruments and financial assets. Later, the top marginal rate was increased to 55%, and many modification to TR-91 have already been made.

The goals of TRA-86 and TR-91 were to increase economic efficiency through base broadening and reduce gross abuses of the tax system in both countries. To an extent, these goals were achieved. But both countries quickly reversed their desire to reduce or eliminate tax shelters and lower marginal rates. In efforts to reduce governmental budget deficits, top income tax rates were increased once again. It will be interesting to see whether the current tax reform proposals now being discussed in the U. S. Congress will take hold and shift policy back towards base broadening and more horizontal equity.

The Bay of Pigs Invasion

The story of the failed invasion of Cuba at the Bay of Pigs is one of mismanagement, overconfidence, and lack of security. The blame for the failure of the operation falls directly in the lap of the Central Intelligence Agency and a young president and his advisors. The fall out from the invasion caused a rise in tension between the two great superpowers and ironically, years after the event, the person that the invasion meant to topple, Fidel Castro, is still in power. To understand the origins of the invasion and its ramifications for the future it is first necessary to look at the invasion and its origins.

The Bay of Pigs invasion of April 1961, started a few days before on April 15th with the bombing of Cuba by what appeared to be defecting Cuban air force pilots. At 6 a. m. in the morning of that Saturday, three Cuban military bases were bombed by B-26 bombers. The airfields at Camp Libertad, San Antonio de Los Baos, and Antonio Maceo airport at Santiago de Cuba were fired upon. Seven people were killed at Libertad, and forty-seven people were killed at other sites on the island. Two of the B-26s left Cuba and flew to Miami, apparently to defect to the United States.

The Cuban Revolutionary Council, the government in exile, in New York City released a statement saying that the bombings in Cuba were . . . carried out by ‘Cubans inside Cuba’ who were ‘in contact with’ the top command of the Revolutionary Council . . . . The New York Times reporter covering the story alluded to something being wrong with the whole situation when he wondered how the council knew the pilots were coming if the pilots had only decided to leave Cuba on Thursday after . . . a suspected betrayal by a fellow pilot had precipitated a plot to strike . . .

Whatever the case, the planes came down in Miami later that morning, one landed at Key West Naval Air Station at 7:00 a. m. and the other at Miami International Airport at 8:20 a. m. Both planes were badly damaged and their tanks were nearly empty. On the front page of The New York Times the next day, a picture of one of the B-26s was shown along with a picture of one of the pilots cloaked in a baseball hat and hiding behind dark sunglasses, his name was withheld. A sense of conspiracy was even at this early stage beginning to envelop the events of that week.

In the early hours of April 17th the assault on the Bay of Pigs began. As in the spirit of a movie, the assault began at 2 a. m. with a team of frogmen going ashore with orders to set up landing lights to indicate to the main assault force the precise location of their objectives, as well as to clear the area of anything that may impede the main landing teams when they arrived. At 2:30 a. m. and at 3:00 a. m. two battalions came ashore at Playa Girn and one battalion at Playa Larga beaches. The troops at Playa Girn had orders to move west, northwest, up the coast and meet with the troops at Playa Larga in the middle of the bay.

A small group of men were then to be sent north to the town of Jaguey Grande to secure it as well. When looking at a modern map of Cuba it is obvious that the troops would have problems in the area that was chosen for them to land at. The area around the Bay of Pigs is a swampy marsh land area which would be hard on the troops. The Cuban forces were quick to react and Castro ordered his T-33 trainer jets, two Sea Furies, and two B-26s into the air to stop the invading forces. Off the coast were the command and control ship and another vessel carrying supplies for the invading forces.

The Cuban air force made quick work of the supply ships, sinking the command vessel, the Marsopa, and the supply ship the Houston, blasting them to pieces with five-inch rockets. In the end the 5th battalion was lost, which was on the Houston, as well as the supplies for the landing teams and eight other smaller vessels. With some of the invading forces’ ships destroyed, and no command and control ship, the logistics of the operation soon broke down as the other supply ships were kept at bay by Castro’s air force.

As with many failed military adventures, one of the problems with this one was with supplying the troops. In the air, Castro had easily won superiority over the invading force. His fast moving T-33s, although unimpressive by today’s standards, made short work of the slow moving B-26s of the invading force. On Tuesday, two were shot out of the sky and by Wednesday the invaders had lost 10 of their 12 aircraft. With air power firmly in control of Castro’s forces, the end was near for the invading army. Over the 72 hours the invading force of about 1500 men were pounded by the Cubans.

Castro fired 122mm. Howitzers, 22mm. cannon, and tank fire at them. By Wednesday the invaders were pushed back to their landing zone at Playa Girn. Surrounded by Castro’s forces some began to surrender while others fled into the hills. In total 114 men were killed in the slaughter while thirty-six died as prisoners in Cuban cells. Others were to live out twenty years or more in those cells as men plotting to topple the government of Castro. The 1500 men of the invading force never had a real chance of success from the first days in the planning stage of the operation.

Operation Mongoose, as it came to be known as, has its origins in the last dying days of the Eisenhower administration and that murky time period during the transition of power to the newly elected president John F. Kennedy. The origins of American policy in Latin America in the late 1950’s and early 1960’s had its’ origins in American’s economic interests and its anticommunist policies in the region. The same man who had helped formulate American containment policy towards the Soviet threat, George Kennan, spoke to US Chiefs of Mission in Rio de Janeiro about Latin America in 1950.

He said that American policy had several purposes in the region, . . . to protect the vital supplies of raw materials which Latin American countries export to the USA; to prevent the ‘military exploitation of Latin America by the enemy’ [The Soviet Union]; and to avert ‘the psychological mobilization of Latin America against us. ‘ . . . . By the 1950’s trade with Latin America accounted for a quarter of American exports, and 80 percent of the investment in Latin America was also American. The Americans had a vested interest in the region that it would remain pro-American.

The Guatemalan adventure can be seen as another of the factors that lead the American government to believe that it could handle Castro. Before the Second World War ended, a coup in Guatemala saw the rise to power of Juan Jose Arvalo. He was not a communist in the traditional sense of the term, but he packed his government with Communist Party members and Communist sympathizers. In 1951 Jacobo Arbenz succeeded Arvalo after an election in March of that year. The party had been progressing with a series of reforms, and the newly elected leader continued with these reforms.

During land reforms a major American company, the United Fruit Company, lost its land and other holdings without any compensation from the Guatemalan government. When the Guatemalans refused to go to the International Court of Law, United Fruit began to lobby the government of the United States to take action. In the government they had some very powerful supporters. Among them were Foster Dulles, Secretary of State who had once been their lawyer, his brother Allen, the Director of Central Intelligence who was a shareholder, and Robert Cutler, head of the National Security Council.

In what was a clear conflict of interest, the security apparatus of the United States decided to take action against the Guatemalans. From May 1st, 1954, to June 18th, the Central Intelligence Agency did everything in its power to overthrow the government of Arbenz. On June 17th and 8th, it peaked with an invasion of 450 men lead by Colonel Carlos Castillo Armas. With the help of air support the men took control of the country and Arbenz fled to the Mexican Embassy. By June 27th, the country was firmly in control of the invading force.

With its success in Guatemala, the CIA had the confidence that it could now take on anyone who interfered with American interests. In late 1958 Castro was still fighting a guerilla war against the corrupt regime of Fulgencio Batista. Before he came to power, there was an incident between his troops and some vacationing American troops from the nearby American naval base at Guantanamo Bay. During the incident some U. S. Marines were held captive by Castro’s forces but were later released after a ransom was secretly paid.

This episode soured relations with the United States and the chief of U. S. Naval Operations, Admiral Burke, who wanted to send in the Marines to destroy Castro’s forces, but Secretary of State Foster Dulles disagreed with the measures suggested and stopped the plan. Castro overthrew Batista in 1959. Originally, Castro was not a communist, and even had meetings with then, Vice-President Richard Nixon. Fearful of Castro’s revolution, wealthy people such as doctors, lawyers, and the Mafia, left Cuba for the United States.

To prevent the loss of more capital, Castro’s solution was to nationalize some of the businesses in Cuba. In the process of nationalizing some business he came into conflict with American interests just as Arbenz had in Guatemala. Legitimate U. S. Businesses were taken over, and the process of socialization began with little, if any talk of compensation. There were also rumors of Cuban involvement in trying to invade Panama, Guatemala, and the Dominican Republic and by this time Castro had been turn down by the United States for any economic aid.

Being rejected by the Americans, he met with foreign minister Anasta Mikoyan to secure a $100 million loan from the Soviet Union. It was in this atmosphere that the American Intelligence and Foreign Relations communities decided that Castro was leaning towards communism and had to be dealt with. In the spring of 1960, President Eisenhower approved a plan to send small groups of American trained, Cuban exiles, to work in the underground as guerrillas to overthrow Castro. By the fall, the plan was changed to a full invasion with air support by exile Cubans in American supplied planes.

The original group was to be trained in Panama, but with the growth of the operation and the quickening pace of events in Cuba, it was decided to move things to a base in Guatemala. The plan was becoming rushed and this would start to show, the man in charge of the operation, CIA Deputy Director Bissell said that There didn’t seem to be time to keep to the original plan and have a large group trained by this initial cadre of young Cubans. So the larger group was formed and established at La Finca, in Guatemala, and there the training was conducted entirely by Americans . It was now fall and a new president had been elected.

President Kennedy could have stopped the invasion if he wanted to, but he probably didn’t do so for several reasons. Firstly, he had campaigned for some form of action against Cuba and it was also the height of the cold war, to back out now would mean having groups of Cuban exiles travelling around the globe saying how the Americans had backed down on the Cuba issue. In competition with the Soviet Union, backing out would make the Americans look like weak on the international scene, and for domestic consumption the new president would be seen as backing away from one of his campaign promises.

The second reason Kennedy probably didn’t abort the operation is the main reason why the operation failed, problems with the CIA. The failure at the CIA led to Kennedy making poor decisions, which would affect future relations with Cuba and the Soviet Union. The failure at the CIA had three causes. First the wrong people were handling the operation, secondly the agency in charge of the operation was also the one providing all the intelligence for the operation, and thirdly for an organization supposedly obsessed with security, the operation encountered many security problems.

In charge of the operation was the Director of Central Intelligence, Allan Dulles, and main responsibility for the operation was left to one of his deputies, Richard Bissell. In an intelligence community geared mainly for European operations against the USSR, both men were lacking in experience in Latin American affairs. Those in charge of Operation Mongoose, based this new operation on the success of the Guatemalan adventure, but the situation in Cuba was much different than that in Guatemala. In Guatemala the situation was still chaotic and Arbenz never had the same control over the country that Castro had on Cuba.

The CIA had the United States Ambassador, John Puerifoy, working on the inside of Guatemala coordinating the effort, in Cuba they had none of this while Castro was being supplied by the Soviet block. In addition, after the overthrow of the government in Guatemala, Castro was aware that this may happen to him as well and most likely had his guard up waiting for anything that may indicate that an invasion were to come. The second problem was the nature of the bureaucracy itself. The CIA, while powerful in itself, was still a new kid on the block and still felt that it had to prove itself, it saw its’ opportunity in Cuba.

Obsessed with secrecy, it kept the number of people involved to a minimum. The intelligence wing of CIA was kept out of it, their Board of National Estimates could have provided information on the situation in Cuba and the chances for an uprising against Castro once the invasion started. Also kept out of the loop were the State Department and the Joint Chiefs of Staff who could have provided help on the military side of the adventure. In the end, the CIA kept all the information for itself and passed on to the president only what it thought he should see.

Lucien S. Vandenbroucke, in Political Science Quarterly of 1984, based his analysis of the Bay of Pigs failure on organizational behavior theory. He said that the CIA . . . supplied President Kennedy and his advisers with chosen reports on the unreliability of Castro’s forces and the extent of Cuban dissent. Of the CIA’s behavior he concludes that, By resorting to the typical organization strategy of defining the options and providing the information required to evaluate them, the CIA thus structured the problem in a way that maximized the likelihood the president would choose the agency’s preferred option.

The CIA made sure the deck was stacked in their favor when the time came to decide whether a project they sponsored was sound or not. President Kennedy’s Secretary of State at the time was Dean Rusk, in his autobiography he said that, The CIA told us all sorts of things about the situation in Cuba and what would happen once the brigade got ashore. President Kennedy received information, which simply was not correct.

For example, we were told that elements of the Cuban armed forces would defect and join the brigade, that there would be popular uprisings throughout Cuba when the brigade hit the beach, and that if the exile force got into trouble, its members would simply melt into the countryside and become guerrillas, just as Castro had done As for senior White House aides, most of them disagreed with the plan as well, but Rusk said that Kennedy went with what the CIA had to say.

As for himself, he said that he did not serve President Kennedy very well and that he should have voiced his opposition louder. He concluded that I should have made my opposition clear in the meetings themselves because he [Kennedy] was under pressure from those who wanted to proceed. When faced with biased information from the CIA and quiet advisors, it is no wonder that the president decided to go ahead with the operation. For an organization that deals with security issues, the CIA’s lack of security in the Bay of Pigs operation is ironic.

Security began to break down before the invasion when The New York Times reporter Tad Szulc had learned of Operation Mongoose from Cuban friends earlier that year while in Costa Rica covering an Organization of American States meeting. Another breakdown in security was at the training base in Florida. Local residents near Homestead Air Force Base, had seen Cubans drilling and heard their loudspeakers at a farm. As a joke some firecrackers were thrown into the compound .

The ensuing incident saw the Cubans firing their guns and the federal authorities having to convince the local authorities not to press charges. Operation Mongoose was beginning to get blown wide open, the advantage of surprise was lost even this early in the game. After the initial bombing raid of April 15th, and the landing of the B-26s in Florida, pictures of the planes were taken and published in newspapers.

In the photo of one of the planes, the nose of it is opaque whereas the model of the B-26 the Cubans used had a Plexiglas nose, . The CIA had taken the pains to disguise the B-26 with FAR markings [Cuban Air Force], the agency overlooked a crucial detail that was spotted immediately by professional observers. The Cuban people only had to go as far as reading the newspapers to know that something was going to happen, and that those planes that had bombed them were not their own but American. On April 21st, The New York Times ran a story about the origins of the operation in the Eisenhower administration and appeared along with headlines as C. I. A. Had a Role In Exiles’ Plans revealing the CIA’s involvement.

By the 22nd, the story was fully known with headlines in The New York Times stating that CIA is Accused by Bitter Rebels and on the second page of that day’s issue is a full article on the details of the operation from its beginnings. The conclusion one can draw from the articles in The New York Times is that if reporters knew the whole story by the 22nd, it can be expected that Castro’s intelligence service and that of the Soviet Union knew about the planned invasion as well.

Tad Szulc’s report in the April 22nd edition of The New York Times says it all, As has been an open secret in Florida and Central America for months, the C. I. A. planned, coordinated and directed the operations that ended in defeat on a beachhead in southern Cuba Wednesday. It is clear then that part of the failure of the operation was caused by a lack of security and attention to detail on the part of the Central Intelligence Agency, and misinformation given to the president.

On the international scene, the Bay of Pigs invasion lead directly to increased tensions between the United States and the Soviet Union. During the invasion, messages were exchanged between Kennedy and Khrushchev regarding the events in Cuba. Khrushchev accused the Americans of being involved in the invasion and stated in one of his messages that a so-called small war can produce a chain reaction in all parts of the world . . . we shall render the Cuban people and their Government all necessary assistance in beating back the armed attack on Cuba .

Kennedy replied giving American views on democracy and the containment of communism, he also warned against Soviet involvement in Cuba saying to Khrushchev, In the event of any military intervention by outside force we will immediately honor our obligations under the inter-American system to protect this hemisphere against external aggression. Even though this crisis passed, it set the stage for the next major crisis over Soviet nuclear missiles in Cuba and probably led to the Soviets increasing their military support for Castro.

In the administration itself, the Bay of Pigs crisis led to a few changes. Firstly, someone had to take the blame for the affair and, as Director of Central Intelligence, Allen Dulles was forced to resign and left the CIA in November of 1961. Internally, the CIA was never the same, although it continued with covert operations against Castro, it was on a much-reduced scale. According to a report of the Select Senate Committee on Intelligence, future operations were . . . to nourish a spirit of resistance and disaffection which could lead to significant defections and other by-products of unrest.

The CIA also now came under the supervision of the president’s brother Bobby, the Attorney General. According to Lucien S. Vandenbroucke, the outcome of the Bay of Pigs failure also made the White House suspicious of an operation that everyone agreed to, made them less reluctant to question the experts, and made them play devil’s advocates when questioning them. In the end, the lessons learned from the Bay of Pigs failure may have contributed to the successful handling of the Cuban missile crisis that followed. The long-term ramifications of the Bay of Pigs invasion are a little harder to assess.

The ultimate indication of the invasion failure is that thirty-eight years later Castro is still in power. This not only indicates the failure of the Bay of Pigs invasion, but American policy towards Cuba in general. The American policy, rather than undermining Castro’s support, has probably contributed to it. As with many wars, even a cold one, the leader is able to rally his people around him against an aggressor. When Castro came to power he instituted reforms to help the people and end corruption, no longer receiving help from the Soviet Union things are beginning to change.

He has opened up the Cuban economy for some investment, mainly in telecommunications, oil exploration, and joint ventures. In an attempt to stay in power, he is trying to adapt his country to the new reality of the world. Rather than suppressing the educated elite, he is giving them a place in guiding Cuba. The question is, will they eventually want more power and a right to control Cuba’s fate without Castro’s guidance and support? If the collapse of past regimes is any indication, they will eventually want more power.

When Castro came to power in 1959, the major opponents in America to him, as with Guatemala, were the business interests who were losing out as a result of his polices. The major pressure for the Americans to do something came, not only from the Cuban exiles in Florida, but from those businesses. Today, the tables are turned and businesses are loosing out because of the American embargo against Cuba. It is estimated that if the embargo were lifted, $1 billion of business would be generated for U. S. companies that first year.

Right now, 100 firms have gone to Cuba to talk about doing business there after the embargo is lifted. Given the reasons why the United States got involved in Latin American politics in the first place, it is very likely that their position will change if they can find a face saving way to do so. American policy at this time though is still stuck in the cold war, the chairmen of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee Jesse Helms said, Whether Castro leaves Cuba in a vertical or horizontal position is up to him and the Cuban people.

But he must and will leave Cuba. The failure of the Bay of Pigs invasion was caused by misinformation and mismanagement, the consequences of that were harsh embarrassing for the Americans and led to an increase in tension between the superpowers at the height of the cold war. We will only have to wait and see if the Americans have really learned their lesson and will not miss another opportunity to set things right in Cuba.

The Effects Of Post-industrialism On The Political Economy Of Western

The sustained, high economic growth in Western Europe during the post-war period until 1973 led to dramatic changes in the region’s political economy. As advances in transportation and communication extended the reach of international trade into new areas of the world, as technological advances allowed establishment of manufacturing facilities overseas, and as European real wages climbed to unprecedented heights, the industrial base that had served as the foundation for rapid Western European growth in the 1950’s and 1960’s increasingly moved to Western Europe’s poorer neighbors.

As the industrial base moved, so did the jobs of a large quantity of unskilled manufacturing workers who populated the assembly lines. In recent years, the liberalization of international trade has clearly demonstrated that European industry can no longer compete in traditional, large-scale industrial sectors. European successes have increasingly come from specialized, high value-added industry and from intelligent, flexible companies able to shift production quickly to capitalize on movements in world demand.

The net result of these changes has been a transition to a post-industrial society, where the stable economic order of mass employment in large-scale industry has given way to mass unemployment and a breakdown of the political and social consensus that held sway throughout the post-war period. These changes have fundamentally altered the Western European labor market.

This paper will show how post-industrialism has dramatically reduced the ability of many Western European countries to deliver full employment, not simply because of changes in employment structure, but more importantly because those structural changes ave undermined the institutional framework that allowed Western European countries to control prices while pursuing full employment policies, and have left Western Europeans widely dissatisfied with their political system. Western European countries demonstrated varying abilities to control inflation and unemployment in the 1970’s and 1980’s.

Cameron argues that two variables explain much of the differences in economic performance: 1) the presence or absence of corporatist institutions and practices,1 and 2) the role of leftist, Social Democratic political parties in government (Cameron: 144). Centralization of labor representation facilitates corporatist bargaining. Conversely, fragemented labor representation makes agreement difficult. The greater the number of parties, the less likely that they will find a solution palatable to all negotiators.

According to measurements of labor organizational unity by the European Yearbook, countries with the most unified labor during the 1970’s and 1980’s, Austria, Sweden, Norway, Germany, Denmark and Finland, were all among the best in Europe at ontrolling unemployment and inflation, while the countries with the most disunited labor, Italy, France and Spain, were less successful. The shift to a post-industrial economy has increased the dissolution, fragmentation and differentiation of the Western European labor market. Most countries have suffered high and remarkably stable unemployment.

Unemployment rises during economic downturns, but no longer seems to recover in a boom economy. Many blame post-industrialism for this phenomenon, complaining that technological improvements have led to a ‘workerless’ economy. While post-industrialism is a cause of higher unemployment, the explanation is not that it has eliminated jobs, but that jobs have changed. New industrial jobs have increasingly required specialized technical skill, while the service sector has created jobs for skilled, semi-skilled and unskilled workers.

One crucial difference between the old jobs and the new are that traditional unions played a much larger role in the labor market for industrial jobs than in the labor market for post-industrial white collar and service jobs. Some countries, Sweden for example, have strong public sector unions that include large numbers of non-industrial employees, but private employees in post-industrial sectors (professionals, managers, skilled and semi-skilled service employees) are less likely to belong to unions than their industrial counterparts.

Unions face large obstacles to organizing these workers. Many of the new jobs are in smaller enterprises, hindering communication between the unions and prospective members. But the most serious problem is the individualization of the labor market. The post-industrial labor market is more fragmented than the industrial labor market. Workers increasingly organize in functionally specialized unions and collective bargaining has shifted to the local level(Crook, Pakulski & Waters: 98).

Accordingly, interests among those responsible for negotiating on behalf of post-industrial workers increasingly conflict. Price stability, exchange rate policy and competitiveness have become important to large portions of workers in the post-industrial economy, often leading them to oppose fiscally expansionary full employment policies. Governments that value price stability face less pressure to deliver full employment in return and fiscal restraints have decreased the political will to spend their way to full employment.

It is interesting to note that Norway, whose North Sea oil revenues have kept it fiscally sound, has made extensive use of public sector job creation to keep unemployment in check. A more typical Western European examples is Italy, who, in the face of large budget deficits, gave up costly public sector industries to privatization even during periods of high unemployment. Economic conditions in the 1980’s and 1990’s also led to declining union membership. Economic downturns and high unemployment raise the probability of worker disorganization (Western: 194-195).

Also, the increasing volatility of world markets calls for more flexible labor arrangements, such as those common in Northern Italy. The informality of these labor relationships does not mix well with traditional, industry-wide union representation. Western blames the decline of unions on the effects of the conomic changes on the political identification of potential union members, citing the erosion of class as an organizing principle as a reason for lower union membership (Western: 179). Some unions remain very powerful.

Small unions populated by skilled workers who are critical to production, such as the German metal workers, are often able to win large concessions from employers. But the decline in overall union membership and the decreasing ability of different unions to agree on broad, macroeconomic policies have hurt labor’s ability to participate in formulating corporatist solutions to economic problems. The shift to a post-industrial economy that has fragmented unions has created parallel fragmentation within the mass-integration political parties that have governed Western European countries in the post-war period.

Parties find their traditional membership increasingly divided on the use of fiscal policy, maintenance of exchange rates and other crucial areas of government policy. The internationalization of markets has also diminished the State’s capacity for intervention in the economic sphere. Thus not only labor, but also government finds itself handicapped in its efforts to continue the strategy of corporatist bargaining. Unable to control both unemployment and inflation without labor cooperation, governments have limited their efforts to one or the other.

Due to external constraints such as large fiscal deficits and the Maastricht criteria for participation in the European Monetary Union, most Western European countries have chosen to control prices at the cost of high unemployment. The resulting joblessness has extracted large political costs, particularly for social democratic parties in government and abandonment of full-employment as a primary policy goal has alienated a large portion of their constituencies, undermining their support.

Social democratic parties are currently on the run even in countries where they delivered the best economic results, such as Sweden and Austria. Without the means to increase employment, many countries have tried instead to discourage participation in the labor market. Germany has called for a shorter work week, France has made extensive use of early retirement, and almost all European countries have cut back on legal immigration in an effort to lower unemployment figures and reduce the perceived social cost of their price control policies.

The ascension of right-wing or right-center parties in many Western European countries, such as Austria, Italy, France and Sweden, creates two additional, significant barriers to a return to the corporatist solutions of the past. First, most of these parties display a clear policy preference for price control over full employment. Even Jacques Chirac, who campaigned on a platform of job creation, quickly reaffirmed his commitment to the franc fort immediately after he won the election.

Second, recall that Cameron argued that both corporatism and leftist government contributed to economic success in Western Europe. Trust between strong unions and their allies in leftist governments formed an important basis for making and enforcing wage restraint agreements under corporatist bargaining. Unions have less faith that neo-liberal governments will take the necessary steps to protect employment and are accordingly less likely to compromise in wage negotiations. To conclude, post-industrialism has led to dramatic changes in Western European labor markets and Western European politics.

These changes have severely undermined the usefulness of the most successful Western European macroeconomic strategy of he 1970’s and 1980’s–corporatist bargaining. The current levels of high unemployment will continue so long as European society is able to support, both economically and philosophically, a large, marginalized class of unemployed people. Eventually, Western Europe will have to develop a new mechanism of reaching societal consensus on wage restraint. This might happen in response to even larger levels of unemployment or a to breakdown in the government’s fiscal ability to support the current levels of unemployed.

The Democracy In America

The democracy we have in America today is very complex. This democracy starts out with political parties whose main purpose is to gain control of the government by winning elections Appelbaum and Chambliss(1997:366). In the United States, unlike in most other democracies, there are only two political parties with any substantial influence over government policies Appelbaum and Chambliss (1997:366). Third parties are also apparent in elections.

These third parties are often successful in smaller elections, but when we are dealing with national elections it is very difficult for the third party to survive the igger two due to the lack of funding and publicity of the PACs and other interest groups. However, third parties serve a very good purpose. They provide us with more candidates giving us more choices which is what democracy is about. According to my class notes (lecture on government) third parties are sometimes chosen when people are opposed to the candidates from the other two parties.

Third parties stand as a sign of choice as well. Voting for a third party is also seen as voting for a better selection of candidates rather than voting for the usual two candidates from the other parties. The president of the United States is not chosen on the popular vote of the people alone but on the Electoral College whose vote is determined by the popular vote of each state Appelbaum and Chambliss (1997:367). This Electoral College is in a sense a vote of the people but at the same time it keeps bigger states from becoming to powerful overwhelming the smaller states.

The United States also has three branches of government the legislative, judicial and executive branches. The constitution of the United States provides a system of checks and balances Appelbaum and Chambliss (1997:369). This system of checks and balances puts a limit on the amount of power a single branch may have which protects both the people and the individual branches government from one another. I believe that the United States has a very efficient form of government. It has many rules sewn into the constitution to keep things running efficient and fairly.

Democracy is a form of government in which citizens are able to participate directly or indirectly in their own governance, literally means the rule of the people Appelbaum and Chambliss (1997:366). According to my class notes (lecture on emocracies) this does not seem to be the case. It seems in some cases that the rich or the elite have more influence than do other citizens in the governing of out country. For example, funding moneys and interest groups. The elite are able to donate funding to their particular candidate or party in the form of interest groups.

They give money to interest groups, which is then given to candidates for campaigning purposes that help the candidates funds for president. For the most part this money is not freely donated. The elite want to make sure that if their money is donated to a candidate that their ideas and beliefs will e supported in office if they do become president. With these kind of issues in mind many others especially the poor will often refrain from voting because they feel that their vote will not This idea is very much a reality.

The cost of campaigning has gone up significantly in recent years, and today candidates spend vast sums of money on political campaigns Appelbaum and Chambliss (1997:370). As said by Phil Gramm, people who give money are the best friends a politician can have and the one that spends the most money wins. So the impact of spending through interest groups and PACs are very important. There are many differing opinions on the issue of changing families in the last forty to fifty years.

I believe that if someone were to look at todays families in the same way as one would have forty to fifty years ago they are going to be in for a surprise. We have to realize that not only family has changed but our culture and economy too have also changed. The idea of family is a group of people who identify themselves as being related to one another, usually by blood, marriages, or adoption, and who share intimate relationships and dependency Appelbaum and Chambliss (1997:390).

Our societys language and definitions have changed so much over the last forty to fifty years. For example the meaning of nuclear family has also changed since then Appelbaum and Chambliss (1997:391). According to my class notes (lecture on family) we used to classify a nuclear family as a family with two biological parents and their children usually more than one. Now in todays times we classify the nuclear family as a social group consisting of one or two parents and their dependent children Appelbaum and Chambliss (1997:391).

Our society has changed so much in the last fifty years that ingle parenting is very common and is often looked at as a norm. Another example of the changing times would be that of marriage. Fifty years ago marriage was an acceptable relationship between two people of the opposite sex. Now the definition is so basic that marriage pretty much just has to be between to people If we are to look at todays families as we did of those forty to fifty years ago it would seem that America had lost its sense of values. Families would also be looked upon as immoral based on these same ideals.

On the other hand if we look at family today as in relation to our society as a whole I dont hink that there would be to many surprises when it came to When comparing both functionalism and conflict perspectives on education they seem to be in no way the same. From a functionalism perspective education seems to be explained as preparing and educating people with basic skills to survive in todays world. As said by Emile Durkheim, emphasizing the function of formal education in socializing people into the norms and values as well as the skills that are needed for the society to survive (Appelbaum and Chambliss 1997).

The functionalism theory is broadcasted as the functions and transmission of eneral knowledge and specific skills Appelbaum and Chambliss (1997:453). On the other hand we have the conflict theory of education. According to the conflict theory children are taught at an early age to define their academic aspirations and abilities in keeping with the social class of their parents. The lower ones social class, the less likely one is to value higher education as a plausible avenue to upward mobility, and the less likely one is to work to excel academically Appelbaum and Chambliss (1997:455).

So in most cases the conflict theory states that the class you are in is the one that you will stay in hroughout your life. Also as an example of my class notes (lecture on education) most lower income families children will receive a lower or less able education than would a person who is of a higher class that would go to a private school for instance. When comparing the two theories it seems that both functionalism and conflict theories have some faults and some merit. Education is a double edged sword. For some, it helps to reduce inequality by opening up new possibilities for social mobility.

For others, it reinforces existing inequality by providing unequal educational opportunities according to ones ace, ethnicity, social class, or gender Appelbaum and Chambliss Emile Durkheims The Elementary Forms of the Religious life (1965), written in 1912, propounded what has prove to be one of the most influential and enduring theories in the sociology of religion Appelbaum and Chambliss (1997:480). According to my class notes (over religion) Durkheim based his studies on Aborigines whos religion had been the same for many years.

He found that the aborigines divided their world into to groups which are profane and sacred Appelbaum and Chambliss (1997:480). Profane being a sphere of routine daily life according to my lass notes (lecture on religion) and sacred as a more important sphere with a spiritual background. Durkheims bold theoretical conclusion was that, in all societies, the realm of the sacred serves an important social function for the societies, the realm of the sacred serves an important social function for the society as a whole Appelbaum and Chambliss (1997:480).

Marx on the other hand did not systematically study the nature of religion in society, although he clearly recognized its central importance Appelbaum and Chambliss (1997:481). Through a Marx view, societies are divided into classes. For example Marx, divided eligion into hostile and opposing classes in his explanation of religion (Appelbaum and Chambliss 1997). In one of Marxs most famous statement he says, Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the sentiment of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people (in McClellan, 1997,p. 4).

I believe what Marxs is saying here is that religion is based mainly around a higher class of people oppressing the poor and keeping them from becoming involved. Like most theories Durkheims and Marxs seem to have strengths and weaknesses. According to my class notes (lecture n religion) Durkheim seems to have many strong arguments that seem to be logical but we also have to take in effect that his studies were done on a Australian hunting and gathering tribe and would not carry as much weight while looking through his perspective in the twentieth century.

Marx on the other hand has a more modern approach which would appeal more to todays times but seems to put to much emphasis on what the elite can put over on everyone else. For example, One of these problems is that Marxs notation that religion is a mystification enabling the ruling class to pull the wool over everybodys eyes is clearly implistic Appelbaum and Chambliss (1997:481). The separation of church and state is sociologically problematic for many reasons.

Sociology is the systematic study of human social relations, groups, and societies and when looked at Sociological stand point there seems to be no separation Appelbaum and Chambliss (1997:6). Religion is not controlled by the states so it acts upon society as does the government and there seems to be know line drawn between the two so it is very difficult to study. Since there is no governing of religion it is also difficult to estimate reliably the number of people elonging to churches Appelbaum and Chambliss (1997:491).

According to my class notes (lecture on religion) although it is hard to estimate the exact growth of religion we can tell that it has grown steadily since the United States were founded. Another reason this is problematic is because of the number of religious organizations. One reason so many people belong to religious organizations is that there are an enormous number of such organizations one can belong to Appelbaum and Chambliss (1997:491). This also presents difficulty because of the number of people belonging to multiple religious groups.

Introduction To Federalism

Federalism is the form of government in the united states where separate states are united under one central authority but with specific powers granted to both components in a written constitution . Patrick Henry coined the word in 1788 when, during the Virginia ratification convention debates over the proposed U. S Constitution ,he angrily asked, Is this federalism?. In 1787 the constitution replaced it with another, more balanced, version that has worked for over two centuries.

During the time, however the history of federalism has been incessantly disrupted by a constant debate between those who wanted to enlarge the central government and those who demanded that states rights be strictly respected and even expanded. During Reconstruction the war argument over the use of federal power erupted in violence against newly enfranchised blacks and Republican government in the South . In the late nineteenth century the federal government retreated from its temporary expansion of power in saving the Union and trying to remake the South.

Whether in tolerating state created racial segregation or striking down federal efforts to regulate the new industrial order, the federal courts limited federal authority in many areas of public life. At the beginning of the twentieth century progressive reformers wanted to enlarge the role of the federal government and solve glaring economic and social problems. With mixed success they sought federal legislation to regulate the workplace, protect labor unions, and promote moral improvement.

During the 1930s the new deal redefined federalism and saved the economy by recognizing federal responsibility over many areas of public and private activity that previously had been unregulated or solely the purview of the states, Including banking, the stock exchanges, and the workplace. In the last half of the twentieth century federalism was the central issue in both black and womens civil rights. It was at the heart of a redefinition of criminal justice by the Warren Court .

The liberal interpretation of it by this court in turn became the target of a conservative attempt to diminish congressional power under the doctrine of original intent and to use the federal judiciary to return more authority to state and local government. At the beginning of the third millennium, the Supreme Court was bitterly divided over states rights, with five justices generally seeking to curtail the application of laws and four justices insisting upon upholding Congresss power to apply the Bill of Rights to the states to prevent them from infringing on an individuals constitutional rights.

When America declared independence from Great Britain in July 1776, it changed the historical English definition of sovereignty. As Bernard Bailyn, Gordon S. Wood, and other historians have pointed out, the American patriots made a radical and abrupt departure from the British tradition by stating in the Declaration of Independence that to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed and thereby placed sovereignty in the people.

In the British system it had resided in Parliament, but in the new state constitutions of the 1770s and 1780s Americans, recognizing sovereignty of the people, made the rulers subordinate to the ruled. The initial call for a convention had been only to revise the Articles, not to discard them out of hand and devise a totally new form of government. Stanley Elkins and Eric McKitrick pointed out in their 1993 study that the Age of Federalism was legitimate. (Written by Robert P. Sutton, Federalism-page 5. )

The federalists, better organized and more imaginative, had their selling point s, best summarized in the The Federalist, a series of essays written by James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and John Jay for the New York ratification contest. Their main concern was to show how the Constitution contained checks on Congress. Ironically, in the last half of the twentieth century federalism became the center of a Supreme Court controversy over the very racial segregation it had sanctioned in Plessy v. Ferguson. By World War II racial separation was a salient feature of the American South.

The Impact of Eleanor Roosevelt as a First Lady

Before Eleanor Roosevelt, the role of the first lady was not a political role; it was merely just a formal title of the president’s wife. Eleanor Roosevelt paved the way for all presidents’ wives to come by being active in politics during and after her husband’s presidency. Of course, she did not have instant success; she had many trials which helped her become an important and influential role model. Eleanor Roosevelt’s dedication to her husband, her activeness in politics, and her volunteer work enabled her to change the role of the First Lady. Eleanor Roosevelt was born on October 11, 1884 to Elliot and Anna Hall Roosevelt.

Her mother was very beautiful and thought of Eleanor as a disappointment and would even make fun of her and call her mean nicknames like “Granny” (Cook, 21, vol. 1). Her father adored her and she adored him but he was never around due to the fact that he was an alcoholic and a drug addict (Morey, 14). When Eleanor was seven years old, her parents got a divorce; which left her mother, Anna, to raise the children alone (Spangenburg, 4). Eleanor’s parents both died shortly after, her mother when she was eight, and when she was ten she learned that her father had died as well.

Eleanor and her two younger brothers were sent to live with their Grandmother Hall (Morey, 16-17). Although Eleanor did not have a pleasant childhood, things started to look up when she started dating her fifth cousin, Franklin Delano Roosevelt. They were married on March 17, 1905 (Cook, 162, vol. 1). Eleanor’s Godfather, Theodore Roosevelt, the current president, agreed to walk her down the aisle at her wedding (Morey, 25-27). After their wedding, Franklin and Eleanor’s house was still not ready, so they lived with Franklin’s mother, Sara, who was not very fond of Eleanor.

Once Eleanor started having children Sara even insisted on helping raise them because she considered herself to be a better mother than Eleanor (Morey, 28). Eleanor gave birth to 6 children, but lost one and from this became depressed. This was a hard time for her especially living with Sara. Finally, in 1910 they moved away from Sara to Albany, New York so Franklin could run for Senator (Cook, 184-186, vol. 1). Eleanor Roosevelt was dedicated to Franklin and was always helping him out behind the scenes. When Franklin became a state senator, she became friends with his political friends and their wives, and she loved to entertain.

She also liked to attend meetings at the Capitol building and listen to speakers (Morey, 30). In the winter and spring of 1917-1918, Franklin came down with pneumonia and Eleanor discovered that Franklin was having an affair with their good friend, Lucy Mercer. During this time they saw each other very little, but did not get a divorce (Cook, 222-224, vol. 1). In fact, Franklin’s mother threatened that if he got a divorce, she would “cut him out without a cent” and he needed her money for his campaign, so they did not get a divorce (Morey, 33).

After Franklin got over his pneumonia, Eleanor still stayed dedicated to him even after his affair and they tried to work on their relationship. They even began to travel together again. Eleanor still went through some periods of depression but through this she developed independence and leadership (Morey, 35-36). In 1920, Franklin was chosen as the vice-presidential candidate for the Democratic Party, but after they lost the election in November, he and Eleanor moved their family back to New York. Shortly after, Franklin was swimming in the Bay of Fundy when he complained that his legs felt weak.

His condition only worsened and he was soon diagnosed with Polio. This paralyzed his legs permanently but he otherwise recovered and was healthy (Spangenburg, 46). Franklin had to become very dependent on Eleanor and together they learned to be a good team. In 1932, when Franklin ran for president, Eleanor went along with him to help campaign and he won (Spangenburg, 58). Due to Franklin’s condition, he wasn’t able to do a lot of traveling so Eleanor became his “eyes and ears” by traveling for him (Lash, 762).

She inspected prisons, checked on the effects of the drought in the Midwest, and unemployment in West Virginia. Then she would come home and report everything to her husband that she observed. She also met with local people and talked about their jobs and lives. Through her, Franklin was one of the best-informed president’s about America’s social conditions (Morey, 49). During World War II, she visited the South Pacific war area and would have breakfast with the troops and visit the wounded in the hospital.

She would send Franklin reports on changes that she thought should be made, and observations she had, like how the blacks and whites worked well together, which pleased her (Morey, 66). Eleanor was quickly changing the role of the first lady, even through her activeness in politics. She was a strong advocate for many groups such as women, children, minorities and the poor. As the First Lady, she was doing things that had never been done before, like holding her own press conferences. She also tried to help women get jobs by asking all women reporters to come to her press conferences.

In doing this she hoped that editors would hire more women (Morey, 46-47). She became very comfortable with public speaking and gave more press conferences than her husband. She also gave many lectures over the years, and also had her own radio program. Eleanor was very active with the women’s social reform network and was closely related with three organizations: the League of Women Voters, the Women’s Trade Union League and the National Consumer’s League (Cook, 62, vol. 2). In Eleanor’s first year in the white house, she somehow found time to write her first book.

It was called It’s up to the Women, published in 1933. The main point of this book was that women must play a role in leading the nation to recover from the Great Depression (Morey, 55). She also started her own newspaper column on December 30, 1935, called “My Day” that ran for almost 30 years. In this column she wrote about all of the events going on in the world and a lot of her own thoughts as well. She felt very strongly about world peace, and on June 1, 1945, she wrote in “My Day” that, “Only the good will of peoples and their leaders can develop understanding and create an atmosphere in which peace can exist.

Something else Eleanor Roosevelt felt strongly about what was the segregation of races, and she did what she could to stand up against it. She had always been very active in the Daughters of the American Revolution (DAR), but when she invited a black singer, Marian Anderson, to sing at a function, they wouldn’t let her perform in their auditorium. Eleanor was so upset by this that she resigned from the Daughters of the American Revolution and refused to be associated with them (Spangenburg, 74).

She also went to a meeting in Birmingham, Alabama, with Mary McLeod Bethune, a famous black educator, and was upset to see that whites had to sit on one side and blacks on the other. Eleanor stubbornly sat with the black group until she was asked to move by a police officer. Instead of moving to sit with the white group, she just put her chair right in the middle (Morey, 59-60). She also got involved with associations like the NAACP, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People and would even try to pass anti-lynching bills for them. They never did pass though.

Eleanor loved to help people and did a lot of volunteer work. Even before her husband was president she was helping at the Red Cross (Lash, 762) and would help distribute things to the navy. She even visited the naval hospital once a week to talk to the war victims (Morey, 31-32). Once she became first lady this did not stop her from volunteering and reaching out. During the Great Depression, there were many poverty-stricken areas. One place called Scott’s Run in West Virginia was so bad that everyone was living in tents and only had the clothes on their backs.

Congress had allowed 25 million dollars for depression victims and so Eleanor decided to relocate their village and buy homes and even organize a school for them. The new village was called Arthursdale, and she was very proud of it. She also helped create jobs for these people (Morey 51-52). She also had a heart for young people, and tried to support their rights, too. She supported a group called the American Youth Congress (AYC) and advised them, attended meetings, and gave them money. Some people looked down at her for this because the group was communists-backed, but it didn’t stop her (Morey 61).

Eleanor also supported a school called Wiltwyck School in New York which was for troubled boys thought of as delinquents. She would hold annual picnics with them and spend time visiting with them. The boys loved her and thought of her as a good friend (Levy and Russett, 121). Shortly after the attack on Pearl Harbor, Eleanor was invited by the Queen to come to England. While she was there she saw the damage from the German bombs. She also visited with many of the American troops stationed there and they greatly appreciated her.

One British officer even said, “Mrs. Roosevelt has done more to bring a real understanding of the spirit of the United States to the people of Britain than any other single American who has ever visited these islands. ” (Morey, 65-66). After traveling to England, she decided she wanted to travel more so she also visited Australia, New Zealand, and seventeen South Pacific Islands. In 1945, while Franklin was relaxing in Warm Springs, Georgia, he suffered from a massive cerebral hemorrhage, and died on April 12. Later, Eleanor wrote that “I never realized the full scope of the devotion to him until after he died” (Spangenburg, 80-82).

After his death, she returned to being a normal citizen and moved out of the White House. Her role as the first lady of the United States had ended, but her career had not. The new president, Harry Truman, selected her to be a US delegate to the United Nations. During her second term she served on a committee called the Human Rights Commission. For two years, they worked on writing the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. It was finally approved on December 10, 1948, and she was given a standing ovation after the UN General Assembly approved it (Spangenburg, 86-87).

Eleanor considered this one of her greatest achievements. Eleanor Roosevelt stayed busy up until the year of her death. She died on November 11, 1962, after being diagnosed with an untreatable blood disease. She was buried next to Franklin in the rose garden at Hyde Park (Lash, 762). Eleanor was a loving, caring and compassionate person who spent most of her life helping others and attempting to make the world a better place. She once said, “I never let slip an opportunity to increase my knowledge of people and conditions. Spangenburg, 99)

Everything she knew had been discovered on her own through her own experiences and observations. Eleanor also said, “I had really only three assets: I was keenly interested, I accepted every challenge and every opportunity to learn more, and I had great energy and self-discipline. ” (Spangenburg, 99) Eleanor Roosevelt changed the role of the first lady by her dedication to her husband through everything, her involvement in politics, and her willingness to help others through her volunteer work.

Cultural Diversity in Local Politics

This paper explores the limits and potentials of ethnic and racial coalition building in Los Angeles. The demographic changes that have occurred in Los Angeles during the past twenty years have been extraordinary, both in scope and diversity.

The area has witnessed a literal boom in population growth, increasing from 7 million in 1970 to 8.8 million in 1990. (US Bureau of the Census) However, it is the dramatic change in ethnic and racial diversity of the population which has caught most observers attention.

Los Angeles has taken on a new form in terms of its racial diversity, moving from a biracial to a multiethnic setting. The non-Hispanic White population has declined from its 71 percent share in 1970 to a narrow numerical plurality of 41 percent of the county’s population in 1990.

Meanwhile, the Latino and Asian Pacific population witnessed a doubling — from 15% to 39% — and near quadrupling from 3% to 11% of their population shares respectively. Meanwhile, African Americans, while slightly growing numerically, were a constant share of the county population (11%) during this period. (Oliver and Johnson:57-94) Thus, on the eve of the twenty-first century, Los Angeles has one of the most ethnically diverse populations of any metropolitan area in the country.

What does this ethnic diversity mean for multiethnic coalition building in the politics of Los Angeles County? Does the changing demography increase the opportunity for ethnic cooperation? Or, has the ethnic changes increased rather than decreased the prospects of interethnic conflict?


After the 1992 riots, a clarion call was issued from all corners for the emerging multiethnic majority to take its rightful place in the politics and leadership of the city. A multiethnic coalition, it ws suggested, could lead the city to a new multicultural future.

This call was clearly built on the assumption that three divers groups African Americans, Asian Pacific Islanders and Latinos could come together and pursue a coalition built on their common interests.

But what do we do know about the prospects of multiethnic coalitions? There is voluminous literature on urban politics. However, this literature has been shaped principally by the question of racial politics. (Browning, Marshall and Tabb) That is, how have traditional urban politics, read White politics, been affected or impacted by the role of Blacks on the urban scene.

Probably the most influential work on Black/White urban political coalitions was Carmichael and Hamilton’s Black Power. (Carmichael and Hamilton) In this work, as in most of the literature, the foundation of coalitions were based on common interests.

They argued that all political relations are based on common self interest benefits to be gained and losses to be avoided. From this perspective, Carmichael and Hamilton argued, there were no permanent friends or enemies for Blacks in their struggle for freedom and power only temporary alliances when self interests coincide.

Thus, they rejected the notion that White liberals, whose ideological orientation was favorable to Black aspirations, should be viewed as reliable and enduring allies. Rather, they were perceived as one among many which could be either potential allies or potential adversaries on the road to power.

Carmichael and Hamilton’s emphasis on interests and ideology alone, when extended to the multiethnic scene of Los Angeles, portends a rather bleak future for multiethnic coalitions.

Alliances forging common interests are not readily evident or clear among the diversity of racial and ethnic groups in Los Angeles. Moreover, class and ethnic divisions between and within ethnic and racial groups have structured competing and cross-cutting interests that, on the face, appear to be overwhelming.

Ethnic groups, for example, have diverse interests based on such factors as citizenship, ethnicity and class. Latinos are divided by the diverse interest of an immigrant noncitizen population and citizen native population. This became evident in the aftermath of the riots when the mostly Mexican Americans, citizen-based East Los Angeles leadership attempted to disassociate themselves from the more Central-American and recent Mexican immigrant-based residents of South Central Los Angeles. (Ramos and Wilkinson)

This division expressed a long standing concern that the Latinoization of Los Angeles politics was in fact being ushered in under Mexican hegemony. Likewise, diverse interests are apparent on the basis of national origin.

Among Asian Pacific Islanders, long standing historical divisions between Koreans, Japanese, and Chines cause, in some critical cases, group enmity as opposed to unity. And even African Americans have strong class cleavages that, despite the concerted attempts of some middle class Blacks to reach out to the needs and the concerns of their less advantaged brethren, show increasing signs of developing into two separate communities.

Thus, in the context of Los Angeles, it is increasingly difficult to conceive of common interests among groups who do not themselves have monolithic interests.

Making common interest the basis of coalitions is exacerbated by the more enduring and seemingly intractable issues that derive from the structural concerns cited earlier. Given the economic changes that have pitted some groups against others for scarce social and economic resources, conflicting interests have begun to emerge around at least four central areas: Jobs, education, crime, and the role of government.


Since the rebellion, the issue of jobs has become a centripetal force in intergroup relations in Los Angeles. While most studies indicate that there is relatively little or no displacement of Blacks by immigrants in the labor market, public opinion polls consistently show that Blacks are more likely than any other racial group to believe that immigrants take jobs away from native-born Americans. (Oliver and Johnson:449)

The most general expression of this belief in Los Angeles was the action of Danny Bakewell and the Brotherhood Crusade which picketed rebuilding sites after the riots in an attempt to ensure that Black labor was involved in the rebuilding of South Central Los Angeles. (Boyarsky:b2) Many Blacks look at Latinos going to work everyday and ask why they themselves do not do not have jobs? While at the same time, many Latinos look at Blacks who are not working and perceive Blacks as lazy and irresponsible. Thus, two groups ravaged by poverty are divided by their diverse experience in the labor market.


Education, like jobs, appears on its face to be an area of common interest for the emerging multiethnic majority. The lack of education, or poor education, is directly related to economic disadvantage. It would thus appear that issues such as the reform of public education would be in the interest of all of these groups. But, like the issue of jobs, separate interests permeate the educational arena, reflecting both cultural and structural issues. Nascent cultural conflicts exist over the issue of bilingualism in the schools. Whites, Blacks, and other native-born English speakers express a certain degree of concern over the importance of bilingual education for non-English speakers the recent thrust of the English-only amendments is but one example.(Horton:578)

Blacks are concerned on a number of fronts. Given that Blacks and Latinos share school facilities more often than Whites and Latinos, Black parents express a certain hostility to bilingualism, fearing that it will hamper their children’s already fragile commitment to education.

A Black father in a focus group immediately following the riots noted that he moved his child out of the Lynwood District following a parent-teacher conference in which ” the teacher comes and tells me that he’s (his son) sleeping in class.” The father finds out from his son that he is sleeping because “They’re all speaking Spanish.”(LASUI:1992)

Likewise, this issue has a structural side to it as well. Blacks are concerned that bilingualism will become another screening device to deny Blacks access to both teaching positions and administrative positions in public bureaucracies.

Proponents of bilingualism, on the other hand, rightfully point out the increasing necessity of a bilingual curricula as the proportion ofd nonnative English-speaking students mushrooms. Thus, education becomes another forum where access to jobs, prestige, and income become the basis for differing multiethnic interests.


Another area of apparent common interest is in the fight against street crime. Crime, especially street crime, affects communities of color much more seriously than Anglo areas. However, immigrant and native minorities have far different interests and opinions regarding how crime should be addressed. For Blacks and native Latinos, the “get tough, more police, longer jail sentences” strategy is viewed with a certain amount of suspicion. While these policies are generally perceived as valid, there is a concern that these policies will disproportionately adversely affect the youth in their communities.

Police brutality will increase, youth will end up with criminal records that affect their ability to get a job, and long sentences will lead to the development of a hardened criminal subculture. On the other side, recent immigrants who are already involved in entrepreneurial activities find the “get tough on crime” agenda the seemingly panacea for a life of constant threat on the streets. Mired in some of the most dangerous and vulnerable areas of the city, this group sees street crime as their biggest enemy in the fight for economic and physical survival. Their concern is immediate and a heavy handed police and judiciary is seen as the most efficient means to address the issue.

Role of Government

Finally, on the ideological level, there are some systematic differences between native and immigrant minorities. Native minorities see the role of government in much more positive ways. After decades of fighting for basic civil right, the state is seen as an important protector of those rights. Legislation designed to bar discrimination in employment, public settings, education and housing are viewed as necessary and important implements to secure these rights.

The role of government is to intervene, to make the playing field fair, and, to insure that minorities are protected from the abuses of the majority. Immigrant minorities, particularly those who have a strong entrepreneurial impulse, are much less sanguine about the role of government. They are more likely to resemble “Republicans” in their laissez faire view of the role of government. This is particularly the case in the area of any state intervention in the economy an area in which native minorities have been calling for greater involvement, not less.

Taken together, the preceding issues portend that it will be highly unlikely for the multicultural coalition to emerge. They essentially show that a narrow approach to coalitions based on common interests and ideologies almost dooms the development of multiethnic coalitions from the start.

The Crisis of Progressive Politics: The 1993 Los Angeles Mayoral Election

The second largest city in the US., Los Angeles is home to a durable and powerful biracial coalition the twenty year alliance that sustained Tom Bradley’s mayoralty. Principally built by African Americans and liberal Jews, the Bradley coalition grew to encompass business and labor, Latinos and Asian Americans.

But Los Angles itself has changed dramatically in recent years. In the wake of devastating civil violence in 1992, the Bradley coalition, already deteriorating fell from power with the election of a conservative Republican as mayor in 1993. The Black and White populations in the city were challenged by a huge rise in other groups, particularly Latino and Asian Americans. Thus, Los Angeles has moved from the model of biracial politics to the more problematic center of multiethnic political theorizing, severe social conflict, and the rollback of minority gains. The more vexing issue is the uncertainty about direction and vision. On what basis should coalitions be built color, class, race, or some other common factor? Two prominent paths for progressive politics are rainbow and biracial coalitions.

In the “rainbow” theory, coalitions can best be formed among people of color, with the participation of a small number of progressive Whites. The alliance will be held together by a common alienation from a White-dominated society, along with a progressive ideology and common economic interests. It’s roots lie in the theory of coalition espoused in Carmichael and Hamilton’s Black Power, calling on African Americans to build coalitions not on liberal ideology but on self interest and a more radical critique of the system.(Carmichael and Hamilton) It’s popularity grew with the naming and promotion of the coalition by Jesse Jackson in his presidential campaigns.

The rainbow model contrasts with the biracial or interracial coalition, in which minority unity is supplemented by extensive links to liberal and moderate Whites, The most prominent White participants in such coalitions are Jews. Shared liberal ideology allows members of these coalitions to temporarily build bridges across racial lines. Such coalitions have provided the basis for the rise of minority political power in a wide variety of settings and for the Bradley coalition in Los Angeles.(Browning, Marshall and Tabb)

Despite the Riordan election being a sort of ideological anomaly, it was nonetheless very important. It marked a powerful shift at city hall from a Westside-minority coalition to a Valley-centered regime with limited minority power. A feature of the Bradley years had been the dominance of city commissions by liberals from Westside and minority areas.(Sonenshein:Ch9) Riordan was in a position to change the direction of the government, and more important, to establish the leadership credibility of the conservative side. If he were to succeed, he would place progressives in a weakened position for some time to come. And in time this might lead to a more conservative electorate.

In the short run, however, there was not a fundamental shift to the right among the cities voters. Underlying the Riordan victory were two other important factors: interest conflicts among the city’s groups and the quality of the leadership in various communities. Research on interracial coalitions suggests that ideology, interest and leadership are the determining factors in the formation and survival of such alliances.(Sonenshein)

By 1993, the public’s perception of life in Los Angeles had reached critical lows, moved steadily along by the fear of crime and disorder, and then exponentially by the riots in 1992. LA was a very unhappy city, not just in the inner city areas, and certainly in the suburban San Fernando Valley. White disaffection with the status quo was less visible, but given the White dominance of the voter rolls, it carried a great electoral punch.

Interminority conflict had been growing as well for a number of years; and the city became even more crowded, grittier and crime-ridden as groups contended over spaces that had previously been separate. Approximately 400,000 more people lived in Los Angeles than a decade before. The engine driving the population increase was immigration by Latinos and Asians. Suddenly the immigration issue was becoming explosive.

All this took place in the midst of a blistering recession that hit LA and all of California extremely hard. A major proportion of all jobs lost nationally were lost in California, particularly in Southern California.

South Central Los Angeles, once a Black bastion, is now a contested area among Blacks, Latinos and Korean American storekeepers.(Oliver and Johnson:449) Koreatown is now divided between Korean Americans and Latinos. The near San Fernando Valley, once all White, is now heavily Latino. The notion that Los Angeles was living a charmed urban life, immune from the difficulties of other big cities was destroyed in the violence of April 1992. Korean American stores were attacked in both South Central LA and in Koreatown.

The 1993 mayoral election coincided with the sudden disappearance of a whole generation of leaders. Within a very short span, Mayor Tom Bradley, Police Chief Daryl Gates, District Attorney Ira Reiner, and county supervisor Kenneth Hahn left office. Those who remained in office were either too raw and new, or too tied to their own communities to build coalitions. Others made their deals with Richard Riordan. Few who would lead at the grass roots had the clout or the interest in building citywide coalitions. Never in the thirty-year span of biracial politics had there been so few well-known people trying to do this work. The most widely known progressive leaders in the city was probably the new police chief from Philadelphia, Willie Williams.

Beyond the fall of these leaders was the loss of confidence created by the devastating violence of 1992. The Watts uprising of 1965 brought confidence to progressives. They were out of power, and could view the violence as a failure of the conservatives sin power.(Sonenshein) No such view could be credible in 1992, after nearly twenty years of biracial liberal rule. The fiasco of turning over the reconstruction of South Central to businessman Peter Ueberroth bespoke a sense of weakened legitimacy at city hall. And would that not be indirectly an argument for the election of a businessman like Riordan a year later?

Conclusion The 1993 election of Richard Riordan was a [powerful defeat for progressive politics in LA. Already fading as the new decade came in, the ruling biracial coalition lost its way completely after the civil unrest of 1992. With its leaders aging or leaving office, with an electorate disenchanted with government policies and with the state of their city, circumstances favored the conservative outsider with unlimited funds and a simple message.

But the meaning of the election was much more complex than a simple shift to the right. The ideological basis of coalition politics remained intact, and in that sense the Riordan campaign represented an accommodation to the overall liberal/moderate nature of the city’s voters. Even an ineffective liberal candidate got 46 percent of the vote. The ideological potential also counted for less than in the past, now that the city was filled with interest conflicts and uncertain leadership. After Yorty’s defeat in 1969 to Tom Bradley, liberalism was weaker as an electoral base than it is today, but leadership and interest were far stronger in the direction of successful coalition and victory.

The persisting debate between rainbow and biracial coalition politics finally led to the defeat of both. The rainbow model, by contrast to the interracial approach, is too narrow to be successful. If progressives concede the bulk of the White vote to the conservatives, and confine their minority appeals to the rainbow ideology, then they will be facing defeat for a long time to come. Latinos and Asian Americans must be approached on their own terms, not simply as shades of the rainbow. Their interests are unique, and their concerns must be taken seriously. Jews should not be arbitrarily excluded from progressive coalitions, they still represent the single greatest link between minority communities and Whites. It is crucial to build cross-town coalitions, not simply to try and build an inner-city alliance against everybody else.

To hold power, progressives need to realize that the other side is more formidable than in the past. Conservatives have gone beyond trashy demagoguery or at least they do not need to prime the pump anymore and are arguing that they can govern. This approach makes them a devastating threat to take control of the center. And the center matters again in urban politics; if progressives want justice and conservatives want peace, the balance of power increasingly rests with those who want both peace and justice.

In the broadest sense, the 1993 LA elections shows the importance of the debate between biracial and a rainbow model of minority politics. In the long run, the cost of unexamined assumptions on this question may be profound. the rollback of hard-won minority political gain. To apply the lessons of biracial coalition politics to a new generation of progressives in LA is the most important task in the years to come.

Politics in Opera Imprint

Information Viva la Liberta! – Politics in Opera by Anthony Arblaster is published by Verso in 1992 in London, Great Britain. It was the book’s first edition and publication. The book contains 340 pages of text, no illustrations, and includes a tables of contents, nine main chapters, conclusion, notes and and an index. The chapters start with the period of modern politics, the French Revolution in 1789 and with “Mozart: Class Conflict and Enlightenment” from that period till modern opera / musicals in “Democratic Opera: Victims as Heroes”. All nine chapters are written by the same author, Anthony Arblaster.

Each chapter tries to concentrate on one to a few composers from the same period who share similar political views and actions. Each chapter can be viewed as an individual work / essay. The nine chapters follow the time frame sequentially and are respectively: Ch. 1 Mozart: Class Conflict and Enlightenment, Ch. 2 Opera and Revolution, Ch. 3 Patria Oppressa: Rossini, Bellini, Donizetti and Risorgimento (Nationalism I), Ch. 4 Verdi: the Liberal Patriot, Ch. 5 Wagner: from Revolution to Racism, Ch. 6 Russia, Czechoslovakia and a Footnote on England (Nationalism II), Ch. 7 Women in Opera, Ch. 8 Interlude – Opera without Politics: Puccini and Strauss and Ch. 9 Democratic Opera: Victims as Heroes.

The introduction and conclusion helps in giving coherence to the vast time frame of two hundread years and the different emphasis on political of composers in their works. The detailed index is also helpful in the cross referencing a particular work or composer which might be mentioned in different chapters for comparisons. The notes offer a detailed bibliography with chance for further reference material on the issue of politics in opera. General Summary Although the book does not formally state the meaning of “politics”, the definition used hroughout the book is the “beliefs about how a country ought to be governed” instead of politics as in political power and actions or activities.

The book also presents the argument of social context at the particular period and place as “politics” and that if opera lacks the political element (social context), it lacks a convincing element in which communication and mutual consensus among composer and audience would be neglected, that opera cannot be ‘pure’ music. Music and especially opera has to be out of ‘something’, a ‘something’ that lies outside and beyond the music itself and in many instances, political beliefs play are a ajor part in it. The book’s intend is not to illustrate politics as the major cause or result of opera but that the influence exist and to refute the common downplay and negligence of politics in opera from critics.

In all chapters, the author follows a similar pattern in presenting his arguments. First, the history and beliefs of the composer in various stages of his life is discussed. Letters and books (in case of Wagner) of the composer are presented as evidence. The viewpoint of the composer in that should opera include politics is also discussed. Individual operas are then discussed, citing articular portions of the libretto as reference and evidence. The story lines for the operas are also discussed in detail.

The audience’s reaction and the popularity at the time of the initial performance is presented. Critics of different periods for the interpretation of the work is also quoted to give a more subjective point of view on the issue. Finally, for each chapter, a brief conclusion on the period or the composer is given and the central themes are reiterated. Chapter Summeries Although Mozart by no means was a political person, his works were cited as the dawn of modern opera with its certain political meaning in chapter one.

In his operas, there were the ideas of class and sex conflicts and war. Class conflicts involved the abuse of aristocratic position and rise of the common people in both Le nozze di Figaro and Don Giovanni. The sex war occures in Le nozze di Figaro and Cosi fan tutte where women should be treated with respect, rather than assuming in age old chauvinist way that is the women rather than men who are to be mistrusted in matters of love and sex. In Die Zauberflote, the moment of hope and optimism after the French Revolution can easily be seen where light and wisdom triumph over the Queen of the Night and superstition.

Arblaster in chapter three and six argues that music, and therefore opera played a central role in creating a sense of national identity and rallying people to the national cause in the various European countries. Often opera provided a forum for the expression of subversive political sentiments disguised to get around census in patriotic arias or choruses. In Italy’s case, the most explicit of all for the independence of Italy came from Rossini’s Guillaume Tell. Arblaster also states that all three operas of Rossini: Mose in Egitto, Maometto Secondo and Guillaume Tell are about national oppression and use of chorus in hich arias are not for individuals but of whole nations.

All three depicted the idea of militant liberal nationalism. Other composers of opera of Italy and other countries spread similar ideas of nationalism in which helped to lead to the rise of the independent nations. However, the most important emphasis of the book is placed on two composers: Verdi and Wagner. Arblaster uses one-third of the book to portray Verdi as the liberal patriot with his heart for the Republic and Wagner as the German with strong nationalist, racist and anti-Semitic views. It is also in Chapter 5 devoted to Wagner that the author changes the format to a more rgumentative fashion.

Other critic’s arguments are put forth followed by his own rebuttal and presentation of evidence. Verdi was one of the composers with the strongest political convictions and at one time even actually ran and succeeded in entering the national parliament. However, the most important aspect is that he allowed himself and his personality to be in his music and his operas, and lacks the feeling of distance between creator and creation that we find in Mozart or Rossini. One of his great display of nationalism was stated in Nabucco with the High Priest, Zaccaria which famous chorus ‘Va pernsiero’ was spontaneously sung at

Verdi’s funeral, sixty years after its initial performance. In the 1840s, Verdi’s operas could be roughly divided into primarily dramas for individuals which would include Ernani, I due Foscari, Il corsaro, I masnadieri and Luisa Miller with Alzira and Macbeth as borderline cases. The second category, which are primarily political, public and patriotic include Attila, Giovanna d’ Arco and La battaglia di Legnano. Issues such as conflict between patriotic duty and personal emotions in Giovanna d’Arco and Aida are discussed. Italian patriots, against barbarian invaders as in Attila are also portrayed.

After the defeat of the Italian praise and fall of the Roman republic in 1849, Verdi switches to more personal dilemmas and social matters. Rigoletto and Boccanegra were both about class conflict and La traviata about social issues. Near the end of his career, Don Carlos was targeted at the Catholic Church indicating that is more powerful and more ruthless than the state. Aida, ended Verdi’s line of political or party political operas with anti-clericalism sentiments.

Although Wagner’s works were adopted as cultural symbols by Hitler and the Third Reich and Wagner shared many of the anti-Semitic and racist views of the Nazis, Arblaster stressed that that oes not indicate that Wagner would approve the actions of the Nazis. He simply states that the racist and nationalistic views of Wagner in his operas, or music-dramas cannot be ignored. Rienzi, was against aristocratic rule and carried a strong suggestion of fascism which many say turned Hitler’s ambitions away from art towards politics after seeing the first performance.

The Ring, which spanned twenty-six years carried different political meaning during various stages of the opera corresponding to Wagner’s beliefs in life. In Die Walkure, there was incest which in a way signified ‘pure blood’ and ‘pure race’. In Siegfried, there was thinly isguised racism with Siegfried’s treatment of Mime. Siegfried, arrogant, aggressive and above all mindless Nordic hero was supposed to be the ‘most perfect human being’. In Das Rheigold, Wagner’s obsession with the ‘fire-cure’ to cleanse the world was indicated by the doom of the gods even with the return of the gold.

With Chapter 7, Arblaster discusses the social role of women in opera and that they are almost always the victims but are given more weight and sympathy in opera than in the real world. Puccini and Strauss in Chapter 8 are shown as composers who try to compose non-political operas in an increasing political orld and how this affects the coherence and validity of their operas. Finally in Chapter 9, modern day opera to Broadway musicals are included stating that opera is no longer about the elite or privileged but about common people as heroes.

Critique Arblaster in both the introduction and conclusion emphasized that music was the basic and the most important element of opera. However, throughout the book, his discussions were around the libretto giving little reference to the music and how they express political, nationalistic or patriotic feelings. He had no detailed analysis of the orchestra or the score. At best, he indicated the nstruments in a particular section. This might be due to the strong history but weak music background of the author.

Arblaster sometimes also use the original versions of operas rather than the revised or the version that we can obtain. This might provide limited benefit to our studies and practical use. The author also stretches the definition of politics to the social context in the opera, especially in the chapters of Mozart and women in opera. The social context might just be a background in which an action takes place instead of the beliefs of the composer in which he would want to spread to increase awareness.

For example, in Le nozze di Figaro, there is class and sex conflict. However, theses are ideas which were rising at the time but not politics which are beliefs which would help govern the country. Opera in many cases spread ideals and visions but that does not equal to spreading ideas of politics. Opera carries more meaning than sheer entertainment but not necessarily politics. This also give rises to the pinpointing of certain parts of the libretto to establish the political element of the opera. The opera might to a great extent non-political and trying to express other ideas but by extracting and emphasizing these elements, the eader might get a wrong intention of what the opera is about.

For example, although in the conclusion the author stressed Wagner’s musical achievements are not impacted by his racist views, the reader would concentrate too much on these controversial and politically non-correct libretto of the composer while neglecting the music and the other meanings to the great work such as The Ring. To conclude, Anthony Arblaster might have tried too hard in that instead of looking for a line that would connect all the operas, he searched too deep for individual evidence for each opera for the composers he discussed.

Federalism Report Essay

When the revolutionary war was over, the American colonists had found themselves free of British domination. Due to the fact that they were free from British control, they wanted to create their own system of government where tyranny would be practically diminished. Originally, The Articles of Confederation connected the separate states. But this document gave the central government no power of its own. Because of this, the states had many problems in international politics since they had just found freedom and did not have the respect of other countries.

This caused a lot of thinking and it was decided that a document needed to be created to strengthen the central government and at the same time ensuring the safety of the states. So came to be the constitution. The constitution brought about a division between the American people. These two groups were the federalists, who believed that the constitution was good, and the anti-federalists who thought that the constitution would not be able to protect the rights of the people. These two groups had conflicting views but together, they both wanted the same thing.

The same thing was that the people should control America by the principles of federalism. Both groups, the federalist and anti-federalists recognized the fact that power was being abused. They witnessed what had happened in the war and that their had been negative effects of power and the result was very clear. British vocation had made them very aware of the threat of corruption. Therefore, they wanted to make a government that would ensure the duration of a just republic. The Federalists exclaimed that the constitution was the only way they could reach this goal of a just society.

As James Wilson had said, the constitution would not give all the power to the legislature unless it was legally written down to ensure power was not mistreated. In the constitution, it does allow Congress to make laws that help out the government in the area of execution of foreign powers. The views of the anti-federalists were obviously different. They believed that the power given to the congress was not safe since it put them too much in control. Hence they created the Bill of Rights to “establish justice, ensure domestic tranquillity and provide for the common defense…

The anti-federalists feared that the actual people would not be fairly represented by their new government since they would have the power to get rid of the individual rights of the people. The Bill of Rights claims it is for and by the people. Especially since America is so large, it does not ensure everyone’s opinion would be heard. Many people did not like the idea of having representatives from each state because one man can not bring forth many different opinions. Anti-federalists believe that liberty only is present when there are few people and they can ctually get their voice projected.

In a large population, like America, the citizens do not get Individual freedom and are deprived of their rights. Yet, Madison a federalist stated that in a small republic, tyranny could be much more assessable since it would be easier to dominate others. Unlike in a large republic which is made up of many views where as it is less chance that a few can dominate others. Even in individual states it is easy to elect officials since people can be easily controlled when there aren’t many people.

In other ord, the more the people, the less chance of bribery and inducement. Another benefit of a larger republic is that there would be a variety of people representing them and there would be many candidates to pick from. Ensuring the highest quality government. In a small republic, options would be very select making it an unfair election. Besides finding officials to best represent the people, there were many other controversial topics that faced the American people. The topic of taxation brought about many different ideas of what should be.

The anti-federalists believed that by forming a new system would be very challenging because that is what they know and use. The first problem they found was that states would not want to have two state taxes. This is unfair to the people. They also argued that a state tax was unfair since each state was different with different needs. This could very well destroy a state economically while other states are fine. The federalists believed that congress had all the right to have direct taxation in ensure the safety of national security.

The claimed that the constitution was created to make sure the sovereign power of the states was protected. The state legislature was responsible to elect two senators and the presidential electoral process. As stated before, both sides wanted to create a country where the peoples voice was heard and tyranny would not happen, but the way to accomplish this was a conflicting. The topic of power and who got what had torn America apart but soon enough, they formed a perfect solution in which both views where united to protect the citizens rights.

How the Rich Benefit from the poor

The United States is the most developed capitalist economy in the world. The markets within the economy provide profit-motivated companies endless potential in the pursuance of pecuniary accumulation. Throughout the twentieth-century competitive companies have implemented modernized managerial procedures designed to raise profits by reducing unnecessary costs. These cost-saving procedures have had a substantial effect on society and particularly members of the working class.

Managers and owners of these competitive and self-motivated companies have consistently worked throughout this century to exploit the most controllable component of the production process: the worker. The worker has been forced by the influence of powerful and affluent business owners to work in conditions hazardous to their well being in addition to preposterously menial compensation. It was the masterful manipulation of society and legislation through strategic objectives that the low-wage workers were coerced into this position of destitute.

The strategies of the affluent fragment of society were conceived for the selfish purpose of monetary gain. The campaigns to augment the business position within the capitalist economy were designed to weaken organized labor, reduce corporate costs, gain legislative control and reduce international competition at the expense of the working class. The owners have gained and continue to gain considerable wealth from these strategies. To understand why the owners of the powerful companies operate in such a selfish manner, we must look at particular fundamentals of both capitalism and corporation strategy.

Once these rudiments are understood, we will more clearly relate the perspective of the profit-seeking corporations of America. Legal discussion will also be included to show how the capital possessing elite operate through political parties to achieve their financial objectives. It is the synergist effect of these numerous strategies that have lead to the widening income gap in America, persistent attempts of contraction in workers rights and increased corporate political influence. These campaigns have come at an expense to Americans and will only continue to benefit the affluent society.

The United States is a capitalist economy. In a capitalist economy individuals who wish to gain wealth can invest their capital into markets in hopes of future returns. If this investment gains in value then the investor has earned a return, which can be reinvested. This creates a cycle of investing and reinvesting for potential future return. This wealth creating cycle is a fairly simple concept to understand, but wealthy individuals have learned to fabricate this cycle into different situations. A common form of investment is purchasing and selling of corporate stocks.

The stock market works like all markets on the fundamental theory of supply and demand. The more demand for a stock the higher it is valued and conversely the less demand the less it is valued. Corporations are legal entities which issue stock to investors who purchase them and become shareholders of the company. The risk taken by investors is that when they buy stocks it is possible that the individual company will not do well, or that stock prices will generally weaken. At worst, it is possible to lose entire investments, but no more then that.

Therefor, shareholders of a corporation are not responsible for corporate debts. So, a corporation would be a very attractive type of investment for potential investors to consider. Corporations compete against each other in markets in the United States and around the world. These corporations have employees who perform various functions that contribute to successful strategic goal completion. Corporations often will offer stock incentive plans strategically to employees in positions of importance.

The enticement to employees is to work in a manner that will increase the value of the company and their shares of stock. These incentive plans were strategically developed by major shareholders because the corporate executives felt that people would be motivated to increase their own wealth. Most employees are motivated by money and will work harder when the chance is given for more money. The very nature of this strategy consolidates all the employees to act as one self-motivated entity in the pursuit of monetary accumulation.

In Piven and Clowards Regulating the Poor, this point is illustrated: Capitalism, however, relies primarily upon the mechanisms of a market-the promise of financial rewards or penalties-to motivate men and women to work and to hold them to their occupational tasks (4). The increased motivation of important members of the workforce by the enticing tactics of greed for wealth is a result of strategic planning by the major shareholders of the firm. The cost to these primary shareholders is the stock incentive plans needed additional stock to fulfill, which reduced the valuation of all stocks.

The major shareholders know this devaluation is only temporary because self-motivated employees will act in a manner that will increase the value. The primary concept for discussion purposes is that self-motivated major shareholders have utilized the capitalist theory and thus, created a business compact with employees that will make self-motivated decisions on all levels. The strategy worked and throughout the country employees are busy increasing the value of their stock, but most importantly, they are increasing the value of the major shareholders.

We will see this investing concept throughout most this paper because the wealthy resist adverse conditions with money. The Republican Party remained dominant throughout the 1920s, remaining unaffected by factionalism that plagued the Democratic Party. The party continued to align its platforms with the southern whites, and owners and managers businesses. Even in extraordinary economic times of prosperity for the wealthy, the Republican Party continued to advocate industrial economic values. The primary dilemma to republican business interests was the labor problem.

The Republicans finally concentrated their discussion on four broad approaches to labor problems: the progressive approach, the open shop approach, the efficiency-engineering approach, and the political approach (Zeiger 11). Most businessmen resolved harshly to end labor activism and to quietly continue their profitable business interests. This behavior of this standpoint took the pattern of employer resistance to labor unions, but originally the open shop crusades proved to be the most fruitful in the short-run.

The open shop crusade, now illegal because it gave employers the ability to hire prospective employees on the basis if they belonged or support trade union activities. This restricted the employees ability to strike on a particular issue because they lack the power of numbers that a union possesses and could be replaced. Open shop enthusiasts were a major and vocal part of the Republican Party because of the financial resources they possess. Many republicans determined them intemperate and adherent, and their perspectives were damaging and extreme.

These open shop enthusiasts constituted a vocal and influential segment of the party. They often proved quite effective in their efforts to chastise organized labor, for many Americans shared their concern. Still, many Republicans considered them extreme and doctrinaire, and their views harmful and inexpedient (Zieger 74). It was these Republicans that lamented these controversial assaults on labor problems, such as Herbert C. Hoover who wished to devise a whole new style of labor relations based on the philosophies of efficiency and cooperation.

By 1921 industrial engineers and other experts had developed the Taylor Society, the Federated American Engineering Societies. The Taylor Society was designed to improve the efficiency of a job-place in hopes of reducing severe factory working conditions. This in theory would increase aggregate production, which would lead to more available jobs and lower-unemployment. The main points to be established is that the Republican Party was support by wealthy business owners. The worst opponent of the worker is the wealthy business owner within the Republican Party.

These are the characters that advocate extreme hostile tactics such as the open shop crusades. Regardless, they support the Republican Party financially and therefor the Republican Party acts as their voice politically. One component of the production process that can be controlled by management is automation. Regardless, the employee still performs a necessary function in the production process. The taylorization theory states employers have an incentive to make a job function more efficient.

The increased efficiency results in lower production costs, lower aggregate unemployment rates and higher company profit returns. The industrial revolution was characterized by the widespread replacement of manual labor by machines that could perform the job functions quicker and or at lower costs. The industrial revolution was the result of interrelated fundamental changes that transform smaller market economies into an industrialized economy. Many products that were made at home or in small work units were transferred to large factories.

Since the factories could produce at lower costs the product could be sold at a lower cost. This competitive advantage drove the smaller competition out of business. The people who profited from this effect were the owners of the mechanisms of production. This marks the beginning of an era where these wealthy owners would prosper over the working class. The aggregate effect of the increase production efficiency lead to the development of massive industrial parks. These parks expanded the scale of production dramatically and became concentrated in cities and large towns.

Since traditional production relied heavily in the needs of local subsistence it gave way to the more market orientated production devices. This economically forced large numbers of the rural poor who moved to towns and cities to become the wage seeking labor force necessary to run rapidly expanding industries. This extensive movement of communities had a considerable result on labor prices and ultimately constrained these people to become the urban poor. The effect of the Industrial Revolution on American society was substantial.

Income following workers increased the population of large towns and cities severely. From 1860 to 1900 the number of urban areas in the United States expanded fivefold. Even more striking was the explosion in the growth of big cities. In 1860 there were only 9 American cities with more than 100,000 inhabitants; by 1900 there were 38. Labor markets were flooded with eligible workers seeking employment and through pure labor competition they were willing to work in any environment for any wage. The environments factory laborers were forced to work in were considered by many Americans to be despicable.

Regardless of the factory working conditions, many people were obligated to take the employment. Employment was necessary to generate income to support oneself and family. As a result, the Exploited workers received no power to contract with the owners of production. Instinctively managers and owners of capital have contrasting labor interests then those perspectives of employees. Wages and profits incomes divide the value that production adds, so by definition, labor and capital interests often are on opposing sides of social policy that affects the price level of the real wage.

The real wage can be regarded as the price that equates the supply of and demand for labor, (Foley and Michl 70). Owners and mangers of capital seek a flexible labor force, which is counter for the workers desire for stability and security in their employment and conditions of life. At this point in history, the affluent society of the United States was generating immense wealth by capitalizing on the poorer workers needs for minimal financial requirements. The wealthy invested their capital into factory production devises, which drove out smaller competing business from the market place.

This profit seeking strategy worked because it economically forced resource deficient workers into the cities. The supply for labor increased, which coerced many employees to work for the affluent owners at a corresponding cut-rate real wage rate. These events began to illustrate a scenario that would set the scene for modifications in workers rights. The laborers had to develop a strategy to counteract the poverty-stricken working conditions imposed upon them by the owners of the factories. The labor market surplus further developed the workers dependency upon the self-motivated employer.

Trade unions were formed to advocate alleviation of some dependency and support the workers efforts by gaining a quantifiable measure of power over their economic standing. Initially, the trade unions had limited success until they exercised the real true power workers have over employers: The strike. The strike in labor relations is a completely organized halt of work and production carried out by a large group of employees. The purpose of the strike is either enforcing workers demands that relate to unfair labor practices and or to employment conditions created by the self-motivated owner.

The response to labor unions by business owners was the use of open shop tactics. Employers organizations and business groups commenced a vigorous campaign for the open shop. Armed with the then-legal yellow-dog contract, by which an employer could require a prospective employee to agree not to join or support a union (Zeiger 20). The wealthy opposed the trade unions use of the concept of collective bargaining because it advocated the subject of workers rights. Collective bargaining is where individuals with interest in the matter negotiate their stipulations until a compromise is found.

The wealthy industrialists despise that their interests would are in constant danger by collective bargaining. In response, Americas industrialist launched a well-financed general attack on the very concept of collective bargaining (Zeiger 20). The use of collective bargaining proved to be an effective tool in bargaining with owners and managers. This meant that workers have finally developed a technique through labor unions that competently combats the proprietors regimen.

During the 1920s and 1930s, strikes occurred as a natural feature of nationwide unions of the American Federation of Labor and other groups soon to be recognized as the Congress of Industrial Organizations. Striking had become a major weapon in the labor movement and was threatening the profitability of the production owners. The strikes and threatened strikes, the radical agitation, the sharp industrial depression, and the whole atmosphere of discord and unrest that pervaded the country endangered the Republic and demanded action (Zeiger 74).

The wealthy republicans had to promote an offensive campaign to end this threat. So as previously stated, they adopted well-financed strategies aimed at the courts to obtain injunctions, which would legally prevented strikes in specific circumstances. The success of these strategies is confirmed in Zeigers Republicans and Labor 1919-1929, The 1920s marked the climax of antilabor judicial activities. (260) The basis the owner persuaded the courts with was that their property was either damaged or threatened and that they were powerless without legal solutions.

It was the possession of financial resources that allowed the wealthy to recruit and employ powerful and persuasive lawyers. Legally persuading the courts of law with expensive lawyers was the sole purpose of the use of financial power to authoritatively force workers back into the production factories and produce profit for the owners. From the perspective of the wealthy, the application of financial resources to generate future income is honorable capitalism regardless of the situations context.

The power of wealth even can influence courts of law through lawyers and thereby, give the wealthy extreme power in legislation during this period in history. The Democratic Party during this era was experiencing outbursts of factionalism. The convention in 1924 was racial divided by southern whites and the northern urban blacks. The future success of the party was depended on the need for a change. The strategy developed by the leaders was to begin the alteration of the Democratic Party appeal. The leaders of the Democratic Party realized that poor people could be a powerful voting coalition.

The great depression of 1929 forced millions of people into unemployment and poverty. These unemployed workers practiced approaches of protest through disruption demonstrations. These massive demonstrations help encouraged the working class voters hostility and defection of the Republican Party. The Democratic Party thus capitalizing on this realigned their platform to advocate the needs of poor people with the intent to gain votes. This re-alignment of party policy angered the southern democrats whose views were becoming more Republican.

Having lost the southern support, the Democratic Party became the primary political instrument of vocalization and evolution of labor class politics. During the electoral realignment of the 1930s, the Democrats gained the overwhelming allegiance of most manual workers and their unions, (Piven and Cloward 421). The alignment of the working class with the Democratic Party coalition developed two powerful strategies to combat the wealthy and business leaders. As stated previously, the workers held extreme striking power over the means of production in factories.

Now they had power in the organization of the working class population and could coordinate their votes to consolidate political force for their perspectives. The concept is similar to how the employees of a corporation have incentives to pursue company goals as a team. The main political project of labor parties became the use of state power to develop the welfare state (Piven and Cloward 21). Therefor, in the 1930s the democrats became a party of vigorous government intervention in the economy and thus the social realm.

The goals of the party were to regulate, redistribute economic wealth and to protect people who are in need of assistance in an increasingly competitive society. The depression of 1929 and the coming of Franklin D. Roosevelt into the presidency with the New Deal help syndicate and enlarge the commitment to governmental expansions of assistance programs and industry regulation. Due to the economic conditions of the era, the advocators of economic assistance proved to be attractive to society and The Democratic Party flourished.

The result of these campaigns was increased workers rights and a seemingly practical welfare state. Massive unemployment during the Great Depression created a socially dysfunctional society. Without the ability to create income through employment, basic physiological necessities were not being met. When large numbers of people are suddenly barred from their traditional occupations, the entire structure of social control is weakened and may even collapse (Piven and Cloward 7). During the depression, society experienced this symptom, which resulted in massive protests.

The Democratic Party under the direction of Roosevelt recognized the need for government intervention. The party aligned itself with the working class and began to advocate workers rights legislation. Under Democratic Party control, federal funds were used to establish the Works Progress Administration, now known as the Work Project Administration, which distributed assistance to citizens in need of subsistence. In 1935, Roosevelt again used federal funds to create public works programs, which gave employment opportunities to the unemployed.

As a result of declining republican political power, these and other initiatives were introduced to help increase workers rights. These workers rights that the Democratic Party supported were the same rights that the Republican Party had worked so hard to repress from regulation. In addition to passing labor rights laws, legislative action was taken against the wealthy industrialists use of legal injunctions. These lawful injunctions were used as an intimidating scheme to suppress union membership and ultimately strikes.

In 1932 the U. S. ngress enacted the Norris-La Guardia Anti-Injunction Act. This legislation severely limited the self-motivated employers use of injunctions as a standard operating procedure against strikes. Another tactic of wealthy employers to combat unions was the use of the open shop strategy. Abolishment of the open shop regime was usually one of the primary demands by labor unions in collective bargaining. The National Labor Relations Act of 1935, known as the Wagner act, because of its sponsor Robert Wagner was adopted and help end the open shop crusades.

This act federally guaranteed workers the right to organize through trade unions, use of collective bargaining and firmly incorporated a set of employment standards. It also restricted employers from practicing pre-employment tactics such as the open shop strategy. This reduced the power that republican business representatives could exert over the prospective and employed worker. In addition, the federal mandated right of collective bargaining guaranteed workers negotiation hearings in which employers had to listen to the workers needs. Congress also established the Social Security Act, which is a form of social welfare.

In 1938, the United States Congress implemented the Fair Labor Standards Act. This primary functions of this act was to eliminate labor conditions that are dangerous to works health and productivity, it also established a minimum wage to eliminate the disastrous effects of high labor supplies, overtime wages were developed to eliminate excessive work weeks, and finally it eliminate oppressive child labor. The result of the Democratic Party effect on legislation during the labor movement is essential a bill of rights granted to the working class of America.

No longer would the wealthy elite of America victimize the low wage working class in such inhumane techniques. Instead, these legislative acts marked the beginning of a new challenge to the Republican Party. Now the party had to reclaim lost legal ground by slowly returning to power of the United States Government. The legislative mandates of the Roosevelt era helped establish what is now known as the labor movement. Society was suffering adverse conditions and the Democratic Party mobilized the people into a political voice.

The Republican Party was essentially powerless, regardless of their financial position because government officials were responding to public outcries. This historically proves that when conditions are unfair, a political party can mobilize society and gain control. Roosevelt also initiated measures that resulted in higher taxes on the rich and restricted private utility companies. Although these combinations did not stop the wealthy republicans from continuing to gain additional wealth, it only slowed their progress.

History when again prove that the Republican Party would come back into power and restrict the rights of workers. This occurred when a Republican majority Congress passed the Labor-Management Relations Act of 1947, known as the Taft-Hartley Act evidencing this reoccurring political phenomenon. This act retracted some of the rights that were implemented during the labor movement. These provisions included restricting supervisory employees protection from the NLRA and emphasized the right of employees not to join a labor union.

These restrictions of labor rights were in the interest of the Republican Party and were created to reduce the power previous legislation granted labor unions. The successful creation of this statute reinforces the evidence that wealthy Republicans continually attempt to swindle the blue-collar labor class. Their motives are based within selfish financial greed and capitalist economy theory. This congressional act illustrates the phenomenon that bipartisan control and power is cyclical.

The Democrats did regained majority of congress and implemented numerous anti-business and social interest acts in the 1960s. Due to the political cycle, The Republican Party inevitable would gain control of congress once again, but the question was when? During the economic crisis of the seventies, particularly the great recession of 1973-1975 businesses began to understand their role in the worlds economy. America was importing more then it was exporting, which was creating an unfamiliar and enormous trade deficit. In 1971, for the first time since the 1890s, the U. S. ported more then it exported, (Cohen and Rogers 36) Increased competition from foreign firms posed a substantial threat to American corporations. The result of this threat forced American corporations to compete with globalization. Corporations could no longer produce simple marketing campaigns to develop brand loyal consumers. Global competition forced these companies to produce the highest quality, lowest price and distribute through efficient channels. The international competition however, operating in countries were labor is cheaper, taxes are lower, there is fewer industry regulations and an absence of unions.

In addition to these competitive forces, managers of the corporations must also answer to the wealthy shareholders of the corporation. Many business leaders formed think tanks to devise strategies to compete with this new threat. American business leaders set about developing a political program to shore up profits by slashing taxes and business regulation, lowering wages and welfare spending, and building up American military power abroad, (Piven and Cloward 443). The sources of all of these objectives were rooted within government policies.

These policies would inevitable have to change for these goals to be achieved. So, the corporate elite implemented a political strategy that would slowly form over decades to achieve. Even in modern times the wealthy elitist of society still could influence political matters through the power massive financial resources. During the 1980s business elite continued to align themselves with the Republican Party for it conservative ideals. The methods the wealthy corporation shareholders influence legislation during modern times has extremely advanced.

The development of political action committees has encouraged corporations to channel financial contributions into political campaigns. Corporations will develop a PAC, establish a set of issues that it promotes politically. If a politician is campaigning for an election with corresponding views, then it is in the best interest of the PAC to contribute to the campaign. More importantly, corporations are to contribute to groups and individuals not directly affiliated with a candidate, such as the GOP.

These groups or individuals can register, persuade voters, endorse a platform, advocate a candidate and oppose another. The Supreme Court ruled that the First Amendment of the Constitution protected this type of spending as a form of free speech in its 1976 decision, Buckley vs. Valeo. These donations are referred to as soft money because they are not directly related to a campaign. The absence of regulation on soft money donations results in the option for corporations to contribute millions of dollars to further their political interest.

This advantage has a profound effect in the corporate political strategy. [Corporations] can simply treat politics as a business expense, a budget item like advertising, research and development, or public relations (Clawson, Neustadl, and Weller 109). Through the strategy of the use of campaign contributing soft money, corporations have vastly increased their influence on political issues. This new corporate political influence has succeeded in their campaign to minimize threats to profitability. These threats were reduced most noted during the Reagan years when the Republican Party dominated the government.

The administration has made significant cuts in social spending, particularly in low income programs, and made plain its desire for deeper cuts; achieved a massive, and massively regressive, revision of the Federal tax system in 1981; dramatically scaled back the enforcement of regulations that posed any significant limits to business power, (Cohen and Rogers 38). This success demonstrates the influential power that wealth has over the United States government. The government by definition should act in the best interest of the population and not the elite.

Instead the influx of soft money continues to be unregulated and as proven by the Supreme Court decisions in 1976. This decision closely resembles how the courts protected the rights of employers in the labor disputes of the 1920s. The reasons why the rich corporations target the government are because the government holds the supreme lawful power over the entire population. History has proven to these elitists that with well financed operations targeting campaigning officials over time favorable legislation will be passed. The legislation usually reduces some sort of cost or regulation in that firms industry.

This increases the profitability of the company, which is directly related to the owners wealth. These incremental increases in profits have lead to more investments to further heighten the value of the wealthy. This is apparent by the vast and increasing gap between the rich and the poor in America. The poor are relatively easy targets in comparison to the costs of soft money contributions. In America, it is very difficult for the poor to change their financial status. So, once a person is poor they are generally poor for the rest of their lives.

They will continue to spend their lives spending the little money on the products these corporations provide. In short, the corporations are developing an enlarging consumer base that is dependent upon their products. The middle class is slowly disappearing because of the loss of blue-collar jobs. The loss of blue-collar jobs is a symptom of the increasing presence of globalization. Globalization has privileged companies to outsource their production needs to other countries with lower regulation and labor costs. This resembles much of the labor practices of companies in the 1920s were the labor rights were essentially ignored.

Another easy solution to minimize the firms operating costs is by eliminating valuable jobs. These sometimes massive downsizing satisfied the wealthy stockholders because the firm had lower production costs and higher profitability. Investors often applaud the news of a layoff as a sign of corporate turn-around. The payroll is a large, ongoing liability to the balance sheet, and investors are titillated by anything that reduces it, (Downs 14). History repeats itself as we see that wealthy investors and managers again behave in manners regardless of peoples needs.

The forces unleashed by corporate executions and globalization have brought into the labor market thousands of unskilled job seekers with little or no income. A new underclass has of previously employed individuals has become a nationwide trend in our social and economic condition. These people are forced to take jobs within the service sector and these jobs typical pay wages that are lower then those of manufacturing jobs. These trends have formed a synergetic effect on the growing wealth gap between the rich and the poor.

In todays modern economy companies do not have to worry about the United States government regulating the labor industries in other countries because of jurisdiction. The use of soft money in the United States government has proven that even at home corporations can freely advocate legislation that is favorable to their terms. This has had a profound effect on the income gap in American society. The wealthy possess financial resources that provide enormous opportunities to create more wealth. This need for excessive wealth is deeply rooted into the personalities of these individuals. In America, society considers th

Conservatism And Liberalism

In the world of politics there are two very basic concepts that govern political thought and give rise to policies and laws. These two concepts are conservatism and liberalism. Liberalism supports a more active role of government, policies to help minorities and the disadvantaged, higher spending and more regulation and policies to redistribute wealth through taxation. Conservatism supports a greater reliance on the free market, a market in which the disadvantaged and minorities can support themselves, fewer government regulations, and lower taxes. I am a conservative.

The ideas, which reflect conservative thought and play a role in free market society, are taxation, government regulations, and the minimum wage. These concepts govern the cost of doing business and therefore govern our free market. Being a conservative I believe in a competitive free market society. We should be responsible for ourselves. The stronger the free market the more it will allow minorities and the disadvantaged to develop a sense of dependence and self-reliance. By giving assistance to minorities and the disadvantaged will only make them more dependent on government and society as a whole for their success.

An example to show this idea can be seen in the animal kingdom. If an animal is given assistance they cease to do for themselves. If man stops caring for the animal they can no longer hunt or protect themselves. Therefore they must be assisted for life. If left alone they develop the necessary skills to survive. I believe that if a citizen is allowed to keep more of their income they will spend and invest in ways that are most advantageous for themselves. Spending in the economy will allow for the circulation of money.

For example Middle American family is able to keep more of their income, as a result they have more money to allow for some luxuries such as bringing their clothes to the dry cleaners, or hiring someone to cut their lawn. Therefore more money is circulating and people are supporting themselves and developing a stronger sense of self-worth. People are born with a desire to thrive and the more success one enjoys, the more one wants. Less government regulations is something else I feel is another issue I agree with on being a conservative.

Increase government regulations drive prices higher because the cost of doing business is increased to pay for the regulations. Conservatives believe in reasonable regulations. In a free society, business would not want to harm people by cutting corners. People may file lawsuits against the companies and this would do more harm to the company than if they self regulated themselves. One issue that I have noticed recently is the current debates on the raising of minimum wage. Minimum wage also raises the cost of doing business.

Minimum wage jobs are meant as an entry-level, non-skilled job. These jobs are mostly occupied by young people participating in their first or second job, and are usually unskilled. Conservatives argue that by keeping minimum wage an employer may be able to higher more workers thus allowing more people to receive work experience. Many economists believe that any minimum wage hurts. Minimum wage actually allowing an employer to settle on a wage rather than allowing the free markets to determine what a job is worth.

For example, $6.5 /hr an employer will set that wage for their entry level for unskilled jobs because it is the wage government has set for minimum wage. But if there were no minimum wage, an employer would advertise for a position at a given wage. If that wage did not attract the workers they wanted he might raise that wage to attract better workers. Therefore allowing the market to determine the value of a job. Therefore, the role of government should be to set guidelines, but to basically get out of the way and let society work. The concept of being a conservative falls into my character more than being a liberal.

The Term Assassination

The term assassination refers to murder for political reasons. In the United States with its democratic ideals, change should be brought about through the ballot. However, American History has shown us that this is not true. Abraham Lincoln, James A. Garfield, William McKinley and John F. Kennedy were all assassinated by supposedly troubled individuals that believed their ideals could not be brought about by a ballot. Assassinations are cruel, unexpected acts that often have enormous effects on the people of a nation. John F. Kennedy was young, handsome, vigorous, and the first president to be born in the twentieth century.

America knew him as a naval war hero, the “leading man”(writer, Norman Mailer). To Americans it seemed as though what went on in “Camelot” could solve all the world’s problems. America put their trust in the president and in return he gave them confidence. As a democrat he inherited the New Deal commitment to the social security system. With programs like “The New Frontier”, the country was promised an end to racial discrimination especially in the South, federal aid to education, medical care for the elderly, and government action to stop the recession.

Kennedy promised to place a man on the moon before the Soviets, contain communism, and reduce cold war tensions, and urban violence. Kennedy’s liberal policies however were not always successful, and conservatives argued that many were seriously flawed. So when John F. Kennedy, the 35th president of the United States was assassinated on November 22nd, 1963, he became a victim of a violent American mentality he sought to curb. America became grief-stricken, and remorseful that at a time of such optimism and hope, such a horrific event could occur.

Countless mourners all over the world grieved the passing of a fallen hero, and the course of history never could have been the same. President Antonio Segni of Italy said upon hearing the news that it was a,” very grave loss for all humanity”. Journalist Godfrey Hodyson wrote,” In retrospect, people look back to Friday, November 22nd, 1963, as the end of a time of hope, the beginning of a time of trouble. ” This was the cold demise of “Camelot”. Perhaps what was most astonishing was the amount of conspiracy fabricated after the assassination.

From the culpability of federal organizations to aliens, American media indulged itself in fantastic thoughts, only adding to public hysteria. The assassination was like no other event in American History, and the cry of conspiracy provoked costly and arduous investigation that changed America forever. Explaining exactly how and why John F. Kennedy died is perhaps more difficult today that it was on Friday, November 22nd, 1963. Lee Harvey Oswald was born in New Orleans, in 1939, into poverty without a father. Many of his whereabouts are unknown prior to his navy service.

A turning point in his life occurred in 1954(L. Fletcher Prouty) when Ethel and Judith Rosenberg were convicted of being spies. As a result he became interested in Marxist philosophy. He joined he navy in 1956, and served in Japan, often working in top-secret areas. In September of 1959, he received an early discharge from the Navy, and moved to Russia. In 1962 the U. S. State Department paid for his passage home. To this day, no one knows why. While in the United States, he created an unapproved chapter of the Fair Play for Cuba Committee (FPCC).

It was a pro-Castro organization, which promoted a communist America. He printed and disseminated “Hands off Cuba” flyers. As a result he was brought to jail. While in jail he is reported to have spoken with an FBI agent. This is another oddity that occurred in his life. In 1963, he left his wife in New Orleans, and moved to Texas, where he often traveled to Mexico City. He applied for Cuban and Soviet entrance visas in the embassy. After Mexican Authorities recognize Oswald’s name from the assassination, they produce a picture of a different man.

Could there have been an imposter? Why? One of the many questions that go unanswered. In October of 1963, Oswald returned to the U. S. , and got a job in a warehouse in Dallas. It was here that he is reported to have killed John F. Kennedy. Doctors at the Dallas Parkland Hospital pronounced President Kennedy dead at 1:00 that afternoon. At 2:48, Vice President Lyndon B. Johnson was sworn in aboard Air Force One as the nations 36th president. A week later, at his request, the Warren Commission was founded. Named after the current Chief Justice, Earl Warren.

Four congressmen, a former Director of the CIA Allen Dulles, and a wealthy New York banker, Senator John Cooper, and J. Leo Rankin, the commissioner’s general counsel, were handpicked by Johnson. By September of 1964 the committee released the “Warren Report”. It was a “thorough” investigation of Kennedy’s death, totaling more than 800 pages. The commission heard testimony from 489 people who they thought could be potential assassins. Their conclusion, apparently very fallacious as most theorists say (Harrison E. Livingstone), was that Lee Harvey Oswald was the lone assassin.

He pulled the trigger, and was solely responsible for the three shots fired in Dealy Plaza. The Commission, describing Oswald as “frustrated and confused political zealot”, blamed his “unstable childhood, and attraction to un-American philosophies” that drove him to commit murder. Many critics (Guss Russo, John Newman) argue that the commission had assumed that Oswald was the lone assassin. The Commission only looked at evidence that supported their conclusion. Oswald was a poor marksman, and therefore there was no way he could have shot three bullets on target in five seconds (Gerald Posner).

Interviews with his superiors when he as in the Marine Corps report Oswald that “Oswald had the worst shot of my men”(Lt. Charles Donovan), and Oswald never passed his basic rifle requirements. However reports like this never appeared in the “Warren Report”, due to “lack of credibility”. Meanwhile President Johnson wanted to expedite the investigation, because he was afraid of talk about conspiracy. Newspapers were already publishing articles about the role of the CIA in the assassination. Advocates of a state conspiracy theory do not necessarily Kennedy’s death as the work of on desperate assassin.

John Newman, Edmund Lindrop) Theorists argue that one man could not have arranged the wildly eccentric evidence that puzzles investigators today. Rather it would call for more of a “coup d’etat”(Jeffery Waggoner), in which the assassination should result from a complex and a well-planned design of many people’s time and resources. The Bay of Pigs invasion in 1961, caused bitterness on all sides of American politics. As Kennedy shortly found out, the CIA’s assessment of the plot was grossly inaccurate. Fidel Castro’s support was strong and formidable.

As a result of the invasion Kennedy was embarrassed internationally, and he vowed to, “splinter the CIA into a thousand pieces and scatter it to the winds”. This “mutual distrust”(John Newman), between the CIA and Kennedy made a CIA plot for his death a motive. A strong conservative as well as an intense Kennedy flouter, David Ferrie, could possibly have been the mastermind behind the assassination. Given his political beliefs and CIA connections researchers (John Newman) hold strong convictions that Ferrie was indeed involved.

Especially because David Ferrie was found dead in his apartment shortly before his was to be arrested by New Orleans District Attorney Jim Garrison for assassination conspiracy. As Garrison stated, “Upon close examination . . . the only likely sponsor with both the motive and the capability of murdering the President is the covert action arm of the Central Intelligence Agency. ” Much has been written about Oswald’s connection to the CIA. Most intriguing is the CIA “201” file. These files were kept for anyone who would be able to provide significant information that would affect national security.

As a defector (person who leaves country for one cause or another) this was routine for a person like Oswald. However there are two faults on this file. The government initially denied its existence, and 1960 entries that refer to 1962 events. A CIA connection is probable, as the newspaper headlines read; Oswald killed Kennedy out of sympathy for Castro. Most researchers do not suspect the FBI as a source of Kennedy’s assassination. What theorists do suggest however, is the deliberate effort to keep the truth of the case hidden from public view. (Mark North).

After Lee Harvey Oswald was killed by a quick gunshot attack by Jack Ruby, J. Edgar Hoover became increasingly eager to prove that Oswald was the lone assassin. When Hoover learned of Oswald’s death he phoned Johnson saying, “The thing I am most concerned about . . . is having something issued so we can convince the public that Oswald is the real assassin. ” The more quickly law enforcement could identify the assassin, even thought guilt could be skeptical, the more quickly they would quiet the public’s fear of conspiracy. A considerable amount of doubt was also placed on the Secret Service.

All the President’s agents’ rode with him in the motorcade that day, and all accompanied him to the Parkland hospital after the shooting. However Dallas policeman Joe Smith raced behind the Grassy Knoll, expecting to see an assassin, and all he saw was a man who identified himself as a secret service agent. According to official records there was no way this could have been a secret service. Could there have been a 2nd assassin? Also, the Parkland Hospital doctors wanted to perform an autopsy in Dallas, but the Secret Service did not allow this.

Constitutional Democracy Essay

The basic premise of a constitutional democracy is that government has rules and all of the people have voices. Through free and fair elections we elect candidates to represent us. The Constitution of the United States guarantees us the right to do this, and to live democratically.

The framers attacked tyrannical government and advanced the following ideas: that government comes from below, not from above, and that it derives its powers from the consent of the governed; that men have certain natural, inalienable rights; that it is wise and feasible to distribute and balance powers within government, iving local powers to local governments, and general powers to the national government; that men are born equal and should be treated as equal before the law. The framers of the U. S. Constitution sought to make these ideas the governing principles of a nation. Constitutional democracy has three basic elements.

Those being interacting values, interrelated political processes and interdependent political structures. The first idea of interacting values is popular consent. Popular consent means that government must obtain consent for its actions from the people it governs. It is similar to majority rule, a political process, in that the most popular acts or ideas of the people will be adopted by our government. There must be an allowance or willingness on behalf of the unpopular group to lose. Popular consent may provide a means for judging parental consent laws for minors seeking abortion.

Since minors are not legally allowed to be competent to engage in sex, to enter into contracts, or to form sufficient “informed consent” to agree to their own medical treatment, it is incredible that they would be regarded as competent to make a life and death decision about omething that later in life they might themselves regard as a real person, with individual rights Drawing on several major contributions of the enlightenment, including the political theory of John Locke and the economic ideas of Adam Smith, individualism posts the individual human being as the basic unit out of which all larger social groups are constructed and grants priority to his or her rights and interests over those of the state or social group.

Individualism in its original form means looking at people as discrete but whole units, without all the impressions of his social standing, the make of is car or his postal code. It is a way of deliberation, to tune out the clink of money in the background when you talk to somebody, so that you can concentrate on that person’s message and judge it on its own merits. It means looking at someone and not saying to yourself, “That’s my aunt” or “That’s my boss,” but rather, that is someone with his or her own inclinations and desires, in other words, a true Individual who incidentally happens to have this relation to me, as a relative or a superior. On a grander scale, individualism is putting the individual above the state and country.

In those countries that have always been proud of their traditional values of emphasis on the family or the country above self they see Individualism as a direct attack on these values. However, we live in a democratic country and we believe in individualism and equal opportunity for all persons. Equal opportunity for everyone is idealistic. Roosevelt outlined a second bill of rights which the book states answers the question, “what kind of equality? ” This second bill of rights was four freedoms. They were freedom from want, freedom from fear, freedom of speech & expression and freedom of worship. There are laws and acts to guarantee equal opportunity.

For example, the Equal Pay Act of 1963 which requires equal pay for equal work and the Civil Rights Act of 1964 which prohibits discrimination in programs receiving Federal funds. But on a more personal level, we don’t all start at the same line. What about children beared with AIDS, or children born to the poor? Is it believable that they have the same opportunities as a child born to middle class parents who are still married? While every American can be denied almost nothing because of race, color, national origin, religion, sex, familial status, or isability, a lot of Americans aren’t in the position to be discriminated against. This means that many Americans do not have the opportunity to fully exercise their liberty. Personal liberty is freedom.

It means all persons must be given the opportunity to realize their own goals. It translates to self- determination. The Constitution states all people have the right to life, liberty and freedom. This is a bit idealistic because one person’s liberty may infringe upon another person’s freedom. Take abortion for example. Although it is legal and feminists consider it liberty, it takes away another persons freedom to life. The Constitution did not provide protection of rights to the unborn. Another issue, if a person has a right to life and self-determination, do they have a right to end their life if they are in severe pain and suffrage? Dr. Jack Kevorkian provides assisted suicide, but it is not legal.

Why is it deemed legal to kill an innocent child on a whim or for any reason, but illegal to kill yourself if you are in constant turmoil? There are conflicts that will not be resolved for a long time, but one political process which is not in controversy is the right to vote in free and fair elections. They are held with the premise that opposition will be loyal. The winning party will not interfere with the defeater’s attempts to regroup for next election and vice versa. Election officials shoulder the great responsibility of making sure that the election process is conducted under free and fair conditions without any regard to the influence of individuals, factions and groups.

The elections for the legislative body in any country are considered crucial for laying the foundation of a genuine democracy. In any country, if the credibility of elections becomes suspect, the entire political abric of that country will break down. Free and fair elections are the only means to maintain and enhance the credit and prestige of the country’s prevailing system — not the victory of this or that faction or group. The electorate with the most votes wins the election. This process is known as majority rule, but it is not a clear-cut process. Some would say majority is 50 + one, but votes can be so staggered that the winner may not have had 50% of the votes, but only the highest percentage.

The framers took care to foresee that some groups may take advantage of the plurality rule and have their way. When there is an issue, it is debated, compromised and then a decision is made after the majority and minority have spoken. In order for people to become educated to cast their votes they must have access to information about and from the candidates. A good deal of this information is obtained from the media. The media must exist without government regulations to be unbiased. To achieve that, freedom of expression must exist. It is one of the most fundamental of our freedoms summarized by the First Amendment to the U. S. Constitution.

Freedom of expression includes everything listed in the First Amendment – freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, freedom of petition and freedom of assembly. Unfortunately the founding fathers couldn’t see into the future, and so omitted an equally important aspect of freedom of expression: freedom of communication in any form, including broadcast and electronic. On February 8, President Clinton signed the Telecommunications Reform Bill which took away our basic rights to free speech and freedom of expression on the Internet. Our E-mail letters are now wide open for the U. S. Government to read and they will imprison us if the content is deemed “indecent.

While child pornography and national security interests should be subject to censorship, our correspondence should not. The Internet has always enjoyed the freedom of democracy. This may be another issue that we will have to fight for to be regarded as an unalienable right. If we gathered and fought for this right, we would be exercising our right to assemble and protest. A recent occurrence was in April, in Los Angeles where there were two reactions to the beating of several undocumented immigrants by Riverside County sheriffs. On the city’s west side 200 middle-aged and older hite people gathered in front of the Westwood Federal Building to cheer in support of the police and opposition to immigration.

Simultaneously, downtown, more than 6,000 marchers — mostly Latinos, with Black and Asian contingents, chanted through the streets of City Hall. So, even within our rights we exhibit opposing views. The right to assemble & protest can conflict with individualism. We live in a constitutional democracy and we believe in individualism. Every person has the right to assemble and protest, but what if they are interfering or disrupting the lives of other individuals? Whose right comes first? The protester or the burdened? The U. S. Constitution leaves that decision to the states. Beyond our values and process, political structures exist. Among these structures is federalism. The framers of the U. S.

Constitution were strongly influenced by the advantages of separation of powers and of checks and balances. These theories had been in practice in the governments of the American colonies, and they underlie the fundamental laws of the United States. The Constitution distinctly separates the legislative, executive, and judicial branches of government. The doctrine of the separation of powers means that in a free society, the liberty of citizens is secured by separating Parliament’s power to make laws, from the Executive’s power to administer laws, and from the Judiciary’s power to hear and determine disputes according to the law. It is crucial that Judges know they can apply the law without political intimidation.

The creation of three separate branches within the federal structure, each in numerous ways dependent upon the others for its healthy functioning, afforded another way to ensure that federal power would not be used ndiscriminately. The extensive powers of the president likewise were proscribed in a number of places by designated responsibilities. The judicial power was to be wielded by judges. Explicit jurisdiction of the courts was subject to congressional definition. Checks and balances are the constitutional controls whereby separate branches of government have limiting powers over each other so that no branch will become supreme. Perhaps the best known system of checks and balances operates in the U. S. overnment under provisions of the federal constitution.

The operation of checks and balances in the federal government is spelled out in the Constitution. The Constitution of the United States has afforded us many rights. At times, those rights are in contention. At others, we would be in anarchy without them. Constitutional democracy is a beautiful thing. Although we may not all have the same amount of wealth, we have the liberty to. We have the right to be heard. And how is this right anymore exemplified than voting? Our representatives will do what we want, and if they don’t give us a couple of years and we’ll find someone else who will promise to. AMEN.

Saddam Hussein: The U.S Portrayal of Evil Encarnate

When Iraq invaded and occupied the country of Kuwait in August 1990, the Bush administration was faced with several dilemmas. From a foreign policy point of view, this action could greatly destabilize the balance of power in a part of the world that was vital to U. S. interests. The United States was dependant on a continuous flow of oil to drive its economic machine, which Kuwait supplied greatly. In addition, this move would put more power into the hands of a government that was not only unfriendly to the U. S. , but a sworn enemy of the state of Israel, a strong U. S. lly.

In addition to, the fall of communism had created what George Bush had described as, “A new world order,” and would become the first major test of how the U. S. would handle its role as the sole remaining super power in this “new world order. ” There were many challenges facing the Bush administration as to the manner in which they would handle this first major international crisis. The Bush administration had to develop a consensus of the major remaining powers, and appear not acting alone in its response to President Saddam Husseins actions of invading Kuwait.

They also yearned to keep Israel from being involved so as not to alienate the remaining Middle Eastern nations. Lastly, they faced a domestic dilemma, in that much of the American public had significant reservations about involving U. S. troops involved in a foreign conflict. There remained a bad taste of Vietnam among the American public, and there were very mixed responses to American involvement in Somalia, Nicaragua, and Grenada. For the Bush administration, Hussein was not a merchant who could be bargained with, but rather an outlaw who would have to be defeated by force.

The Bush administration was faced with a task of developing (more or less) overwhelming support from the U. S. people to take any action in Kuwait, which was accomplished by a dramatic public relations move to demonize Saddam Hussein in the eyes of the American people. The task of the United States demonizing Saddam Hussein was facilitated by many factors, both real and imaginary; a mixture of true facts and public relations image making.

On the fact side, Saddam Hussein was indeed a dictator, and responsible for some true atrocities. Hussein ruled with an iron fist. Most accounts of political analysts looking at Iraq agree that his rein was one characterized by fear of the state. In her book, The Outlaw State, Elaine Sciolino describes Hussein as “a man who used a combination of terror and reward to break the spirit of his people. ” Through the use of secret police, the Baath Party and the army, Saddam controlled every aspect of Iraqi life.

As one American reporter quoted as driving through Iraq, “From the Saddam International Airport, heading down the Saddam Freeway, past Saddam City and the Saddam Water Purification Plant, we sped by Saddam institutes, Saddam housing estates, Saddam boys clubs, Saddam sports arenas, Saddam hospitals, Saddam cafes, and, of course, dozens of Saddam billboards, statues, mosaic walls, and monster outdoor portraits. ” Any opposition to his political views was irraticated. For example, membership in the opposition party ShiaDawa was punishable by death.

One of its leaders, IyatollahBaqr al-Sadr, was executed, along with members of his family, by orders from Saddam Hussein. There is significant evidence indicating that Iraq used chemical weapons against Iran during their 8-year war, which is condemned universally by the international community. Hussein is quoted as saying in an interview with Spanish television, “America used nuclear weapons against Japan. Isreal possesses nuclear weapons- you and the whole world know about this. Iraq, therefore, has the right to possess the weapons which its enemy has…

America moreover, used chemical weapons against the people of Vietnam. The USSR also used chemical weapons against the people of Afghanistan. So talk about Iraqi use of chemical weapons is insincere and hypocritical. ” Most accounts of Saddams rise to power in his tenure as leader of Iraq indicate that he constantly used murder, torture, lies, and terror to achieve his goals. In addition to these hard facts, his physical characteristics, mannerisms, and someway naive attempts at portraying himself as a great hero and leader (even God-like) made him more susceptible to criticism and contempt by the American people.

The dark moustache, the heavy eyebrows and swarthy appearance made it….. easy for the media to find photographs projecting images of evil and maleficence. The fact that Hussein always wore military garb, that he portrayed himself as a warrior (when, in fact, he was never in the military) also played to the U. S. public fears. Quotes by Hussein comparing himself to Nebuchadnezzar gave credence to claims of messianic delusions and mental instability by the United States. The Bush administration engaged in a unprecedented campaign to frighten the American people as to the threat that Saddam Hussein posed.

Were dealing with Hitler revisited, a totalitarianism and brutality that is naked and unprecedented in modern times,” Bush is quoted as stating at a campaign rally in 1990. Opinion polls during this period of the crisis showed that the American public did not place very much importance on the charges that Iraq was an aggressor or that its chemical and biological capabilities posed a serious threat to the United States. But the American public did take seriously the charge (which Bush played up on frequently) that Iraq would soon develop a stockpile of nuclear weapons.

Bush also played up the fact that Hussein was intractable- that the U. S. onsistently tried peaceful negations with Hussein, but that he was focused on aggression. When Bush was asked by a reporter if war might have been avoided if the U. S. had been tougher with Saddam Hussein, Bush replied, “Well, we tried the peaceful route; we tried working with him and changing [him] through contact… The lesson is clear in this case that that didnt work. ” The Bush administration turned to supposedly objective experts for support of the argument that Saddam was a dangerous man who needed to be stopped. Quoting Jerrold Post, a former psychiatrist at George Washington University, who had analyzed Saddams actions for the U. S. Government, “Saddam is not crazy.

[But] he has the most dangerous personality configuration, which we call malignant narcissism. Such extreme self-absorption. He has no concern for the pain or suffering of other. [He has] a paranoid outlook [with] messianic dreams. ” Quotes such as these coupled with ongoing reports with how close the Iraqis were to developing nuclear capabilities developed the kind of support that the Bush administration was looking for in order to send troops to fight in the war with the backup of the American public.

Saddam Hussein miscalculated and showed a level of naivete when attempting to manipulate his media image. On numerous occasions, he would have what was obviously staged events with his supporters chanting and dancing around him, firing weapons into the air, etc. One of the most obvious events involved Saddam Husseins “human shields. On August 23, 1990, 5-year old Stuart Lockwood was seen on television shying away from the uninvited attentions of Saddam Hussein.

Stuart snubbed Hussein, and ruined the dictators attempt to turn a group of British hostages he was holding into a propaganda sideshow. Stuart and his family had been imprisoned as a part of the “human shield” policy designed to prevent a United Nations task force from liberating Kuwait. Stuarts mother, Glenda Lockwood, recalls the incident in her diary-made-book very clearly: “Today, my five-year old son became the tiny “British Bulldog” who apparently defied the most ruthless, murderous dictator of the 1990s and was witnessed doing so by television viewers all over the world.

Because he was literally standing on the wrong spot at the wrong time, he has had to endure the sort of media pressure and hype that can make even toughened film stars crack under the strain…. “. Events such as this not only outraged the American public, it confirmed everything that the Bush administration had been pushing to them. Of course, this played into the hands of the Bush administration, and they used all of their manipulative powers in the medias to make as much possible out of these events.

All in all, the Bush administrations actions during the Gulf War crisis were considered to be very successful. There were those, of course, who criticized Bush for U. S. troops having to die for “oil money. ” However, the largest criticism over time was that Bush didnt “finish the job,” by assuring that Hussein was out of power and/or assassinating him. The fact that this was the largest criticism of Bush speaks to the effectiveness to Bushs campaign and shows how demonizing Saddam Hussein truly was the best way to earn support from the American people.

Europe in teh 1960s

Europe is an ever-changing landscape of culture and society. Many major advances in technology and knowledge were introduced to this scene in the nineteen-sixties. Political transformation took place in this decade as well as social and ethnic changes. The beginning of the Space Age marked scientific enhancements just as the second Vatican Council meeting was a sign of cultural attempts to bring a group up to date with the times. The building of the Berlin Wall signaled feuding between governments and their differences. The Space Age was inaugurated with the launching of Sputnik I on October 4, 1957.

Yet astronautics originated in the early nineteenth century. As early as 1819 Konstantine E. Ziolkovsky, the founding father of Russian space science, predicted the of a space rocket employing liquid fuel and liquid oxygen capable of thrusting man into space. From 1957 to 1961, Russian spaceships were the first top carry live animals, to reach the vicinity of the moon and orbit the sun, and to photograph the far side of the moon. While America was reaching significant scientific progress, Russia clearly dominated the excitement of space exploration.

In March of 1961, Premier Nikita Khrushchev announced that the Soviet Union would soon place a man in space. Within a few weeks, on April 12, Yuri Gagarin became the first man in space. The spaceship Vostok I weighed 10,395 pounds, orbited the globe in eighty-nine minutes at a top speed of seventeen thousand miles per hour. Gagarins journey was incredibly smooth. He reported writing a note, drinking, and eating. Reentry into Earths atmosphere, more rapid than anticipated marred his capsule, but Gagarin landed safely four hundred miles southeast of Moscow.

The United States and Russia were both struggling for world prestige. This advance in exploration sparked the fire that would launch every spaceship following. It created a bloodless battle between capable nations to reach above and beyond its competitors successes in astronautical progress. The United States planned to land a man on the moon by 1970. John F. Kennedy promised the American public that he would close the spaceship gap. After World War II, Berlin became a place that was occupied by Russia, the United States, France, and Great Britain.

The territory that the land fell in was Russian according to agreements of the conquering nations, but since it was the capitol of Germany, it was jointly occupied by all of the nations. The Russians guaranteed access to the city from the Western zones, but only the air corridors were specifically mentioned in writing. The entire city was to be ruled by the Four-Power Control Commission with unanimous consent necessary for all decisions. The difficulties of governing under these conditions became apparent as eth Cold War intensified after 1945.

The Russians wanted to incorporate Berlin into their zone, and in 1948 they blockaded the land approaches to the city in an effort to force out the Western powers. After nine months of a successful Allied airlift, the Russians lifted the blockade, but the Control Commission was not restored. The Eastern and Western sectors of the city were ruled separately, by unspoken agreement. The Western Allies agreed to allow a West German government in their zones, and the Federal Republic of German Democratic Republic under Walter Ulbricht.

The Western Allies and the Russians, however, still maintained troops in their respective areas, including eth city of Berlin. By 1957, Khrushchev had established himself as leader in Russia after the power struggle after Stalins death. In 1958, he delivered an ultimatum stating that if the German problems were not solved by mutual agreement within six months, he would turn over control of the city and its approaches to the East Germans. The West agreed to a conference, but this produced no results. By 1961, the problem of Berlin became apparent.

Large numbers of refugees from Communist Europe and particularly East Germany were using the city as an escape route to the West. Ulbricht was losing most of his skilled workers and productive people. John F. Kennedy became president in January of 1962. East Germany was losing thousands of people a day. On August 13, the East Germans began closing the checkpoints between eth two sectors of the city and started construction of a barbed wire barrier along the entire border between east and West Berlin.

This barrier was soon replaced with a concrete wall. Khrushchev then announced that he was giving over control of eth city to the East Germans. Although West Germans were denied the right to cross into East Berlin, the crisis soon eased. The flow of refugees was stopped and East Germany began a period of extraordinary economic growth. The West accepted the Berlin Wall as eth best solution to a bad situation, with the realization that both Khrushchev and Ulbricht had been forced into this action by circumstances that might have led to war.

This rare occurrence of negations and action taken by nations proved two points; that the United States still had rights in all of Berlin under agreements, and that the Russians, despite their claims of turning over control of Berlin to East Germany, were still the power in East Germany and East Berlin. In the Roman Catholic Church, certain reformist movements began to surface visibly after World War II. The movements varied, but they included such aims as harmonizing theology with science and modern philosophy, greater social action on the part of Catholics, and reforms in the official worship of the church.

In 1958, Pope John XXIII was elected to his seat as leader of eth Catholic Church. His time as Pope proved to be perhaps the most eventful for eth Church in nearly four hundred years. From the first day of his reign, he was not aloof like many of the Popes before him. He was jovial, informal, and apparently open-minded. He visited the slums and prisons of Rome, raised wages for workers at the Vatican, and told jokes about himself. According to the Popes later account, the idea of summoning a general council of the Church occurred to him in late 1958.

Pondering a way of showing an example of peace and hope to the world. He proposed his idea of a council to a group of eighteen cardinals in Rome. Their response was stunned silence. They began making objections to the idea and insisted that it would take at least ten years to organize such a thing. The general, council is an institution dating back officially to Biblical times, the first recognized council being that of Jerusalem reported in Acts 1:5.

Prior to Pope John XXIIIs reign, the only two councils in modern times were the Council of Trent, which reformed the Roman Catholic Church following the Protestant Council, and the First Vatican Council, whose principal work was the proclamation of the doctrine of Papal Infallibility. Over eight hundred Catholic theologians, researchers of religious ideas, and other experts were called to Rome to prepare for the event. Thousands of documents were reviewed, topics for discussion were looked at and an agenda was made. The Pope declared that he hoped the council would be an updating of the Church. The Council met on October 11, 1962.

There were over twenty-five hundred bishops and heads of religious orders present. Each man brought an expert in religion with him. In his opening speech, the Pope condemned the attitude of some of his advisors, who regarded eth modern world as corrupt and degenerating, and saw little hope for eth future. He proclaimed that the purpose of the council was to explore eth meaning of Christianity for the modern world. He also proclaimed a spirit of charity toward non-Catholics and even non-Christians, thus in effect endorsing the Ecumenical Movement which had been doubtful in the Church before his speech.

Throughout the council, eth strength of eth Church was questioned and many controversial issues were addressed. The definition of the Church as the People of God, not primarily a hierarchical structure but a community of individuals sharing the same beliefs was changed. This council changed eth face of the Catholic Church too much of what it is today. The Church was modernized in many ways and became much more approachable by doubtful individuals. There were many other major historical events in the nineteen sixtys. These major affairs are as follows;

In 1960, France became the fourth nation to acquire atomic capability. The United States, Great Britain, and the U. S. S. R. already had this advantage. France exploded a nuclear device in the Sahara Desert. In 1961, the Berlin wall was built to prevent war from breaking out between Russia and the other inhibitors of Berlin. In 1961, Yuri Gagarin was the first man to travel into space. He was a Russian Astronaut. In 1961, Bob Dylan, originally Robert Zimmerman, was discovered singing in Greenwhich Village by Columbia Records and produces his first album.

His songs become symbolic of the civil rights movement and the hippie culture. In 1962, American surveillance discovers Soviet missiles installed in Cuba, a stones throw away from the Florida coast. In the brief, tense standoff known as the Cuban Missile Crisis, the possibility of a nuclear war raises its head. In 1962, Algeria won its freedom from France. It had been an integral part of France since 1945. In 1962, the United Nations sends troops to control civil war in the Congo, after Katanga governor Tshombe rejects a peace plan and attempts to secede.

In 1963, scandal breaks out when Britains war minister, Lord John Dennis Profumo, is discovered to be sleeping with a call girl, Christine Keeler, who happens to also be intimate with a known Soviet spy. In 1963, The Beatles get their first U. S. rocknroll hit with I Wanna Hold Your Hand. In 1964, Khrushchevs agricultural reforms fail and he is ousted from Soviet power and replaced as a premier by Aleksei Kosygin. In 1965, in fashion, the miniskirt, designed by Mary Quant, appears in London and will soon be all the rage.

In 1966, France withdraws its troops from NATO and French President Charles De Gaulle advocates a Europeanized Europe free from American and Soviet intervention. In 1968, at age 29, Ralph Lauren founds what will become a fashion empire. In 1968, on August 20th to the 21st, Russia invades Czechoslovakia in attempts to squash encouragement of other groups to revolt. Alexander Dubek had reformed the Czech government to an open-minded society. In 1969, French President Charles De Gaulle resigns from office after his proposal for regional reform was rejected by voters. 1969, the Woodstock Arts and Music Festival reigns for four days in the Catskill Mountains.

Recreational drugs are widespread. There were some major historical figures in the sixties in Europe. They are as follows; Charles De Gaulle was the President of France from 1958 to 1969. He led France in their atomic advances as well as removing troops from NATO. He strived fro a Europe independent from American and Soviet influence. He resigned from office in 1969. Nikita Khrushchev was eth Premier of the Soviet Union throughout the majority of eth sixties.

He held office during the Cuban Missile Crisis and during the building of eth Berlin Wall. Konrad Adenauer was the Chancellor of eth Federal Republic of Germany (West Germany) during the issue of eth Berlin Wall. Walter Ulbricht was the Chairman of the Council of State of the German Democratic Republic (Head of East Germany). He is responsible for decisions concerning the Berlin Wall and Russias invasion of Czechoslovakia. Willy Brandt was the Mayor of West Berlin during the issue of the Berlin Wall construction and the events leading up to it. Youssef Ben Khedda was the Prime minister of the Provisional Government.

He was leader of Algeria when it revolted against France. John F. Kennedy was the thirty-fifth President of the United States. He dealt with advancing the space age and refused Khrushchevs first attempts to deal with the issue of fleeing East Germans that led up to the construction of the Berlin Wall. Pope John XXIII, whos real name was Angelo Roncalli, was the Patriarch of Venice before being elected to position of Pope. He reformed the Roman Catholic Church drastically through the holding of the Second Vatican Council. Alexander Dubek was the leader of Czechoslovakia when it was invaded by Russia.

He reformed the nations government into liberalism. He was afterwards arrested and taken to Moscow. Gustav Husk replaced him. The major idea that remained throughout the sixties in Europe was of a greater focus on culture and society. The perfect example of this is the results of the Second Vatican Council concerning the Roman Catholic Church. Communism was the opposition to this reformation. When Dubek attempted to make his nation liberal and broadminded, he had plans for the creation of socialism with a human face. This feeling was reflected all over the nations of Europe and in the culture of America as well.

Experimentation and new social practices entered the world of individuals. The fleeing East Germans wanted to escape to a place they could be free from social oppression. Other movements that had great influence on the decade were that of Space exploration, an increase in social focus on music and recreational drugs, and the liberalism of different groups and organizations. The ideas and feelings expressed in the sixties had a strong influence on culture of today and todays society. The decade left a deep impression in history and brought about the sparks that lit fires in nations everywhere.

Group Polarization and Competition

On Tuesday, November 14, 1995, in what has been perceived as the years biggest non-event, the federal government shut down all “non-essential” services due to what was, for all intents and purposes, a game of national “chicken” between the House Speaker and the President. And, at an estimated cost of 200 million dollars a day, this dubious battle of dueling egos did not come cheap (Bradsher, 1995, p. 16). Why do politicians find it almost congenitally impossible to cooperate?

What is it about politics and power that seem to always put them at odds with good government? Indeed, is an effective, well run government even possible given the current adversarial relationship between our two main political parties? It would seem that the exercise of power for its own sake, and a competitive situation in which one side must always oppose the other on any issue, is incompatible with the cooperation and compromise necessary for the government to function.

As the United States becomes more extreme in its beliefs in general, group polarization and competition, which requires a mutual exclusivity of goal attainment, will lead to more “showdown” situations in which the goal of good government gives way to political posturing and power-mongering. In this paper I will analyze recent political behavior in terms of two factors: Group behavior with an emphasis on polarization, and competition. However, one should keep in mind that these two factors are interrelated.

Group polarization tends to exacerbate inter-group competition by driving any two groups who initially disagree farther apart in their respective views. In turn, a competitive situation in which one side must lose in order for the other to win (and political situations are nearly always competitive), will codify the differences between groups – leading to further extremism by those seeking power within the group – and thus, to further group polarization.

In the above example, the two main combatants, Bill Clinton and Newt Gingrich, were virtually forced to take uncompromising, disparate views because of the very nature of authority within their respective political groups. Group polarization refers to the tendency of groups to gravitate to the extreme of whatever opinion the group shares (Baron & Graziano, 1991, p. 498-99). Therefore, if the extreme is seen as a desirable characteristic, individuals who exhibit extreme beliefs will gain authority through referent power.

In other words, they will have characteristics that other group members admire and seek to emulate (p. 434). Unfortunately, this circle of polarization and authority can lead to a bizarre form of “one-upsmanship” in which each group member seeks to gain power and approval by being more extreme than the others. The end result is extremism in the pursuit of authority without any regard to the practicality or “reasonableness” of the beliefs in question. Since the direction of polarization is currently in opposite directions in our two party system, it is almost impossible to find a common ground between them.

In addition, the competitive nature of the two party system many times eliminates even the possibility of compromise since failure usually leads to a devastating loss of power. If both victory and extremism are necessary to retain power within the group, and if, as Alfie Kohn (1986) stated in his book No Contest: The Case Against Competition, competition is “mutually exclusive goal attainment” (one side must lose in order for the other to win), then compromise and cooperation are impossible (p. 136).

This is especially so if the opponents are dedicated to retaining power “at all costs. ” That power is an end in itself is made clear by the recent shutdown of the government. It served no logical purpose. Beyond costing a lot of money, it had no discernible effect except as a power struggle between two political heavyweights. According to David Kipnis (1976, cited in Baron & Graziano, 1991), one of the negative effects of power is, in fact, the tendency to regard it as its own end, and to ignore the possibility of disastrous results from the reckless use of power (p. 3).

Therefore, it would seem that (at least in this case) government policy is created and implemented, not with regard to its effectiveness as government policy, but only with regard to its value as a tool for accumulating and maintaining power. Another of Kipnis’s negative effects of power is the tendency to use it for selfish purposes (p. 433). In politics this can be seen as the predilection towards making statements for short term political gain that are either nonsensical or contradictory to past positions held by the candidates themselves.

While this may not be the use of actual power, it is an attempt to gain political office (and therefore power) without regard for the real worth or implications of a policy for “good” government. A prime example of this behavior can be seen in the widely divergent political stances taken by Governor Pete Wilson of California. At this point I should qualify my own political position.

While I do tend to lean towards the Democratic side of the political spectrum (this is undoubtedly what brought Pete Wilson to my attention in the first place), I examine Governor Wilson because he is such a prime example of both polarization and pandering in the competitive pursuit of power. Accordingly, I will try to hold my political biases in check. In any case, selfish, power seeking behavior is reflected in Wilson’s recently abandoned campaign for President.

Although he consistently ruled out running for President during his second gubernatorial campaign, immediately after he was re-elected he announced that he was forming a committee to explore the possibility. And, in fact, he did make an abortive run for the Republican nomination. In both cases (presidential and gubernatorial elections), he justified his seemingly contradictory positions in terms of his “duty to the people”(No Author 1995). This begs the question; was it the duty that was contradictory, or was it Wilson’s political aspirations.

In either case it seems clear that his decision was hardly based on principles of good government. Even if Wilson thought he had a greater duty to the nation as a whole (and I’m being charitable here), he might have considered that before he ran for governor a second time. It would appear much more likely that the greater power inherent in the presidency was the determining force behind Wilson’s decision. Ironically, Wilson’s lust for potential power may cause him to lose the power he actually has.

Since his decision to run for President was resoundingly unpopular with Californians, and since he may be perceived as unable to compete in national politics due to his withdrawal from the presidential race, his political power may be fatally impaired. This behavior shows not only a disregard for “good” government, but also a strange inability to defer gratification. There is no reason that Pete Wilson couldn’t have run for President after his second term as Governor had expired.

His selfish pursuit of power for its own sake was so absolute that it inhibited him from seeing the very political realities that gave him power in the first place. In his attempt to gain power, Wilson managed to change his stance on virtually every issue he had ever encountered. From immigration to affirmative action – from tax cuts to abortion rights, he has swung 180 degrees (Thurm, 1995). The point here is not his inconsistency, but rather the fact that it is improbable that considerations of effective government would allow these kinds of swings.

And, while people may dismiss this behavior as merely the political “game playing” that all candidates engage in, it is the pervasiveness of this behavior – to the exclusion of any governmental considerations – that make it distressing as well as intriguing. Polarization is also apparent in this example. Since Pete Wilson showed no inherent loyalty toward a particular ideology, it is entirely likely that had the Republican party been drifting towards a centrist position rather than an extreme right-wing position, Wilson would have accordingly been more moderate in his political pronouncements.

The polarization towards an extreme is what caused him to make such radical changes in his beliefs. It is, of course, difficult to tell to what extent political intransigence is a conscious strategy, or an unconscious motivation toward power, but the end result is the same – political leadership that is not conducive (or even relevant) to good government. The role of competition in our political system is an inherently contradictory one. We accept the fact that politicians must compete ruthlessly to gain office using whatever tactics are necessary to win.

We then, somehow, expect them to completely change their behavior once they are elected. At that point we expect cooperation, compromise, and a statesmanlike attitude. Alfie Kohn (1986) points out that this expectation is entirely unrealistic (p. 135). He also states that, “Depriving adversaries of personalities, of faces , of their subjectivity, is a strategy we automatically adopt in order to win” (p. 139). In other words, the very nature of competition requires that we treat people as hostile objects rather than as human beings.

It is, therefore, unlikely, once an election is over and the process of government is supposed to begin, that politicians will be able to “forgive and forget” in order to carry on with the business at hand. Once again, in the recent government shutdown we can see this same sort of difficulty. House Speaker Newt Gingrich, whose competitive political relationship with Bill Clinton has been rancorous at best, blamed his own (Gingrich’s) handling of the budget negotiations that resulted in the shutdown, on his poor treatment during an airplane flight that he and the President were on (Turque & Thomas, 1995, p. ). One can look at this issue from both sides.

On the one hand, shabby treatment on an airplane flight is hardly a reason to close the U. S. government. On the other hand, if the shabby treatment occurred, was it a wise thing for the President to do in light of the delicate negotiations that were going on at the time? In both cases, it seems that all concerned were, in effect, blinded by their competitive hostility. They both presumably desired to run the government well (we assume that’s why they ran for office in the first place), but they couldn’t overcome their hostility long enough to run it at all.

If the Speaker is to be believed (although he has since tried to retract his statements), the entire episode resulted not from a legitimate disagreement about how to govern well, but from the competitive desire to dominate government. Indeed, when one examines the eventual compromise that was reached, there seems to be no significant difference in the positions of the two parties. If this is so, why was it necessary to waste millions of dollars shutting down the government and then starting it up again a few days later?

What’s more, this entire useless episode will be reenacted in mid-December. One can only hope that Clinton and Gingrich avoid traveling together until an agreement is reached. Although people incessantly complain about government and about the ineffectiveness of politicians, they rarely examine the causes of these problems. While there is a lot of attention paid to campaign finance reform, lobbying reform, PAC reform, and the peddling of influence, we never seem to realize that, most of the time, politicians are merely giving us what they think we want.

If they are weak and dominated by polls, aren’t they really trying to find out “the will of the people” in order to comply with it? If they are extremist and uncompromising in their political stances, aren’t they simply reflecting the extremism prevalent in our country today? If politicians compromise, we call them weak, and if they don’t we call them extremist. If we are unhappy with our government, perhaps it is because we expect the people who run it to do the impossible.

They must reflect the will of a large, disparate electorate, and yet be 100 percent consistent in their ideology. However, if we look at political behavior in terms of our own polarized, partisan attitudes, and if we can find a way to either reduce the competitive nature of campaigns, or reconcile pre-election hostility with post-election statesmanship, then we may find a way to elect politicians on the basis of how they will govern rather than how they run.

It may be tempting to dismiss all this as merely “the way politics is” or say that “competition is human nature”, or perhaps think that these behaviors are essentially harmless. But consider these two examples. It has been speculated that President Lyndon B. Johnson was unwilling to get out of the Vietnam war because he didn’t want to be remembered as the first American President to lose a war. If this is true, it means that thousands of people, both American and Vietnamese, died in order to protect one man’s status.

In Oklahoma City, a federal building was bombed in 1994, killing hundreds of men, women, and children. The alleged perpetrators were a group of extreme, right wing, “constitutionalists” who were apparently trying to turn frustration with the federal government into open revolution. I do not think these examples are aberrations or flukes, but are, instead, indicative of structural defects in our political system. If we are not aware of the dangers of extremism and competition, we may, in the end, be destroyed by them.

Anarchy: Political Ideals To A Symbol Of Uncoformity

Anarchism, then really stands for the liberation of human mind from the domination of religion, The liberation of the human body from the domination of property, Liberation from the shackles and restraints of government#-Emma Golman. During the late 1800s urbanization began to inflict the cities and the industrial revolution began resulting in governments gaining more and more power. The state is authority; its force#-Mikhail Bakunin. As the governments grew it was believed the state was more concerned with its growing power rather than the interests of the people.

A group known as the anarchist believed that the government should be abolished and then the people would be free to live co-operatively with full social and political. Anarchy began as a political philosophy and soon turned in to an all out revolution resulting in assignations, bombings and kidnappings spanning over the better part of the past century. During the 1970s and 1980s, anarchy started to become more of a fashion trend if you will, rather than a political philosophy. I Wanna Be Anarchy-Sex Pistols.

The Punk movement in music during the late 70s was first to wide spread expose the public to anarchy and anarchist ideals. Followers of punk and punk music usually didnt have the tendency to look of the proper meaning of anarchy, but since Johnny Rotten was saying it, it was cool. Today if you take a look at the public wither you are in a public school or a shopping mall, you can see teenagers with anarchy symbols on their shirts, pants, back packs and even drawn on their sneakers in an attempt to look what the public calls hardcore.

Anarchism is the sprit of the youth against out worn traditions-Mikhail Bakunin, this would prove to be all too true in this new era of anarchism. This paper will further outline how anarchy started out as a political philosophy and turned in to a symbol of unconformity. Anarchism can be defined as a political philosophy and social movement designed to destroy the government in hopes of creating a society based on voluntary co-operation of free individuals. In 1840 Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, a peaceful anarchist, published his controversial pamphlet titled What Is Property.

Proudhon clamed that violence and crime was not caused by individuals but instead by the government. He believed that police and laws forced humans to live in an unnatural state of oppression and equality, according to Proudhon the ownership of property was the main root of all equality. As man seeks justice in equality, so society seeks justice in anarchy. Anarchy-the absence of a sovereign-such is the form of government to which we are every day approximating # In this quote, Proudhon predicts the eventual dissolve of the government and the rise of a natural social order.

Proudhon felt it was possible to create and emplace anarchist organizations in an established society. Eventually the organizations would rise as the government was falling, thus freeing the people from property and oppression enabling the them to live in a free socially liberated society. Mikhail Bakunin on the contrary was not a peaceful anarchist, he believed that the only way to achieve an anarchist society was through a violent revolution. The passion for destruction is also a creative passion#.

Although he believed that anarchy was only achievable through a violent revolution, Mikhail Bakunin shared some of the same ideas with Proudhon. Bakunin agreed with Proudhon that human kinds intentions were for the most part good, but oppression caused by the government had forced the natural quality of human kind to become corrupted. Bakunin viewed the government as a negation and annihilation of all liberty#. Bakunin summarized the intentions and attitude of the anarchist movement by saying this,

In a word we reject all legislation, all authority, all privileged, licensed, official and legal influence, even though rising from a universal suffrage, convinced that it can turn only to the advantage of a dominate minority of exploiters against the interests of the immense majority in subject to them # It was believed by Bakunin that the state should be replaced by a series of agreements and voluntary associations. Eventually the state would be replaced by a free federation in which every individual would be equally privileged and have equal rights.

To say that the anarchist movement started in 1840 with the publishing of Proudhons controversial pamphlet What Is Property? would be untrue. The first plans for an anarchist uprising were conceived by Gerrard Winstanley almost 200 years prior to Proudhon publishing his pamphlet. In Gerrards pamphlet Truth Lifting Its Head Above The Scandals he wrote what was to become the back bone of the anarchist theory in years to come. The pamphlet declared that power corrupts the minds of the people and freedom is unachievable with the existence of property.

In an experiment, Gerrard Winstanley established an anarchist community on a hillside with his followers. Ironically the community was destroyed by government oppression. Anarchism quickly spread its roots through the world and by 1845 it reached Spain and the first anarchist journal was established, but it was quickly destroyed by government censorship. Anarchism in Spain gained more and more followers, in 1870 there were as many as 40 000, by 1873 there were 60 000 followers.

Despite anarchism growing popularity in Spain, the movement was forced underground in 1874, by 1880 the Spanish anarchist front resorted to violence and terrorism. It wasnt until the Spanish Civil War of 1936 that anarchist ideals were given an opportunity to be placed in to action. Railways, factories and land were seized and taken over, libertarian villages were established and the internal usage of money was abolished. Within these libertarian villages the land was tilled collectively, products were distributed to each family according to their need and at equal shares.

Due to their inability to sub stain warfare the anarchists failed, yet they succeeded in inspiring many people and showing the world that anarchism is possible. American anarchism was mainly sub stained by immigration from Europe and by the 1800s anarchism was a large part of life for many people. America saw its fair share of anarchist activity. The Haymarket riot in Chicago left 7 policemen dead and 1 anarchist severally injured. In 1901 president McKinley was assassinated by anarchist Leon Czlogosz.

Due to violent acts including riots, bombings, assignations and kidnappings, anarchists are often perceived and mindless individuals and dangerous violent people, which is not entirely true. Anarchism has its pacifists who do not advocate the usage of violence and believe that the government can be brought down through peaceful and political means. The punk movement of the late 70s and early 80s associated its self with anarchy and anarchist ideals because of its wild unconformist past.

Anarchy and anarchist imagery were used primarily for shock value and nothing more. This became known and the anarco-punk scene. Anarco punks adopted what they call an anarchy symbol which consists of an irregular capitol A in the centre of a circle. This anarchy symbol has become the primary symbol for aggression and non conformity based on punk ideals. Anarchism took on a whole new meaning in 1977 with the release of The Sex Pistols first single I wanna Be Anarchy. The lyrics advocated a violent anarchist society and mindless destruction.

International Politics Essay

Political Science to me is something of a cycle, which is attached to the worlds history and is an ever-changing science of communication at a state and national level. This cyclical process is also attached to my personal adoption of political ideologies, i. e. , as times change, as well as my surrounding environment, as an individual, I am forced to adapt to my surroundings, rather than a rock smashing through stubbornly regardless of the damage it may cause to all parties.

I am not talking of conformism, rather the adoption to my political and social surroundings that would best serve in the interests and security of the community at large. To provide the reader of a greater understanding to this ideology perhaps entails that I give a small personal example. I come from a diverse background that allows me to understand history and politics from many perspectives and which has made me less biased than the average man. Born in England, to a Turkish Father and a British Mother, and having lived in England, Turkey, as well as Canada has broadened my vision of the world to a great extent.

This is of course excluding the many political conferences that I have attended and the many countries I have visited around the world. An example of an assignment which required the utmost patience and the most open of minds was at a Model UN conference in Philadelphia I was assigned to represent Greece on the issue of Cyprus, being part Turkish one can understand what open mindedness that took. To do such a thing required the total adoption of what is the opposite of my historical perspective. However in doing so, this has brought me an understanding of international relations, conflict and interests.

This brings me to the ideology that I believe is most prevalent in the worlds state system of todays Realism. Many people view this ideology as a somewhat pessimistic view of the world and tend to believe in greater harmony and cooperation. These tend to be the idealists known to us as the Social Democrats of Europe, the Liberals in Canada, and the Democrats in the United States. Realism at this time and point of history seems to be the actual way that things are going amongst states. Alliances (rather than friendships) are formed and balances are created.

These Alliances are not there for anything more than security and self-benefit, of course the other half of an alliance definitely must fulfill its interests as well or else no alliance would be possible. It is a quite simple ideology actually of favors and a meeting of mutual interests. As Hans J. Morgenthau argues international relations is defined by states pursuing their national interests defined in terms of power. The more I study politics, history, and international relations the better I see the realistic approach in international relations.

I have been delving more and more into the activities of what is known as the Deep State and their role which is played in each and every nations policy building, and the way in which countries interact. The more I read books for example about the NSA, CIA, KGB, MOSSAD, MIT, MI5, MI6 etc, I am becoming in a true sense a realist. In reading about these agencies I can truly say that I understand the goals of these agencies are to provide security for their nations and states as well as to gain unimpeded access to the worlds natural resources, in particular oil.

It is this very strategic game which is being played out right now as I write this paper. The Afghanistan issue, the Iraq issue, and most of the regional conflicts from Central Asia to the Middle East are played out by the worlds powers indirectly and sometimes directly, with guerrilla groups being backed by Deep State agencies of the more powerful countries. China, USA, Britain, Russia, these are some of the top players in the covert strategic mission of gaining control of the worlds natural resources.

This strategic game may be covered with pretexts, issues such as human rights, and democracy vs. dictatorships. However, the end game remains pretty simple: to gain control or to secure alliances with the resource nations in the world. Sir Halford Mackinder and Alfred Thayer Mahan demonstrate a great example of this strategic world map. Their map displays what they call the Heartland of the world. This area is heavily rich in natural resources and we can look at this map to see that this area is heavily conflicted as well.

This is the chess game that the worlds powers play in order to maintain their edge and power. Many left wing and idealist movements tend to ignore the realities that States will always, and have always, since the beginning not only of the Nation State, but as well the Empires of Historys past, look out for the best interests of their own nation. Many people criticize the United States for example for its global hegemony. To those people I ask where would we be now if the USSR had not collapsed and the United States did so in its place?

Something to ponder perhaps for the Utopian philosophers. Realism is a perspective that deals with the realities of the world rather than to hope against hope that all states will work in harmony to achieve world peace. There has never been since the beginning of man a period and time where there has been total peace in our world. Some may say this is pessimistic. However, I believe that this is a historical fact. Another fact though that may lead to optimism, and a change of this trend may be to look at the Historical fact that two Democracies have never fought a war against each other.

However we cannot forget, covert operations and terrorist forces tend to do the dirty deed while the other Democratic nations feed money and arms in order to serve their interests covertly rather than head on. An example of this may be perhaps the PKK (Kurdistan Worker Party, Marxist Leninist Kurdish Terrorist group) which was armed, funded, and supported logistically by Turkeys neighbor Syria, and its NATO ally Greece and which cost over 35 000 Turkish Citizens lives.

The leader of this Terrorist organization, Abdullah Ocalan, was captured in the Greek Embassy in Kenya where he was receiving shelter. Greece was then forced to fire key members of its intelligence agency to save face. This just reinforces the reality of the world is unfortunately not about cooperation at any cost, it is more like a strategic game in which allies are made and interests are served in order to maintain security. Security is the key issue that faces any and every nation today.

If a nation feels secure, and not threatened the greater relations such as trade and cooperation may become possible. If a nation does not feel a threat it will develop more relations based on trade and cooperation. There is an aspect of liberalism however which I find may be blended with realism, and this aspect is the aspect of the economy and trade blocks. Security and stability also must be assessed within economic terms as economic stability ensures a peace and stability all by itself.

This may be simplified to something as local as the Quebec Separatist movement, as the economy slouches the Separatist rhetoric increases and the referendum issue occurs and receives more support. When the economy is going well and everyone is economically sound why would an adventure of instability be undertaken? Economy is in the end intrinsic to maintaining a peace and cooperation that could be formulated into the realist approach from the aspect of Security and National interest.

What I have seen in my analysis of States and Empires throughout history is a constant calculation of Interests in relation to Economy and Security, from the Ancient Greek City States, the Roman Empire, the Feudal Empires of Asia, the Democratic states, the Communist States, even to the provincial level here in Canada, each state is looking out for its own interests, which includes first and foremost security based either on deterrence, trust and alliances, and economical stability and cooperation.

In general I may be more inclined to the realist perspective, but as explained above I also believe that cooperation is also possible in the equation of the nature of international politics. All theoretical approaches can be proved valid or useful for certain situations however it is from the aspect of international relations which I believe all states follow the main policy of realism which is based in National Security. There is no one nation in history that went to war to protect another countries interests without calculating what gains it will achieve for itself.

Whether it be a newly established regional influence or a newly acquired strategic partner in an important region, the reality is that Human Rights, Freedom, and Peace come after all other interests are satisfied, and is used as window dressing for the mass population who doesnt know any better. I would like to leave you now with a quote from a realistic approach which is expressed by Ismail Cem, former Turkish Foreign Minister.

Foreign policy is a mathematical equation of a countrys interests. It is a matter of calculation. Foreign relations are the product of a dialectical process in which the internal and external factors that shape interests are in constant motion. Stances that perceive foreign policy as a static, rigid phenomenon and that define others within categories of eternal friendship and eternal animosity are destined to be satisfied with the minimum possible advantage.

Religion Effect On Politics

The belief systems of the modern world have helped determine the policies and politics of nations around the world. For centuries before, and almost definitely for decades after now, there will be disputed between people and countries on account of their faith. Religions have started wars, ended them, impacted, and persuaded people. Needless to say, beliefs are very influential on the world today. People of different faiths dont only fight over their basic beliefs and land but they end conflicts.

Making amends between religious groups reatly helps relieve the constant strain of division that we are all too aware of these days. The Lutheran religion began 482 years ago when monk, Martin Luther, attacked the practices of the Catholic Church. These who followed his ideas eventually into what we call Lutherans today. For those 482 years, Lutherans and Catholics have stayed divided on uneasy terms. Now the leaders of the modern Lutheran and Catholic churches both signed a document that laid to rest those many years of differences under the explanation that it was all a isunderstanding.

Sometimes different faiths just dont seem like they want to even try to compromise on a conflict. The Jordanian Muslims and the Israeli Jews fighting over which side of the Jordan River Jesus was baptized on is a perfect example of this. The Muslims have invested over one million dollars t fix up the site. The site will bring in expectantly millions of tourists and with them billions of dollars that will be spent locally to boost the economy. Looking past the irony of the Jews and Muslims disputing over a Christian site, the ocal point of the quarreling is that such a site will bring.

The Pope and Prince Charles have already scheduled a visit, but as of now, no resolve has come about. These days its not always conflicts between two specific regions, but between regions occupied by faiths who disagree on certain topics. The two groups being the Israelis and the Palestinians, and the compromise on the rift in the settler movement conflict arising in those countries. To the Jews the West Bank is part of the greater Land of Israel, given by God to the Jews. To ement their control over the land, the Jews built forty-two hilltop encampments on the West Bank.

They did this to prevent it from becoming a Palestinian state. The Palestinian government claimed that some of the outposts didnt have the necessary building papers and twelve of those sites were dismantled. This disagreement is, for the time being, settled peacefully despite the denounced accord from the Palestinians. In the future more outposts are likely to be taken down. Whatever the rhyme or reason, religions and belief systems have tremendous ffects on the way things work in this world.

Hopefully nations are learning from their past mistakes what not to do if such an occasion arise again. Whether the Lutherans and Catholics are putting years of disagreement behind them, the Jews and Muslims are settling their dispute, or Jewish outposts are being taken down, we are moving forward into a new and brighter future, and gaining information as we go along. Maybe in the future, more of the religious spats will be settled as the Lutheran/Catholic dispute was… peacefully.

The High Priest of Globalization

Everyone remembers the times in early childhood when their dad would hand them a picture book and ask them what they saw. Unbeknownst to the child, the picture contained a hidden picture or message. Although difficult to see, it was there. Even if refused by acknowledgement, it still existed. Such is the case with todays government. The so called “world leaders” are only puppets acting under the control of the great puppeteers. Whether it is soaring gas prices, a fluctuating economy, or shifts in political power; secret entities of elite caliber are the masterminds behind all world affairs.

These expert manipulators covertly gather behind closed doors and make decisions that affect the lives of every human being on the face of the earth. By exploiting political positions, exclusive members of the Trilateral Commission secretly direct, manipulate, and are making advances to eventually control the governments of the world, as a whole. The Trilateral Commission is an American based, political super power that claims to have its interest asserted in shaping and protecting foreign policy.

The founder of the Trilateral Commission and chairman of the Chase Manhattan Bank, David Rockefeller, wrote to the New York Times and said: My point is that far from being a coterie of international conspirators with designs on covertly conquering the world, the Trilateral Commission is, in reality, a group of concerned citizens interested in identifying and clarifying problems facing the world and in fostering greater understanding and cooperation among international allies.

It is easy to say that their cause is benevolent, but are there ulterior motives? Is the Trilateral Commission attempting to mold public policy and construct a framework for international stability in the coming decades? Commission members such as David Rockefeller and former President Jimmy Carter are in such influential positions of power that world domination is not far from their clutches. Although a one-world government sounds foolish, it is not far from the truth.

The Trilateral Commission describes their organization as a multicultural, transnational including members from Japan, Canada, and various other countries. John B. Oakes of the New York Times commented on the behalf of the Commissions members: The Trilateral Commission is neither super-government nor secret society. It is rather a loosely defined “think tank,” godfathered by David Rockefeller and nurtured in its early years by Zbigniew Brzezinski.

Most of its 250 invited members come from the super-elite of international business, banking, and finance in the developed countries of the West and Japan, with a sprinkling of high-level academics and former officials, a ew legislators, and even a stray leader or two. At their periodic closed- door meetings, they debate the economic and political roles of the industrialized democracies. (Oakes A27) This article, which was written in 1980, tells us the commission was founded by David Rockefeller, includes 250 mostly upper class citizens from the United States, Canada, Europe and Japan.

It warps the truth by failing to mention that over 90% of the members are American citizens that belong to the Council on Foreign Relations (Road Show of Deception). Council membership is by invitation only, and restricted to American citizens. The Trilateral Commission is an inner circle of Council on Foreign Relations members. A list of 1992 Commission members is contained on a website entitled Road Show of Deception. It contains 337 names, 316 are found on various Council on Foreign Relations membership lists.

Another 21 people are either Americans not found on these Council on Foreign Relations rosters, or are European and Japanese members (Road Show of Deception 2). By distorting the truth, the Trilateral Commission clearly manipulates the media into reporting false information to the public so that their hidden agenda can pass by nave eyes. The Trilateral Commission capitalizes on political positions to add to their number of influential power-heads.

For example, George Wald, an emeritus professor of Biology at Harvard and co-recipient of the 1967 Nobel Prize for Medicine, wrote a letter to the New York Times concerning the Trilateral Commission: An extraordinary fraction of the Carter Administration was drawn from its embership: President Carter himself, Vice President Mondale, Security Advisor Brzezinski, ex-Secretary of State Vance, ex-Secretary of Treasury Blumenthal, Secretary of Defense Brown, Deputy Secretary of State Warren Christopher, Deputy Secretary of Energy Sawhill, Federal Reserve Chairman Volcker, Special Assitant Hedley Donovan, Counsel to the President Lloyd Cutler and a scattering of other high functionaries. (All such persons continue to be listed by the Trilateral Commission as “Former Members in Public Service. ) (Wald 14:4).

By gaining more and more dynamic men in high places, more power is consumed by the people drawing them in. This combining of power forces consolidates the leaders in world, thus moving closer and closer to an unseen one-world government.

In addition, former Senator Barry Goldwater described the Trilateral Commission as ” the vehicle for multinational consolidation of the commercial banking interests by seizing control of the political government of the United States” (qtd. in Goldwater). The Trilateral Commission is merely an excuse to select the effective and wealthy aristocracy of our time. When the men with the money join the club, they open new doors to seize control of the world market by regulating major commodities such as petroleum, gold bullion, and precious gems. The Trilateral Commission will persevere to gain all major super powers in the world too usher in the completion of their extensive solitary establishment. All around us, there are signs of globalization.

Whether we choose to observe them or not is up to us. Through their manipulation, they twist and contort the facts and blind the public into staying content with their “prefect” world when in reality, they have no say in who rules over them. Only until the Trilateral Commission has a single all-powerful government will they stop to absorb the individual leaders of the world. Only until one digs deep into foreign affairs can one discover the secret and elite rulers of our time. As in the words of British Statesman, Benjamin Disraeli, “So you see, my dear Coningsby, that the world is governed by very different personages from what is imagined by those who are not behind the scenes. “

Government Spending & Budget

As many Federal departments and agencies lurch into an era of running without funds, the leaders of both parties of Congress are spending less and less time searching for a compromise to balance the budget, and more and more time deciding how to use it to their advantage on the campaign trail. Meanwhile money is easily borrowed to pay for government overhead. In an attempt to change this, on June 29, Congress voted in favor of HConRes67 that called for a 7 year plan to balance the Federal Budget by the year 2002 (Hager 1899).

This would be done by incorporating $894 billion in spending cuts by 2002, with a projected 7 year tax cut of $245 billion. If this plan were implemented, in the year 2002, the U. S. Government would have the first balanced budget since 1969. There is doubt by citizens that a balanced budget will become reality. A recent Gallop Poll from January, 1996 showed the budget as the #1 concern among taxpayers, but 4/5 of those interviewed said they doubt the GOP will do the job (Holding 14).

Meanwhile, an ABC poll from November reported that over 70% of those polled disapprove of the current performance by Congress, and most blamed politicians for failure to take action (Cloud 3709). These accusations of failure to follow through come with historical proof that Congress and Clinton have failed to compromise and resolve the issue. After all, current budget plans are dependent on somewhat unrealistic predictions of avoiding such catastrophes as recession, national disasters, etc. , and include minor loopholes. History has shown that every budget agreement that has failed was too lax.

One might remember the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings bill that attempted to balance the budget, but left too many exemptions, and was finally abandoned in 1990 (Weinberger 33). So after a pain-staking trial for GOP Republicans to create, promote, and pass their budget, as promised on campaign trail 94, Clinton rejected the very bill he demanded. This essentially brought the federal budget back to square one. Clinton thought such a demand on Republicans to produce a budget would produce inner-party quarrels and cause the GOP to implode.

Instead, they produced a fiscal budget that passed both houses of Congress, only to be stalemated by a stubborn Democratic President Clinton. Meanwhile, Clinton bounced back with a CBO scored plan with lighter, less risky cuts to politically sensitive areas like entitlements. Clinton’s plan also saved dollars for education and did not include a tax increase, but most cuts would not take effect until he is out of office, in the year 2001. Although Clinton is sometimes criticized for producing a stalemate in budget talks, the White House points out that the debt has gone down since Clinton took office, with unemployment also falling.

Republicans are quick to state that Clinton originally increased taxes in 1993 and cut defense programs, but his overall plan was for an increasing budget without deficit reduction. Startling Facts about the budget: As of 1996, the national debt was at an all time high of $5 trillion dollars, with interest running at a whopping $250 billion per year (Rau M-1). This equals out to an individual responsibility of more than $50,000 per taxpayer. Nearly 90% of that debt has accumulated since 1970, and between 1980 and 1995, the debt grew by 500%.

Currently, the debt grows by more than $10,000 per second (Rau M-l), and at current rates, a baby born in 1992 will pay 71% of his or her income in net taxes. At current rates, our government is about to reach its breaking point. If that’s not enough to scare a taxpayer, by 2002, 60% of government spending will be for entitlements, and by 2012, these programs are projected to take up all government revenue (Dentzer 32). Not only economic development, but also family income is hurt by debt. With the cost of living going up, it becomes harder to find a job.

According to the Concord Coalition, real wages peaked in 1973 and have gone down ever since. If the economy grew as fast as it did in 1950, without a debt, the median family income would be $50,000, compared to the present median of $35,000 (Rau M-1). As of current fiscal year’s budget, the United States government spends $1. 64 trillion yearly. $500 billion of that, or 1/3 of the total, is for discretionary spending (Rau M- 1). This discretionary spending is the target for most cuts, and seems to be the easiest to make cuts in. Overall, the difference between the two parties budget plans is only $400 billion.

This could easily be trimmed by eliminating tax cuts and adjusting the consumer price index to reality. Democrats say the GOP plan is too lopsided, and Republicans criticize the Democrat plan for being unrealistic. A study by the Urban Institute shows GOP cuts will be felt mainly by the bottom 1/5 of U. S. population. This should be more equally spread out across income brackets (Hosansky 1449). The GOP plan: By fulfilling campaign promises made by freshman Republican Congressmen to cut government spending, the GOP managed to pass a $1. 6 trillion budget resolution by a party-line vote, in both houses of Congress (Hosansky 1450).

This budget called for major cuts in education, environmental programs, discretionary spending, and the largest of all: entitlements. 70% of the money to balance the budget under the GOP plan would have come from entitlements. This is because entitlement programs currently take up $301 billion a year. Such cuts had already been partially implemented with the GOP cutting overall spending by 9. 1% in 1996 alone. First, in an attempt to stop the projected bankruptcy of Medicare in 2002, Republicans cut $270 billion overall from the program, with hospital reimbursement cuts being the deepest (Hager 1283).

Although stabilizing the fund is only expected to cost $130-$150 billion over 7 years, the GOP budget would reform the program to run better, and cheaper, by allowing it to grow at 6% yearly, instead of the current 10%. While both parties agree on premium hikes for beneficiaries, this is a touchy subject for the 38. 1 Million elderly voters on Medicare in 1996 (Rubin 1221). Medicaid, another volatile program, would be cut $182 billion under the GOP proposal. This would entail placing a cap on the program’s spending, and passing control of it to the individual state governments.

For an estimated 39 million low-income people on Medicaid in 1996, the GOP plan cuts the program far more than Clinton’s proposed $98 billion cut. Social Security is another program being cut. The government has already reduced the outlay for seniors 70 and younger who are on the program, but Republicans want more by increasing the eligibility for Social Security from 62 to 65 for early retirement, and 65 to 70 for standard retirement (Henderson 60). Smaller cuts included $11 billion in student loan reductions, $9. illion in labor cuts, $10 billion eliminated from public housing programs, and several other numerous disaster relief programs cut (Rubin 1222).

The GOP also wants to eliminate programs initiated by Clinton like the National Service initiative, summer jobs, Goals 2000, and Americorps. Also, by terminating unnecessary farm programs, and cutting others by $12. 3 billion, Republicans hope to cut the yearly $6 billion that the Federal Government spends on direct subsidies to farmers. Agricultural policies were also reformed and embedded into budget-reconciliation bills (Hosansky 3730).

Clinton’s Budget: Clinton’s budget only surfaced after he vetoed the budget passed by Congress, and included shallower cuts, with little or no reform to entitlements. This plan was supported by most Democrats and was used as an alternate to a gutsy GOP budget. Clinton repeatedly trashed the Republican’s efforts to make cuts on programs he feels important like student loans, agricultural programs, and entitlements. He accused Republicans of wanting to kill some all together. He has also threatened to veto a Republican plan to reform Medicare called Medical Savings Accounts, unless his programs are left intact (Hager 752).

Under Federal law, the President is required to submit budget requests in 2 forms: Budget Authority (BA), the amount of new federal commitments for each fiscal year, and Outlays, the amount actually spent in the fiscal year (Rubin 1221). The plan that Clinton has presented is not only a budget resolution in the form of a campaign document, but also proof of how far the Republicans have moved him to compromise since the they took control of Congress. Most important, it does not readily translate into regular accounting principles used for government programming.

This year’s White House budget was a 2,196 page document that the GOP struck down immediately for not cutting taxes enough and neglecting to downsize the government (Hagar 752). “There is little or no change at all in this budget,” said Pete Domenici (Senate Budget Committee Chairman), talking of Clinton’s new budget. Among largest cuts within Clinton’s plan was the downsizing of 1/5 to 1/3 of all programs that he felt were not a priority to present day government. In addition, he wanted to close loopholes presented to corporate taxation, that would save an estimated $28 billion.

He vowed to keep programs like education, crime prevention, and research or environmental grants, while increasing the Pell Grant from $2,340 to $2,700. Attention was also placed on discretionary spending, with Clinton cutting a smaller $297 billion compared to GOP’s $394 billion cut. According to the Office of Management and Budget, the President’s plan cuts middle-income taxes by $107. 5 billion in 7 years, small business by $7 billion, and cuts $3. 4 billion from distressed urban and rural area relief (Rubin 1222). This was to be paid for by a $54. illion hike in corporate and wealthy- income taxes, and also in $2. 3 billion of tighter EITC (Earned Income Tax Credit) adjustments.

Although Clinton’s plan was expected to cut a whopping $593 billion in 7 years to furthermore produce an $8 billion surplus in 2002, most cuts are long term without a clear goal. Clinton is sometimes criticized by Republicans for unwillingness to compromise. He has used vetoes and stubborn negotiations to protect personal priorities like education, job training, and environmental programs, but Republicans have also tried using domination to force him to comply.

GOP Presidential candidate Bob Dole said if Clinton was serious about the budget, “we probably could have had an agreement on New Years Day,” 1996 (Hosansky 1449). “The President is sitting on his hands while the federal debt keeps going up and up and up into the stratosphere,” said Congressman Jesse Helms, Rep -North Carolina. But one must remember that President Clinton does have somewhat of an overwhelming power in this debate that Republicans can do nothing about.

He is the single person that can veto laws sent to him, and also has the power to call Congress back into session if he is unhappy with the current situation. This was President Truman’s “ace in the hole” back in 1948. A Neutral Proposal: As a neutral proposal, a group calling themselves the “Blue Dog’s” have won support for their budget from both Republicans and Democrats. The group also known as the Concord Coalition includes many conservative Democrats that want to see shallower budget cuts with less reform to entitlements.

They also believe a tax cut should be delayed until the budget is balanced. The Coalition believes that by reforming entitlement policy, rethinking government size, changing taxation methods, and consuming less, our budget can be balanced (Rau M-1). Defending Deficits: In defense of deficits, some may argue that the danger of the current situation is highly over rated. A budget deal has always had less to do with economics than with politics and morality. Budget deficits don’t crowd out private investment, government spending does, and a large surplus may not be a sign of strength for a country.

Some say it is impossible for every country to run either a surplus or a deficit. What matters is that a country can service its debts (Defense 68). During most of the 19th century, the United States borrowed from the world (a current-account deficit). By 1870, it was running a trade surplus, and by 1900 we had a current-account surplus. But in the early 2Oth century, the U. S. became the world’s largest net creditor, and by 1970 it peaked by finally running into deficit in 1970. Finally, 1980 brought a deficit so large, that the government was a net debtor again (Bottom Line 14).

Current Reductions: One of the ways we are currently reducing the deficit includes the introduction of “means testing. ” This means that people would get entitlements based on need. The government already has reduced Social Security for modest income seniors age 70 and younger, but budget cutters want to broaden that idea (Henderson 60). There are 2 major problems with means testing. First, it is considered inherently unfair. Some might argue that a person might blow all of their income before the entitlement reductions come into place.

Second, it might reduce the incentive to work and encourage people to hide their income. For instance, beneficiaries of Social Security, ages 62-64, lose $1. 00 yearly in benefits for every $2. 00 they earn in income or wages above $8,160 per year (Henderson 60). Some say increasing eligibility requirements would solve some problems, and propose raising the age of early retirement from 62 to 65, and standard retirement from 65 to 70. Another touchy subject in budget reduction is the argument that the poor are being left out of savings.

According to the Clinton Administration, the GOP budget would cause a family with income of $13,325 per year to lose 11% of their income (Whitman 42). United States Treasury Department studies say the bottom 1/5 income families would have net tax increase of an average $12 to $26 under the GOP plan. The top 1/5 income families would receive more than 60% of the tax relief. A HHS analysis states that the GOP plan would also boost child poverty rates from 14. 5% to 16. 1%, and poor families with children would loose 6% of their income. Conclusion: In the end, budget reduction is no easy task. .. fixing the National debt is like catching a train leaving the station.

The longer we wait, the harder and farther we have to run,” says the Concord Coalition (Rau M-1). “Both parties want the issue,” instead of an agreement, said Representative Bill Orton. The center of attention for debate on budget cutting is politics, and whomever takes responsibility for reform gets left wide open to criticism. Although Congress and Clinton have spent the past year on debating the budget and the size of the Federal Government, most plans fall back on gimmicks, loopholes, and long-term plans.

Even Democrats now agree to downsize the government, but the two parties disagree on how and where. As we trust our elected officials to make decisions in Washington on our behalf, we must show interest and aptitude on the end results. To accomplish a balanced budget deal, many suggest that we must not only balance spending, but reform entitlements, rethink government size, change tax methods, and depend less on Washington. Attendees of a conference on budget cutting in Jackson Hole, Wyoming suggested we deliver a budget that has a simple, quantifiable goal, that includes short term goals, and eliminated gimmicks.

Countries like Sweden and Canada have successfully reformed fiscal policies. Sweden’s government elected to abandon welfare, pensions, health insurance, unemployment programs, family assistance, and child allowances. Their deficit soon fell by 3. 5% of GDP in one year alone (Urresta 51). Sweden’s plan was three times as intense as Congress’ current plan, while cutting spending in half the time. As for cuts, everyone must suffer. As entitlement debates continue, “the interests of older Americans are being protected at the expense of young people,” says Neil Howe and Bill Strauss (Rau M- 1).

Older Americans have good reason to protect programs that they have paid into for years, but those programs spend an overall per capita amount of 11 times as much on elderly than that spent on children altogether (Rau M-1). The youth are the future of America, and we should protect them too. Currently, poverty in US is 3 times as likely to affect the very young than the very old. By balancing the budget, “interest rates come down, the economy picks up – we will rebound,” says Representative James Greenwood (Cloud 3709), and everyone should be happy with that.

Government Spending Essay

As many Federal departments and agencies lurch into an era of running without funds, the leaders of both parties of Congress are spending less and less time searching for a compromise to balance the budget, and more and more time deciding how to use it to their advantage on the campaign trail. Meanwhile money is easily borrowed to pay for government overhead. In an attempt to change this, on June 29, Congress voted in favor of HConRes67 that called for a 7 year plan to balance the Federal Budget by the year 2002 (Hager 1899).

This would be done by incorporating $894 billion in spending cuts by 2002, with a projected 7 year tax cut of $245 billion. If this plan were implemented, in the year 2002, the U. S. Government would have the first balanced There is doubt by citizens that a balanced budget will become reality. A recent Gallop Poll from January, 1996 showed the budget as the #1 concern among taxpayers, but 4/5 of those interviewed said they doubt the GOP will do the job (Holding 14).

Meanwhile, an ABC poll from November reported that over 70% of those polled disapprove of the current performance by Congress, and most blamed politicians for failure to take action (Cloud 3709). These accusations of failure to follow through come with historical proof that Congress and Clinton have failed to compromise and resolve the issue. After all, current budget plans are dependent on somewhat unrealistic predictions of avoiding such catastrophes as recession, national disasters, etc. nd include minor loopholes.

History has shown that every budget agreement that has failed was too lax. One might remember the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings bill that attempted to balance the budget, but left too many exemptions, and was finally abandoned in 1990 (Weinberger 33). So after a pain-staking trial for GOP Republicans to create, promote, and pass their budget, as promised on campaign trail 94, Clinton rejected the very bill he demanded. This essentially brought the federal budget back to square one.

Clinton thought such a demand on Republicans to produce a budget would produce inner-party quarrels and cause the GOP to implode. Instead, they produced a fiscal budget that passed both houses of Congress, only to be stalemated by a stubborn Democratic President Clinton. Meanwhile, Clinton bounced back with a CBO scored plan with lighter, less risky cuts to politically sensitive areas like entitlements. Clinton’s plan also saved dollars for education and did not include a tax increase, but most cuts would not take effect until he is out of office, in the year 2001.

Although Clinton is sometimes criticized for producing a stalemate in budget talks, the White House points out that the debt has gone down since Clinton took office, with unemployment also falling. Republicans are quick to state that Clinton originally increased taxes in 1993 and cut defense programs, but his overall plan was for an increasing budget without deficit reduction. As of 1996, the national debt was at an all time high of $5 trillion dollars, with interest running at a whopping $250 billion per year (Rau M-1).

This equals out to an individual responsibility of more than $50,000 per taxpayer. Nearly 90% of that debt has accumulated since 1970, and between 1980 and 1995, the debt grew by 500%. Currently, the debt grows by more than $10,000 per second (Rau M-l), and at current rates, a baby born in 1992 will pay 71% of his or her income in net taxes. At current rates, our government is about to reach its breaking point. If that’s not enough to scare a taxpayer, by 2002, 60% of government spending will be for entitlements, and by 2012, these programs are projected to take up all government revenue (Dentzer 32).

Not only economic development, but also family income is hurt by debt. With the cost of living going up, it becomes harder to find a job. According to the Concord Coalition, real wages peaked in 1973 and have gone down ever since. If the economy grew as fast as it did in 1950, without a debt, the median family income would be $50,000, compared to the present median of $35,000 (Rau M-1). As of current fiscal year’s budget, the United States government spends $1. 64 trillion yearly. $500 billion of that, or 1/3 of the total, is for discretionary spending (Rau M-1).

This discretionary spending is the target for most cuts, and seems to be the easiest to make cuts in. Overall, the difference between the two parties budget plans is only $400 billion. This could easily be trimmed by eliminating tax cuts and adjusting the consumer price index to reality. Democrats say the GOP plan is too lopsided, and Republicans criticize the Democrat plan for being unrealistic. A study by the Urban Institute shows GOP cuts will be felt mainly by the bottom 1/5 of U. S. population. This should be more equally spread out across income brackets (Hosansky 1449).

By fulfilling campaign promises made by freshman Republican Congressmen to cut government spending, the GOP managed to pass a $1. 6 trillion budget resolution by a party-line vote, in both houses of Congress (Hosansky 1450). This budget called for major cuts in education, environmental programs, discretionary spending, and the largest of all: entitlements. 70% of the money to balance the budget under the GOP plan would have come from entitlements. This is because entitlement programs currently take up $301 billion a year.

Such cuts had already been partially implemented with the GOP cutting overall spending by 9. 1% in 1996 alone. First, in an attempt to stop the projected bankruptcy of Medicare in 2002, Republicans cut $270 billion overall from the program, with hospital reimbursement cuts being the deepest (Hager 1283). Although stabilizing the fund is only expected to cost $130-$150 billion over 7 years, the GOP budget would reform the program to run better, and cheaper, by allowing it to grow at 6% yearly, instead of the current 10%.

While both parties agree on premium hikes for beneficiaries, this is a touchy subject for the 38. 1 Million elderly voters on Medicare in 1996 (Rubin 1221). Medicaid, another volatile program, would be cut $182 billion under the GOP proposal. This would entail placing a cap on the program’s spending, and passing control of it to the individual state governments. For an estimated 39 million low-income people on Medicaid in 1996, the GOP plan cuts the program far more than Clinton’s proposed $98 billion cut. Social Security is another program being cut.

The government has already reduced the outlay for seniors 70 and younger who are on the program, but Republicans want more by increasing the eligibility for Social Security from 62 to 65 for early retirement, and 65 to 70 for standard retirement (Henderson 60). Smaller cuts included $11 billion in student loan reductions, $9. 3 billion in labor cuts, $10 billion eliminated from public housing programs, and several other numerous disaster relief programs cut (Rubin 1222). The GOP also wants to eliminate programs initiated by Clinton like the National Service initiative, summer jobs, Goals 2000, and Americorps.

Also, by terminating unnecessary farm programs, and cutting others by $12. 3 billion, Republicans hope to cut the yearly $6 billion that the Federal Government spends on direct subsidies to farmers. Agricultural policies were also reformed and embedded into budget-reconciliation bills (Hosansky 3730). Clinton’s budget only surfaced after he vetoed the budget passed by Congress, and included shallower cuts, with little or no reform to entitlements. This plan was supported by most Democrats and was used as an alternate to a gutsy GOP budget.

Clinton repeatedly trashed the Republican’s efforts to make cuts on programs he feels important like student loans, agricultural programs, and entitlements. He accused Republicans of wanting to kill some all together. He has also threatened to veto a Republican plan to reform Medicare called Medical Savings Accounts, unless his programs are left intact (Hager 752). Under Federal law, the President is required to submit budget requests in 2 forms: Budget Authority (BA), the amount of new federal commitments for each fiscal year, and Outlays, the amount actually spent in the fiscal year (Rubin 1221).

The plan that Clinton has presented is not only a budget resolution in the form of a campaign document, but also proof of how far the Republicans have moved him to compromise since the they took control of Congress. Most important, it does not readily translate into regular accounting principles used for government programming. This year’s White House budget was a 2,196 page document that the GOP struck down immediately for not cutting taxes enough and neglecting to downsize the government (Hagar 752). “There is little or no change at all in this budget,” said Pete Domenici (Senate Budget Committee Chairman), talking of Clinton’s new budget.

Among largest cuts within Clinton’s plan was the downsizing of 1/5 to 1/3 of all programs that he felt were not a priority to present day government. In addition, he wanted to close loopholes presented to corporate taxation, that would save an estimated $28 billion. He vowed to keep programs like education, crime prevention, and research or environmental grants, while increasing the Pell Grant from $2,340 to $2,700. Attention was also placed on discretionary spending, with Clinton cutting a smaller $297 billion compared to GOP’s $394 billion cut.

According to the Office of Management and Budget, the President’s plan cuts middle-income taxes by $107. 5 billion in 7 years, small business by $7 billion, and cuts $3. 4 billion from distressed urban and rural area relief (Rubin 1222). This was to be paid for by a $54. 3 billion hike in corporate and wealthy-income taxes, and also in $2. 3 billion of tighter EITC (Earned Income Tax Credit) adjustments. Although Clinton’s plan was expected to cut a whopping $593 billion in 7 years to furthermore produce an $8 billion surplus in 2002, most cuts are long term without a clear goal.

Clinton is sometimes criticized by Republicans for unwillingness to compromise. He has used vetoes and stubborn negotiations to protect personal priorities like education, job training, and environmental programs, but Republicans have also tried using domination to force him to comply. GOP Presidential candidate Bob Dole said if Clinton was serious about the budget, “we probably could have had an agreement on New Years Day,” 1996 (Hosansky 1449). “The President is sitting on his hands while the federal debt keeps going up and up and up into the stratosphere,” said Congressman Jesse Helms, Rep -North Carolina.

But one must remember that President Clinton does have somewhat of an overwhelming power in this debate that Republicans can do nothing about. He is the single person that can veto laws sent to him, and also has the power to call Congress back into session if he is unhappy with the current situation. This was President Truman’s “ace in the hole” back in 1948. As a neutral proposal, a group calling themselves the “Blue Dog’s” have won support for their budget from both Republicans and Democrats.

The group also known as the Concord Coalition includes many conservative Democrats that want to see shallower budget cuts with less reform to entitlements. They also believe a tax cut should be delayed until the budget is balanced. The Coalition believes that by reforming entitlement policy, rethinking government size, changing taxation methods, and consuming less, our budget can be balanced (Rau M-1). In defense of deficits, some may argue that the danger of the current situation is highly over rated. A budget deal has always had less to do with economics than with politics and morality.

Budget deficits don’t crowd out private investment, government spending does, and a large surplus may not be a sign of strength for a country. Some say it is impossible for every country to run either a surplus or a deficit. What matters is that a country can service its debts (Defense 68). During most of the 19th century, the United States borrowed from the world (a current-account deficit). By 1870, it was running a trade surplus, and by 1900 we had a current-account surplus.

But in the early 2Oth century, the U. S. came the world’s largest net creditor, and by 1970 it peaked by finally running into deficit in 1970. Finally, 1980 brought a deficit so large, that the government was a net debtor again (Bottom Line 14). One of the ways we are currently reducing the deficit includes the introduction of “means testing. ” This means that people would get entitlements based on need. The government already has reduced Social Security for modest income seniors age 70 and younger, but budget cutters want to broaden that idea (Henderson 60). There are 2 major problems with means testing.

First, it is considered inherently unfair. Some might argue that a person might blow all of their income before the entitlement reductions come into place. Second, it might reduce the incentive to work and encourage people to hide their income. For instance, beneficiaries of Social Security, ages 62-64, lose $1. 00 yearly in benefits for every $2. 00 they earn in income or wages above $8,160 per year (Henderson 60). Some say increasing eligibility requirements would solve some problems, and propose raising the age of early retirement from 62 to 65, and standard retirement from 65 to 70.

Another touchy subject in budget reduction is the argument that the poor are being left out of savings. According to the Clinton Administration, the GOP budget would cause a family with income of $13,325 per year to lose 11% of their income (Whitman 42). United States Treasury Department studies say the bottom 1/5 income families would have net tax increase of an average $12 to $26 under the GOP plan. The top 1/5 income families would receive more than 60% of the tax relief.

A HHS analysis states that the GOP plan would also boost child poverty rates from 14. to 16. 1%, and poor families with children would loose 6% of their income. In the end, budget reduction is no easy task. “… fixing the National debt is like catching a train leaving the station. The longer we wait, the harder and farther we have to run,” says the Concord Coalition (Rau M-1). “Both parties want the issue,” instead of an agreement, said Representative Bill Orton. The center of attention for debate on budget cutting is politics, and whomever takes responsibility for reform gets left wide open to criticism.

Although Congress and Clinton have spent the past year on debating the budget and the size of the Federal Government, most plans fall back on gimmicks, loopholes, and long-term plans. Even Democrats now agree to downsize the government, but the two parties disagree on how and where. As we trust our elected officials to make decisions in Washington on our behalf, we must show interest and aptitude on the end results. To accomplish a balanced budget deal, many suggest that we must not only balance spending, but reform entitlements, rethink government size, change tax methods, and depend less on Washington.

Attendees of a conference on budget cutting in Jackson Hole, Wyoming suggested we deliver a budget that has a simple, quantifiable goal, that includes short term goals, and eliminated gimmicks. Countries like Sweden and Canada have successfully reformed fiscal policies. Sweden’s government elected to abandon welfare, pensions, health insurance, unemployment programs, family assistance, and child allowances. Their deficit soon fell by 3. 5% of GDP in one year alone (Urresta 51). Sweden’s plan was three times as intense as Congress’ current plan, while cutting spending in half the time.

As for cuts, everyone must suffer. As entitlement debates continue, “the interests of older Americans are being protected at the expense of young people,” says Neil Howe and Bill Strauss (Rau M- 1). Older Americans have good reason to protect programs that they have paid into for years, but those programs spend an overall per capita amount of 11 times as much on elderly than that spent on children altogether (Rau M-1). The youth are the future of America, and we should protect them too. Currently, poverty in US is 3 times as likely to affect the very young than the very old.

The Truman Doctrine

The Truman Doctrine was the impetus for the change in United States foreign policy, from isolationist to internationalists; thus we were drawn into two wars of containment and into world affairs. The Truman Doctrine led to a major change in U. S. foreign policy from its inception – aid to Turkey and Greece – to its indirect influence in Korea and Vietnam. The aftermath of World War II inspired the U. S. to issue a proclamation that would stem Communist influence throughout the world. However, our zeal in that achievement sent our soldiers to die in Vietnam and Korea for a seemingly futile cause.

It must be the policy of the U. S. to support free peoples. This is no more than a frank recognitions that totalitarian regimes imposed on free peoples . . . undermine the foundations of . . . peace and security of the United States. The Truman Doctrine would change the foreign policy of the United States and the world. This policy would first go in aid to support the democratic regimes in Turkey and Greece. These nations were being threatened by Soviet-supported rebels seeking to topple the government and install a Communist regime. The Soviets were also making extreme territorial demands specially concerning the Dardanelles.

A direct influence of this Doctrine was, of course, the Marshall Plan. The Marshall Plan was designed to give aid to any European country damaged during World War II. It tremendously helped ravaged European nations such as Italy and France. By helping them economically, the Marshall Plan indirectly helped to stem growing Communist sentiment in these countries. The process whereby the Truman Doctrine came to fruition was a long and arduous one. After World War II, the Soviet Union and the United States stood at the pinnacle of world power. By the late ’40’s, the U. S. S. R. ad caught up to the United States’ nuclear weapons programs.

In addition, they were very land-hungry. Throughout Russia’s history, they have been in search of a port – a quest advanced further by Peter the Great and Catherine the Great. The Soviets in that respect were direct threats to their non-Communist neighbors: Greece, Turkey, and Iran. In Iran, the U. S. S. R. was not evacuating Iran’s northern provinces despite entreaties from the United States. In Turkey, the Soviet Union coveted several naval bases along the Straits of Dardanelles. Further, they pressured Turkey for border cessions that Turkey had aken from Russia after World War I.

In Greece, the Soviets encouraged the insurgent leader Markos Vafiades with arms and economic support. The British troops helping the Grecian government were strangled of supplies due to poor economic times in Britain. Also, further territorial requisitions to Yugoslavia, Albania, and Bulgaria were being made. Seeing the deteriorating U. S. – Soviet relations, Truman issued two statements about “agreements, violations, reparations, and Soviet actions threatening U. S. security. ”

“1. The Middle East is of strategic importance to the U. S. S. R. (from which they are in range of n air attack. 2. The U. S. must be prepared to wage atomic and biological warfare. ” (Ferrel 247) Soon after, he sent bombers to the Middle East. He desired the return of all arms given to U. S. S. R. under the Lend-Lease Act. There isn’t a doubt in my mind that Russia intends an invasion of Turkey and seizure of the Black Sea straits to the Mediterranean. Unless Russia is faced with an iron fist and strong language another war is in the making, How many divisions have you? Truman had his eye on the Soviets and on war. However, The U. S. S. R. never made such invasions and thus quelled Truman’s paranoia.

After these announcements the British disclosed that they could no longer give aid to Turkey and Greece and that the U. S. must pick up the slack. This left Greece in extreme danger of toppling into Communist control. “If Greece fell . . . Turkey isolated in the Eastern Mediterranean, would eventually succumb . . . ” Truman’s plan for peacetime aid — The Truman Doctrine — was unprecedented in history (a sum of more than $400 million) and he faced a hostile Republican Congress through which to pass it. However, Truman informed the Congress of the troubles facing Italy, Germany and France.

They and small, fragile Middle-eastern states faced direct threats from Communism. In retort, the Congress had problems with Truman’s plan that included: The Greek government was corrupt and undemocratic; Turkey, too, was not a Democracy. Turkey had been neutral during the war. Further, the President’s plan for aid gave no attention to Communism outside Europe. Nonetheless, two months later the bill passed on May 15, 1947. Truman added while signing the legislation into law: We are guardians of a great faith. We believe that freedom offers the best chance of peace and prosperity for all, and our desire for peace cannot be separated from our elief in liberty.

We hope that in years ahead more and more nations will come to know the advantages of freedom and liberty. It is to this end that we have enacted the law I have now signed. It was brought to Truman’s attention that Europe was by no means content in their economic recovery. Britain was near bankruptcy, Italy, France, and Germany were plagued by a terrible winter. More aid was needed to keep their democratic governments afloat. Thus, a direct result from the Truman Doctrine was the Marshall Plan.

This came about when Truman appointed General Marshall as Secretary of State. In that position, he observed Europe’s economic plight. ” Marshall proposed a plan that would offer aid to all nations “West of the Urals. ” (Truman, 355) This included the U. S. S. R. and her Eastern European satellite states. They, however, refused the aid. By March 1948, Congress had appropriated the first installment. Truman signed it into law on April 3, 1948. By its consummation in 1952 it would provide more than $13 billion in aid to war-ravaged Europe. This was a grand change in U. S. Foreign policy. We had gone from isolationists to internationalists. This Doctrine is in direct contrast to the Monroe Doctrine. The Monroe Doctrine served as the U. S. Foreign policy for well over 150 years.

It essentially stated that the U. S. would not intervene in the World’s affairs as long as no one interfered with hers. With the Truman Doctrine, we completely reversed that role that had been only briefly breached during the World Wars. Our new policy was one of Containment: To contain the spread of Communism to the states in which it presently inhabits. Our relationship with the U. S. S. R. after Truman’s declaration was in continuing deterioration. A major threat to our relationship was the Berlin Blockade of 1948. On June 24, 1948, the Soviets enacted a total blockade on Berlin.

The U. S. response was to airlift supplies into the cutoff West Berliners. By its end 277,804 sorties delivered 2,325,809 tons of goods to Berlin — more than a ton a piece to every Berliner. That threat brought Truman to prepare for war. He asked Congress for two measures in addition to the Marshall Plan to fortify America: The first was to temporarily enact the Draft. The Second was a long range plan called Universal Military Training. This was designed to train all males graduating from high school for combat. This idea never had a chance in Congress.

Truman also made a pact with Canada, Portugal, Italy, Norway, Denmark, Iceland, and Brussels pact nations. This was all a prelude to the upcoming conflict in the Korean War. We had not been able to assess the relative strength of the U. S. S. R. However, what we did know was that we had a far bigger atomic buildup than the Soviets — nearly 300 bombs! However, conventionally, we were far poorer. On June 24, 1950 Truman was told that North Korea had invaded South Korea or in Containment terms: Communism was spreading! The UN Security took a unanimous vote to declare war on North Korea. Truman hastily sent 10,000 troops from Japan to combine with the weak South Korean Army.

Even together, they were hardly a match for the 90,000 battle- hardened and strong North Koreans. General MacArthur was put in charge and ceded much space in order to buy time for reinforcements. Meanwhile, the American public was not seeing the value of killing their boys in Korea. “We demand that you stop murdering American boys and Korean People . . . ” Truman increased military spending to finance the war reinforcements. With newly received reinforcements, MacArthur brilliantly turned the tide of war. MacArthur moved speedily up the Korean Peninsula until Chinese intervention.

They briefly provided a roblem but they had no air force with which to support their own troops. Truman fired MacArthur on insubordination charges. The U. N. forces continued the war until a cease-fire was made in 1953. This reestablished the border at the 38th parallel. During this war, the U. S. lost about 60,000 troops. What results did we get? No border changes, a minor containment of Communism that probably would not have made much difference to the U. S. anyway. Only the death of Americans was gained. The next result of the Truman Doctrine was the Vietnam War. This was another anti- Communist containment war. Ho Chi Minh had invaded South Vietnam.

It began with the Gulf of Tonkin incident in which Vietnam Torpedo boats attacked U. S. destroyers. From there, more and more troops were poured into Vietnam. U. S. began bombing raids in 1965. By the end of that year more than 200,000 troops were in Vietnam. In 1968, 525,000 troops were there. Several peace initiatives were given by the U. S. but were refused, however by the Vietnamese. The Tet offensive renewed lagging conflict and eventually led to the end of all-out U. S. involvement in 1973. In 1970, the U. S. entered Cambodia due to a coup. However, in three months the U. S. troops were withdrawn.

At the end of our withdrawal early 60,000 troops were killed and this time we had not even saved the country we were defending. The veterans received nearly no welcome as the public was not interested in fighting a war too far away to matter. One great event that has caused the U. S. to escalate world aid and involvement was the collapse of the Soviet Union. No longer are we fighting to contain Communism, but instead to maintain Democracy any and everywhere. Still, today the Truman Doctrine prevails in determining our foreign policy. Most recently, we fought the stunning Gulf War. This was not a war of containment but it served a similar purpose.

It sought to prevent an aggressor from overtaking a weaker neighbor. Luckily, we had minimal casualties. This war was one different from Korea and Vietnam. It had a significant impact on the United States. We fought for our oil supply. Thus, this war did have a significant purpose. The U. S. has also fought minor skirmishes in hot spots around the world. In the Mideast we fought in Lebanon and Libya, not to mention our massive aid to Israel. In Central America, we have given aid to Nicaragua, fought in Panama, Grenada, and Haiti. All of these illustrate the impact of the Truman Doctrine on our foreign policy.

In Europe, we have not fought any wars but have given massive aid. From the Marshall Plan to a World Monetary Fund $10 billion grant to Russia, we have aided Europe throughout half a century. We formed many alliances such as NATO to combat Communism and preserve Independence there. And the most recent conflict of all is the Balkan conflict. We are again in danger of being drawn into a war with no clear purpose or advantage to the U. S. But in the continuance of the Truman Doctrine, we have stationed troops there. Hopefully, no casualties will come about but no one can prognosticate the future of such a hot spot for combat.

The Truman Doctrine has impacted everyone in the U. S. and nearly every country in the world since its declaration in 1947. Some critics castigate the Doctrine: “Critics blamed involvement in Korea and Vietnam on the Truman Doctrine. Without the Doctrine . . . the U. S. might have minded its own business. ” (McCullough, 571) While other critics argue: ” Truman was trying to restore the European Balance of Power and had neither the intention nor the capability of policing the world. ” (McCullough, 571) He may have not had that intention, but that is exactly the Doctrine’s ramification.

All over the world U. S. troops sit waiting to protect Democracy. The Truman Doctrine ensures that even without a valid threat to U. S. security we must waste American lives to “protect the free peoples of the World. ” (McCullough, 571) Would the world have been a worse place if we had not acted to protect South Korea and South Vietnam? Would the U. S. S. R. have fallen due to its own economic instability and only fleeting control over its massive population? These questions can be cogitated but never answered. One thing is certain, people should not die for a cause that is nonexistent, or one that could have destroyed itself.

The Populist Party

The Populist Party, a third political party that originated in America in the latter part of the nineteenth century, derived as a result of farmer discontent and economic distress. This was caused by the country’s shift from an agricultural American life to one in which industrialists dominated the nation’s development. The public felt as if they were being cheated by these robber barons, a term given to those who took advantage of the middle and lower classes by boldly stealing the fruits of their toils (Morgan, 30). These corporate tycoons’ conduct was legal, however ethically dubious it was.

Cornelius Vanderbilt, a well-known railroad baron, reportedly once said, Law! What do I care about the law? Hain’t I got the power? (Morgan, 30) The change from agrarian to industrial had a profound effect on everyone’s life. Ignatius Donnelly, a leader in the Populist Party wrote, We meet in the midst of a nation brought to the verge of moral, political, and material ruin. Corruption dominates the ballot-box, the Legislatures, the Congress, and touches even the ermine of the bench . . . A vast conspiracy against mankind has been organized (Tindall, 957).

As a result of this significant transformation, along with several different perspectives of peoples’ mores, several reform movements were commenced, such as prohibition, socialism, and the Greenback Labor Party. Each of these movements was launched by different coalitions in hopes of making a difference either for themselves or for the good of the country. The farmers, specifically, were unhappy for four particular reasons: physical problems, social and intellectual concerns, economic difficulties, and political frustrations.

The physical concerns the climate of the time period. Following 1885, there was a large drought on the American prairie, thus causing this land to become known as the Dust Bowl. Furthermore, there were extreme blizzards resulting in innumerable deaths of cattle and livestock. Also, farms were very isolated causing the women and children to lead a life of solitude and boredom. They demanded change. In fact, the women were the ones to start libraries and other meeting places for themselves and their children. This isolation made schooling for children quite difficult.

Most kids who lived on the farm did not receive a proper education, or one of any kind for that matter. Farmers’ economic problems are more intricate. Events baffled the farmer. They believed that deflation was the cause of their problem. The farmers produced more at a lower price due to improved fertilizers and new machinery, yet was making less than previously. In fact, in 1894, growers received less income from 23 million acres of cotton than from nine million in 1873. The exorbitant prices of shipping their goods to markets worsened their situation.

The railroads overcharged farmers so that they were able to grant large rebates to large industrialists to ensure the continuance of their business. These railroads united to form trusts that raised farmers’ prices. One Kansan said in 1891: At the age of 52 years, after a long life of toil and self-denial, I find myself and family virtually paupers. With hundreds of hogs, scores of good horses, and a farm that rewarded the toil of our hands with 16,000 bushels of golden corn we are poorer by many dollars than we were years ago.

What once seemed a neat little fortune and a house of refuge for our declining years, by a few turns of the monopolistic crank has been rendered valueless (Morgan, 157). Lastly, farmers are outraged at their own victimization by businessmen who utilize their wealth and influence to secure unfair fiscal advantages. As politicians increasingly paid more attention to industrial interests, the agrarians’ resentment intensified. They recognized that their influence was dwindling. The politicians were ignoring them and their pleas for help.

The Populist Party was the result of a movement that begun with the Granger movement, which was, in fact, a social movement. It organized various activities for women and children, established a mail-order program, and took an interest in education. The Grange united the farmers, who started to participate in politics through different independent third parties. As the Granger Movement fell apart, the Farmers’ Alliance was established. This, unlike the Granger Movement, was a political movement. There were two branches of this alliance, a southern one and a northwestern one.

The southern alliance, in contrast to the northwestern one, held back from plunging into politics. The members did not want to be deemed outcasts and traitors by their neighbors, who continued their support of the Democratic Party. As a result, they decided to meet in secret, along with the Colored Alliance, at which time they would agree upon a Democratic candidate that held views most similar to their own. These candidates, however, if elected, quickly abandoned their sympathies for the farmers. The northwestern alliance took a more radical approach; they were thinking about starting a third political party.

These members supported inflation and Macune’s sub-treasury plan. The sub-treasury plan allows farmers to store their crops in government warehouses and receive government loans for up to 80% of their crops’ value at one-percent interest. This does two things: gives them immediate credit and the opportunity to hold their crops until the market improves. Both the Grange and the Alliance endorsed social and educational programs, but the Alliance did two things differently; it was a political, rather than just a social movement, and it proposed an economic program, the sub-treasury plan.

The Populist Party, although concentrating on a few issues, adopts several others to improve their chances of winning an election. They expected by endorsing these issues, they would receive support from the northeast. Their platform included: free and unlimited coinage of silver at the 16:1 ratio; inflation at a rate of $50 per capita; transportation, telephone, and telegraph; implementation of the sub-treasury plan; wanted excess lands given to railroads; direct election of senators; child labor laws; mandatory education; eight-hour work day; one-year terms for president; and an income tax for the middle and upper class.

Populists wanted the government to take over the railroads, telephones, and telegraphs and regulate these services. The industrialists who owned and ran these services were cheating the public and overcharging. Populists wanted to reduce special privilege. Also, the farmers wanted the government to take back all the land the railroads were given that it doesn’t need. These lands should then be given, or sold at very cheap prices, to farmers. The Populists ran James Weaver in 1892. Weaver polled over 1 million votes and received a total of 22 electoral votes.

The Populists expected to do well in the 1894-midterm elections due to the devastating business panic under Cleveland’s administration in 1893. However, the Populists were disappointed as they emerged from the elections in 1894 with six senators and seven representatives. They looked forward to the 1896 presidential election with great optimism. However, when the election came, the lines between Democrats and Republicans were clearly drawn. Republicans chose McKinley, who supported the gold standard. Democrats nominated Bryan, a silverite who made the famous Cross of Gold speech that ensured him the spot on the democratic ticket.

The Populists, instead of splitting the silver ticket with the Democrats, decided to support Bryan. McKinley won, meanwhile crushing the hopes of the Populist Party. Populism continued on the edge of politics until the turn of the century, but it took a fatal blow from the election of 1896. It died out for several reasons. One, the voters preferred the soundness of the two major political parties. Voters identified the party with the violence caused by Coxey’s Army, which was a protest group lead by Jacob Coxey that demanded the federal government provide jobs for the unemployed.

And the: Voters’ repudiation of Cleveland’s party opened the way for new Democratic leadership that would neutralize or enfold Populist appeal . . . Cries for free coinage seemed dangerous to both property owners and wage workers. Populists’ disinterest in tariff protection, which Republicans used brilliantly, also unnerved voters seeking prosperity. And the income tax, sub-treasury and other economic panaceas seemed illogical and dangerous amid depression (Morgan, 169). The party also dies out because it does not win any elections.

One noted historian declared, A number of important Populist leaders . . . sought something that no American political party has achieved before or since: a political coalition of the poor whites and the poor blacks of the south (Hart, 266). The Populists appealed to a low class in society, which made it nearly impossible to have a successful party. It is also hard to accomplish anything when a political party resembles that of a labor union and its formation arises because of economic despair.

A prosperous period would immediately cause the party to split up, which was the case with the Populists. The Populist movement was the most dramatic reform movement of several late nineteenth century reform efforts, and although it did not last long, it had a profound effect on the country. Populism became so influential quite rapidly because the country was in a transitional phase, which included major industrialism and overproduction and a large influx of immigrants. The lower class was fighting for a cause they felt very passionately about, their lives and their well being.

It is hard to imagine farmers, known as being very conservative, could endorse a platform so radical, but it was their quick fix solution to their problems. The Populists movement was quite successful, even though it did not prevail in a presidential election. It caused the fissures in the two major parties to widen, and in so doing, helped solidify the two major parties, and made their differences obvious. The other parties adopted many of their programs as well. The Populist Party signaled the passing of an agricultural American life, and it is often agreed that their ideas helped in the formation of the Progressive movement.

Just War Theory: NATO Action Against Serbia

Years of aggressive European empires have left the area known as the Balkans in an almost constant flux. The nation of Yugoslavia, originated in 1918, first became stable under the leadership of Dictator Josip Broz Tito who turned the nation to communism in 1945. However, with Titos death in 1980, the country dissolved into several smaller countries. Presently the former state of Yugoslavia is comprised of the nations Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Macedonia, Montenegro, and Serbia. Within Serbia lies a region called Kosovo, an area where over ninety percent of the citizens are ethnic Albanians.

Kosovos opposition to Serbian control of their region climaxed in January 1998, when a group known as the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA) manifested its plans to unify Kosovo with the neighboring nation Albania. In response, the present Yugoslav President, Slobodan Milosevic, ordered Serbian forces to police the area. Within a short time, the Serbian forces also began to ethnically cleanse Kosovo of all non-Serbs. The civil war escalated into an international conflict in March 1999 when the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) intervened by bombing Serbian targets.

According to the most basic tenets of just war doctrine, NATOs ilitaristic intervention with Serbia in the NATO Yugoslav War seems to be appropriate. NATOs actions appear to follow the principles of jus ad bellum as well as jus in bella. Their goal also seems in accordance with other documents of sustaining peace, such as the Charter of the United Nations. However, a more detailed analysis might suggest otherwise: NATOs intervention was not justifiable in account that the war was more for Western interests than ending the ethical genocide of the non-Serbs in Kosovo.

In the extreme realistic view of war, or alls fair view, any action s justifiable if it protects or advances the interests of the state acting. This ideology strives on two tenets: (1) that any act in war is justifiable if it seems to serve the national interest, and (2) that rightness depends solely on the ends sought rather than on methods used to obtain those ends. The realistic view also follows utilitarian reasoning, which states behavior is ethical if it brings the greatest good to the greatest number. In this perspective, NATOs interaction was most certainly just.

Contrastingly, another view of war is the extreme pacifist view, that is voiding conflict or any violent action in every situation. No action is ethical if an individual is harmed. In this case, NATOs intervention would certainly have not been ethical. However, the current just war doctrine is neither of these extremes. Contemporary politics attempt to follow something in the middle. [T]here are sets of ethical principles to consider when judging the morality of war which are justice of war or jus ad bellum and justice in war or jus in bella.

Together they are embodied as just war tradition. Several of these modern just war theory tenets are expressed in the UN Charter. Article 33 states that any war must have a just cause : The parties to any dispute, the continuance of which is likely to endanger the maintenance of international peace and security, shall, first of all, seek a solution by negotiation, enquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, resort to regional agencies or arrangements, or other peaceful means of their own choice.

Article 39 exemplifies the necessity of nation-states to make all attempts at restoring peace and security: The Security Council shall determine the existence of any threat to the eace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression and shall make recommendations, or decide what measures shall be taken in accordance with Articles 41 and 42, to maintain or restore international peace and security. The UN Charter stresses that war is a last resort. In fact, the document goes on to describe war as an act of self-defense.

The principle of last resort suggests that states should exhaust all peaceful means of resolving disputes before resorting to military force, a condition that is easily met when a state has been attacked and is merely engaging in self-defense. These ideas are xpressed in Article 51: Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defense if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security.

Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defense shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore nternational peace and security.

Just war tradition also includes other agreements, such as discrimination, which is the requirement that combatants respect the immunity of noncombatants, and proportionality, which is met when the legitimate aims sought by a state resorting to war outweigh the harm that will result from prosecution of the war. In retrospective, NATOs actions led to an end of the ethnic-cleansing of the non-Serbs in Kosovo as well as doing so with minimal causalities.

In fact, with Milosevic having been dethroned in recent election, the possible nstallation of Serbian democratic government seems to be exciting the region of Kosovo. Reporters of the KFOR, the liberating army of Kosovo, document enthusiasm. For example, the KFOR treatment of elections in October 28, 2000 demonstrate this situation: After intense and thorough preparations, KFOR soldiers are ready to protect and secure the first free, democratic political elections in Kosovo, which will be held today, October 28.

KFOR’s operational reserve has been brought in and is on alert after conducting Air Insertion Exercises in the province. To underline the seriousness of KFOR’s treatment of this matter, a big strength emonstration took place near Camp Monteith in the Multi National Brigade (MNB) East prior to the election day. With the participation of KFOR British, Greek, Ukrainian and U. S. elements, an Air Insertion Exercise was carried out in a professional way.

In that perspective, NATOs intervention, the resort to arms and the prosecution, meeting the above criteria, seems to both conform to the principles of just war. According to British Prime Minister Tony Blair on April 22, 1999: This is a just war, based not on any territorial ambitions but on values…. No longer is our existence as states under threat. Now our actions are guided by a more subtle blend of mutual self interest and moral purpose in defending the values we cherish.

In the end values and interests merge. If we can establish and spread the values of liberty, the rule of law, human rights and an open society then that is in our national interests too. The spread of our values makes us safer. As John Kennedy put it “Freedom is indivisible and when one man is enslaved who is free? ” Blair states that the war is of mutual interest. The values of the NATO nation-states are further established in the international world, and there is a strong effort towards peace in Serbia.

A Student’s Reading of The Politics of Rich and Poor

Often times, a political analyst/scientist will write a book on the politics and economics of the time. This writer may also create a work which emanates views contrary to the opinion of the governing body. Rarely, however, does one find an analyst who will clearly undermine his own political party by, in effect, saying, “I told you so. Kevin Phillips, editor-publisher of The American Political Report, columnist for the Los Angeles Times, and chief political analyst for the 1968 Republican presidential campaign, describes in is book, The Politics of Rich and Poor: Wealth and the American Electorate in the Regan Aftermath, the consequences of the decisions made by the United States government while under the presidency of Republican Ronald Regan.

Phillips’ theme of the widening gap between the upper twenty percent of the population, in respect to annual income in actual dollars, with the lower twenty percent of the population coincides with the belief of the typical American avarice, during the eighties, leading the country on a rollercoaster ride of economic instability and shaky ground. These ideas remain constant and prevalant throughout the seven chapters. His views, though somewhat repetitive in the text, strike the reader with astonishment, especially when considering Phillips’ Republican party affiliation.

With his thesis in mind, Phillips discusses three major factors that escalate and at the same time submerge the state of the economy in America. These factors include: the sudden shift in tax rates, the diminishing “global wealth” of America, and the inability of the government under Regan to satisfy a “happy medium” for economic growth. All of these factors support Phillips’ theme and prove his argument of an up and down cycle of economic stability. From 1921 to 1925 the top one percent of the population’s tax rate was gradually decreased from the marginally high rate of seventy-three percent all the way to just twenty-five percent.

Over four years this elite group of Americans received a forty-eight percent reduction in taxes. This decrease opened the door for the super-rich Americans to capitalize and increase their current wealth. As the taxes decreased for this group of the population, others also benefited. A surge in real estate investments occured, the stock market values rose dramatically, and new technology such as radios and automobiles were surfacing every day. This bull economy lasted only a few short years. By 1929, the situation was reversed entirely. The economy crashed with unequaled consequences.

The rich citizens who were living “the good life” four years ago were now stuck with paying seventy-three percent of the entire population’s taxes. The stock market was on the down side, to say the least, the real estate and technological markets were also paralell to the stocks. The olution from the new democrats was to bring the economy back by forcing the affluent to carry the burden. The highest tax rate eventually reached ninety- one percent. After about twenty-five years, the economy was finally stable enough to lower this absurd rate.

In the mid seventies, the rates were gradually lowered to a mediocre seventy percent. Starting in 1980 the republican machine decided to again lower the rates, thereby lessening the gap between rich and poor. What actually happened was the high income brackets had more of a decrease than anyone. The rates at one point reached a low fifty percent. This cut, once again opened the door for the elite to become super- elite. The cycle had surfaced again. Just like in the early 1920s, the rich were gradually getting richer at the expense of everyone.

The technology markets boomed once again, real estate sales increased dramatically, and the stock market rose by leaps and bounds. It seemed like just what the economy needed. Regan’s reelection thrived on the fact that the entire country was caught up in a whirlwind of the seemingly perfect economy. The cycle continued just like economists predicted; the perfect economy suddenly had a recession to deal with. Another one of Phillips’ reasons for the downfall of the United States’ economy after Ronald Regan is the diminishing “global wealth” of the country.

The stock market crash of 1987 opened Regan’s eyes to the fact that his efforts to heal the economic woes of America were failing. The huge amounts of money borrowed to fund the tax cuts of the early eighties were borrowed at high interst rates. The republican party decided to raise the United States interest rates to a high level in order to fight inflation on the borrowed money. This surge in interest rates increased the value of the dollar significantly. This increase almost crashed American manufacturing because the products made in the states were not selling overseas due to a high dollar value.

The interest rates were slowly forced down, and the dollar lost value like never before. By 1988, other countries were shopping in the states like it was a flea market. Their currency could buy so much more than ours in our own country. Soon, the trade deficit was increasing, the selling of American companies to overseas investors was a daily occurrence, and foreigners were looking at our millions as “pocket change. Japan began to buy our businesses and real estate more than any other country.

In 1985 the total net worth of America and Japan was respectively 30. 6 trillion US dollars and 19. 6 trillion US dollars. In as little as two years, the Japanese had capitalized on the slouch in the value of the dollar and reversed the ratio. By 1987, the United States had 36. 2 trillion dollars in assests compared to Japan’s 43. 7 trillion dollars. Most of Japan’s new capital was formerly American owned companies and property. This trend in foreign ownership was a leading factor in the decline of our economic system during the eighties.

The Republican Party: Overall Issues, 1860-1868

The Republican party during the 1860’s was known as the party more concerned with “civil rights” and the common American. This came about through a series of sweeping changes in the party that occurred during two major time periods: the 1860-1864 and 1864-1868. The changes in the party reflected the attitude in the North as opposed to the confederate, democratic South. The main issue that divided the two was slavery and its implications for control of the nation.

The best illustration of the party’s anti-slavery sentiment (as contrasted to abolitionism) in 1860, is the fact that although the party was gainst slavery , it refused to attempt to stamp it out of the regions it was already present. For example, in the Republican Party Platform for 1860, the party states its abhorrence for slavery and declares that slavery should not be instituted into new territories, but it never tries to outlaw it from Southern states.

“That the normal conditions of all the territory of the United States is that of freedom… nd we deny the authority of Congress, of a territorial legislature or of any individuals, to give existence to Slavery in any Territory of the United States. ” In the first four years of the 1860’s, the North and South waged war over these issues, with the Republican North emerging victorious. The Republicans took charge of the national political power. Although he worked with an anti-slavery platform, President Lincoln attempted to make a generous peace with the South, with hopes of expanding the power of the Republican party with support from the South.

Examples of this can be found in the fact that Confederate officials were not barred from public office, compensation for lost slaves was not ruled out and Lincoln hinted that he would be generous with ardons to rebel leaders. With the Emancipation Proclamation, the Republicans gained freedom for slaves, but not social or political equality. During the years of 1864-1868, the Republican platform again changed with the public opinion in the North to one of abolition.

In the platform for the National Union Convention, the party affirmed its support for an Amendment to “terminate and forever prohibit the existence of slavery within the limits or jurisdiction of the United States. ” The 13th Amendment confirmed the death of slavery. However, the so-called “Black Codes” that Southern governments mplemented forced abolitionist Republicans in Congress to clash with President Andrew Johnson over the passage of a new Freedmen’s Bureau bill and a Civil Rights Act.

This clash signified a division between the old Republican values of tolerance and the new platform of slave rights. This led to the passage of the 14th amendment, which declared all slaves as citizens and defined their voting privileges as equal to every other citizen. The radical republicans had achieved their goal. With freedmen able to vote, the Republic party would be able to carry more of the Southern states in elections and maintain control. Near the end of the Reconstruction Era, the Republican party underwent even more changes.

With the slavery issue settled in their eyes, scandals in the party, and the threat of violence from various hate groups keeping freedmen from voting, its attentions began to turn elsewhere. The metamorphosis that the party underwent through the 1860’s was a direct result of the popular opinion in the North at the time. As the detestment of slavery grew in the North, so did the Republican legislation grow more severe against it, starting with the party platforms and ending with the ratification of the 14th Amendment.

Woodrow Wilson and American Diplomacy

Until early in [the twentieth] century, the isolationist tendency prevailed in American foreign policy. Then, two factors projected America into world affairs: its rapidly expanding power, and the gradual collapse of the international system centered on Europe . President Woodrow Wilson was the leader who would initiate the ideologies of American diplomacy in the twentieth century. Up until his Presidency, American foreign policy was simply to fulfill the course of manifest destiny, and to remain free of entanglements overseas.

Although he could not convince his fellow politicians on Capitol Hill of the probable success of his ideas, he did persuade the fellow writers of the Treaty of Versailles to use his Fourteen Points. Americas role as a political global superpower was established during his Presidency, as well as the modern policy that peace depends on the spread of democracy, and that national interest consists of adhering to a global system of law. The formation of modern American diplomacy can not only be attributed to Wilson, for the policies of Theodore Roosevelt are what initiated his diplomatic policies.

Roosevelt convinced Congress to strengthen the Army and Navy, and began major involvement in European affairs. His foreign policy regarding the Caribbean followed the policy of the Monroe Doctrine, that to maintain order in the Caribbean, foreign nations could not be involved, however Roosevelt did not follow the Doctrine to the extent of forceful evacuation of the Americas, he did use diplomatic means. He prevented European warfare in Venezuela, by negotiating with the involved nations. He found that it was Americas duty, just as all other powerful nations duties, to police the world and maintain order.

The Roosevelt Corollary to the Monroe Doctrine was issued, and it stated that America would be the police force of the Americas, and that European intervention was not necessary. This major step showed that America had no goals in obtaining new territories in the Caribbean, and was a measure to protect the Panama region from upheaval. Wilson would follow Roosevelts ideologies but to an even greater extent as he created a modern Monroe Doctrine. National aspirations must be respected; peoples may now be dominated, and[may now] be governed only by their own consent.

Self-determination is not a mere phrase. It is an imperative principle of action Peoples and provinces are not to be bartered about from sovereignty to sovereignty as if they were mere chattels and pawns in a game Every territorial settlement involved in this war must be made in the interest and for the benefit of the populations concerned. Its peace must be planted upon the tested foundations of political liberty. From 1913-1917, Wilson and Secretary of State William Jennings Bryan had to deal with an unstable Mexican government.

Bryan was easily the leading opponent of imperialism and navalism and a pioneer in the movement to advance peace through arbitration and conciliation. The Wilsonian foreign policy was the start of the concept that war should be avoided at all costs. This policy, named New Freedom diplomacy, was seen in the ordeal with Mexico. Wilson only desired to see the Mexicans establish a constitutional government, and overthrow the new leader of Mexico, Victoriano Huerta. As soon as Huerta seized power from the unstable government, some of the northern states began anti-Huerta campaigns.

At first Wilson suggested that America would mediate the dispute between Huerta and the Governor of Coahuila, Venustiano Carranza, and his followers in the Constitutionalist movement. But to Wilsons surprise both parties utterly rejected any American interference. On October 13, 1913, Huerta arrested most of the chamber of deputies and inaugurated a military dictatorship. Wilson was so angered by the breakup of any democratic means in Mexico that he gave full support to the Constitutionalist movement. Wilson prevented a German merchant ship from delivering arms to Huerta, by taking the port at Veracruz.

Wilsons challenge was to avoid a war with Mexico, while having American troops on Mexican soil. Carranza was opposed to this acquisition and denounced the American government. Carranza and his armies eventually took Mexico City, and abdicated the dictator on July 15, 1914. After Carranza seized control, a split in the Constitutionalist movement plunged Mexico into civil war. Fansico Pancho Villa, Carranzas greatest general broke ties and led the revolt. Villa became very corrupt, and would seek nothing but full control of Mexico, and not negotiating at all, war was his only tool.

Villa declared war on Carranza, and a civil war had begun. Carranzas army swiftly removed the provisional government of Villa. Began attacking American citizens. Sixteen Americans were killed in a massacre as Villas men stopped a train at Santa Ysabel. Another nineteen were killed as Villa burnt Columbus, New Mexico on March 9, 1916. The actions by Villa tested Wilson in declaring war, but he refused, and instead tried diplomatic means. Instead of actual war, he sent a small battalion across the border to obtain Villa, but never to attack Carranza.

Carranza was upset by the American actions and demanded that they leave Mexico immediately. Wilson refused, and sent the National Guard to the border. There were two brief skirmishes with the Constitutionalists. Carranza and Wilson new that neither nation could afford a war, thus there was a peace settlement. There was a joint commission between the nations from 1916-1917, and no official treaty was written because there was no official war. Wilson had succeeded; he reformed the corrupt Mexican government into a democracy. Many presidents during the Cold War would follow this policy.

The spread of democracy has been the basis of American foreign policy after World War II; future presidents defeated communism in similar, more modern, ways. Prior to American entry in to World War II, Wilsons foreign policy with Europe was to try and maintain a balance of diplomatic relations between both sides of the conflict. Actions like this have been taken previous to Wilson, seen with Jefferson and Madison during the Commercial Warfare era with Britain and France. The events the brought America into the war, were very similar to those of the Commercial Warfare period.

Both involved the usage of international trade barriers, and a naval war. Wilsons policies at this time were very similar to those of Jefferson, neutrality was key, but in both situations involvement on one-side of the conflict could not be avoided. It is still Americas goal to open new foreign markets, and raw materials through diplomatic policies. The dominant American reaction in August 1914 was relief that America was far removed from the scene of conflict, coupled with conviction that the United States had no vital stake in the outcome.

Wilson new that the war might have a disastrous effect on the American economy had he not made actions to prevent a crash on Wall St. He closed the stock market on July 31, 1914 to prevent the deflation of European securities, causing a possible panic. Foreign ships were allowed to fly the American flag when transporting American goods to avoid seizure at sea. The government discouraged loans by American bankers to belligerent governments because they violated the spirit of neutrality. During the years of war without American military involvement, it was very difficult to have neutrality of trade.

At the start of the war Britain ruled the seas, and rarely allowed trade with Germany, but never issued a formal statement. In time German submarines would overthrow the British cruise ships, as the owner of the sea, but this was mostly a bluff. On May 17, 1915 the German U-boats sank the Lusitania even though it carried nothing related to the military whatsoever. Of the 1200 people onboard the ship 128 were American. The American sentiment was still peace; war would be too costly. Wilson would write three notes to the German government trying to maintain peace, and also prevent such occurrences in the future.

Germany paid no intention to the notes, even though Wilson used extremely diplomatic language to avoid the conflict, stating the any future attack as deliberately unfriendly. Germany would ignore the notes completely, and sank another non-military ship killing two Americans. Wilson was outraged, he and new Secretary of State Lansing demanded that Germany stop attacking commercial ships without giving warning, and proper safety to passengers, this became known as the Arabic pledge named after the sunken ship. This event elevated anti-German sentiment in a time of much conspiracy in German-American relations.

The American government would also denounce Britains blockade, as a prevention of neutral international trade. Maintaining neutrality became a hardship. During 1915 and 1916 America was on the brink of war, with any one enemy action against the United States, and war was inevitable. There was such tension in diplomacy, that when Wilson sent Colonel House to Europe to try and mediate a peace settlement, both sides refused without ridiculous opposing clauses. House would try numerous times in diplomatic missions only to fail. A major issue was the preparedness controversy.

It was Wilsons belief that having a large standing army and building munitions was unfavorable. In 1915 he would make a concession to allow the expansion by 400,000 troops, but they would serve very short terms. In 1916 he had to satisfy Congress, and he doubled the size of the military, but left the National Guard as it was. The preparedness changes set off debate throughout the government. Congress and the President would have to form a resolution on the expansion of the military. There was strong opposition from the agrarian society, but was favored heavily by the industrialists.

Many democrats of the south and west formed an anti-preparedness bloc in debate. The navy would rapidly expand as well with the authorization of the building of over 30 ships and 3 submarines during the first year of a 3-year plan. The Merchant Marine Act of 1916 was established with support from the president. The act called for the creation of a government run shipping system, and a new agency, the United States Shipping Board. The USSB had the power to own and operate merchant ships, as well as to regulate rates and service of all merchant shipping, interstate, coastwise, and foreign commerce.

The president had is way with the militarization. The future of the American military would follow the actions of Wilson. The National Guard would fall under the War Department jurisdiction, and America would have a large standing military at all times. During times of war the military would be enlarged with the use of reserves. Wilson changed the future of neutral military. In 1917 Woodrow Wilson brought America into the war, and one of the major reasons was to save democracy in Europe. The Germans were winning the war, and after Russia withdrew from the war, it was mostly a one front war for Germany.

They had irrational settlements for peace, and after France and England declined, the reopened unrestricted submarine warfare, and had thoughts of taking over the Western nations shortly. The Zimmerman Telegram was the validity of American entry. The German ambassador stated to the Mexican and Japanese government that if American entered the war in Europe, they declared war on the United States, their old territories would be returned to them. This shocked the American public, and when the German U-boats sank three more American merchant ships, the cabinet decided that they must go to war.

Congress overwhelmingly agreed with Wilsons sentiment and on April 6, 1917 the United States declared war on Germany. Wilson avoided war to the fullest extent, but the merchants could no longer take the beating at see that they were getting. Avoidance of war, and taking diplomacy to the fullest extent, would be used throughout the twentieth century. The Cold War is a perfect example, the presidents never allowed the United States to go into a state of war with Russia. The American War Dept. raised 3,000,000 men for battle and the Navy expanded its already great strength.

The Germans would get beaten back, and the Allies would win the war in the fall of 1918. It was time to establish a treaty to try and prevent another World War from occurring. The allied nations agreed to meet at Versailles, France, starting January 1, 1919. The major fault in the peace settlement would be that only neutral nations and allied nations were invited, and only the allies played a significant role. With the central powers not attending, none of their voices could be heard, this is believed to be a major reason for the failure of the settlement, a cause of the Great Depression, and the rise of Hitler.

The name Woodrow Wilson seems to be synonymous with two words, Fourteen Points. The Fourteen Points were Wilsons major accomplishment in office. Wilson introduced his theory on what measures would be successful, in not only preventing Germany from beginning a war again, but to prevent all wars. After all it was the war to end all wars. His elaborate Fourteen points were outlined in two groups the obligatory, the must be fulfilled and six more specific nonessential, but valuable clauses.

The eight musts included open diplomacy, freedom of the seas, general disarmament, the removal of international trade barriers, impartial settlement of colonial claims, the restoration of Belgium, the evacuation of Russian territory, and Wilsons greatest thought, the establishment of an international organization, the League of Nations. The thought of an international organization based on the ideology of peace was not Wilsons original idea; many had found collective security valuable.

Theodore Roosevelt gave a speech in 1910 to the Nobel Prize committee in which he proclaimed it would be a master stroke if those great Powers honestly bent on peace would form a League of Peace, but to prevent, by force if necessary, its being broken by others. Roosevelt merely made speeches on the idea, whereas Wilson made the idea a reality. The League of Nations would fail, however the idea still burned on, and the United Nations would be formed after the Second World War. The immediate conception is that it wasnt Woodrow Wilsons doing that created the successful United Nations.

However, the idea of an international organization that Wilson proclaimed and it unsuccessfulness, can be compared with the Articles of Confederation; both were stepping stones on the path to success, and without Wilsons initiation of the League of Nations the triumph of the United Nations may never have occurred. Wilsons use of an international organization to benefit the peace and security of the world, and more importantly the United States, was an action that was taken by most presidents in post-World War II.

The other six points, which were up for negotiation, were the restoration of Alsace-Loraine to France, self-determination in the remains of the Austro-Hungarian and Ottoman Empires, evacuation of the Balkans, readjustment of Italys frontiers, internationalization of the Dardanelles, and the creation of Poland with access to the sea. Wilson went to the peace conference at Versailles to present the points himself. In a time when it took one week to travel across the Atlantic, this was a rarity. Future presidents would follow his lead.

Especially with the advent of modern planes, making voyages much more efficient. Now it is frequent that leaders meet at conferences and negotiations all over the world. This most likely would have occurred with or without Wilson, however leaving the US for 6 months, only returning once, was revolutionary. No President had ever been away so long. This greatly affected the way Congress, and their isolationist tendencies, would look upon the Treaty of Versailles, and more importantly Wilsons League of Nations.

Wilsons statement of a modern Monroe Doctrine (see p. ) is not referred to as the Monroe Doctrine was in stating American policy for the next century, however, the ideas conveyed in those phrases is what American diplomacy became in the twentieth century. Wilson avoided war with Mexico, he avoided war with Germany until any hope for diplomacy was destroyed, and he used diplomatic techniques in the most precise manner. Although the isolationist Congress did not ratify the Treaty of Versailles, because of the League of Nations, Wilsons diplomatic spirit still lived on.

America would join the League of Nations, and be a global superpower in the United Nations, North Atlantic Treaty Organization, and the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe. America has become what Wilson dreamed of, the economic, social, and political superpower. All fourteen points were eventually established, with interpretation on the general disarmament clause. Government officials might not study Wilson, they might not realize that it was he who shaped modern American diplomacy, it was he who shaped the twentieth century.

Politics Of The 1900

The events that occur in Upton Sinclairs book The Jungle were same things that people in the early 20th century had to deal with everyday. For example labor was exploited to the employers benefit. Political corruption and prostitution were some main points in the book. The most important idea, the book supports socialism over capitalism as an economic and social structure. These things are what they had to go through and will be further explained. The labor force was exploited to the employers benefits. The workers didnt have any set wages.

A very few days of practical experience in this land of high wages had been sufficient to make clear to them the cruel fact that it was also a land of high prices, and that in it the poor man was almost as poor as in any other corner of the earth; and so there vanished in a night all the wonderful dreams of wealth that had been haunting Jurgis. What had made the discovery all the more painful was that they were spending, at American prices, money which they had earned at home rates of wages–and so were really being cheated by the world!

There were unsafe working conditions that the workers had to tolerate day after day the company had no care of. . The injury was not one that Durham and Company could be held responsible for, and so that was all there was to it, so far as the doctor was concerned. Also was no job security, the workers fear of being fired anytime of the day. For example, due to their overproduction in the summer, the workers were forced to shut down in the winter making the workers unemployed when they need financial support the most.

Political corruption and prostitution were some things that went on in the story. The politicians didnt care about anybody but themselves and the vote that they get. Whose fault was it that at the hours when workingmen were going to their work and back, the cars were so crowded that the conductors could not collect all the fares? And besides, the companies were thieves, people said–had stolen all their franchises with the help of scoundrelly politicians! Also prostitution was a big problem also.

Young girls who are just trying to survive or women who have to families need means to support them were forced into prostitution as an easy way of getting money. Marriage and prostitution were two sides of one shield, the predatory man’s exploitation of the sex pleasure. If she had no money, she was a proletarian, and sold herself for an existence. The book also supports the idea that socialism over capitalism as an economic and social structure. The book shows that the working class is lowest end of society, but if the workers can make a difference.

If they pull together and fight the system they will win their freedom. When a Socialist was elected to office he voted with old party legislators for any measure that was likely to be of help to the working class, but he never forgot that these concessions, whatever they might be, were trifles compared with the great purpose–the organizing of the working class for the revolution. These were some of the things that went during that time. It was a hard time for the immigrants but it turned out that these immigrants were the ones that made this great country America. Without them we wouldnt be at where at without them.

Whitewater Conspiracy Essay

In today’s society people often pay close attention to what happens in politics. They normally make voting decisions on character, past work, and partisan lines. When rumors of indiscretion or impropriety of a public official pops up, people often like to get involved. Like gossiping on the church’s rumor grapevine, people love to get involved in conspiracies and scandals dealing with people of power. If you have watched television at all in the last ten years, you have probably heard about Whitewater. Whitewater is the investigation into Bill Clinton’s life before he became president.

This alleged conspiracy goes much deeper though than just a crooked land deal. It has its fingers into power and manipulation and even death. The conspiracy starts with a real estate deal twenty years ago. According to the Washington Post, in 1978, then-Arkansas Attorney General Bill Clinton and his wife, Hillary, joined a 50/50 partnership with James and Susan McDougal to buy 220 acres of riverfront land and form the Whitewater Development Corp. James McDougal and Clinton had become acquainted in 1968 when they worked for the re-election campaign of U. S. Sen. F. William Fulbright.

The goal was easy. All they had to do was sell lots for vacation homes. The deal was initially described as a sweetheart deal for Bill and Hillary Clinton. The partners would borrow money to buy land in northern Arkansas along the White River, divide the property into lots, and sell them for a profit. James McDougal also owned a savings and loan association called Madison Savings and Loan. The Clintons’ relationship with McDougals eventually involved them with Madison Savings and Loan. McDougal hired the Rose law firm in which Hillary Clinton worked along side of Vince Foster.

McDougal claims he hired them at the urging of now Governor Clinton, who wanted to help Mrs. Clinton drum up business. The president denies the claim. Some Clinton associates clearly broke the law during these years in Arkansas. The McDougals, most notably, were both found guilty of fraud. Hillary Clinton represented the S&L before the State Securities Department, headed by Clinton appointee Beverly Bassett Schaffer, who also once represented Madison as an attorney. Schaffer approved an unusual stock sale to help save the troubled Madison, despite federal complaints about McDougal’s business practices.

Federal investigators looked into those actions, which are central to the allegation that the Clintons helped keep Madison open long after it was broke, as a favor to McDougal. According to CNN. Com Madison collapsed in the mid-1980s, leaving American taxpayers with a $68 million bailout bill. However, The Rose law firm that Hilary worked for, having once represented Madison, then represented the government in the case. In 1989, McDougal was indicted on charges of bank fraud and other violations related to Madison’s failure.

He was later acquitted in 1990. Madison S & L and McDougal’s travails led to other questions about Bill Clinton’s role — questions of whether Madison funds were diverted by McDougal to pay Whitewater debts or funneled into Clinton’s gubernatorial campaign. The suspicion of funneling arises from a 1985 fund-raiser McDougal organized to cover Clinton’s campaign debt. It raised $30,000, $12,000 of which came in the form of Madison cashier’s checks. Investigators believe the money came directly from the S&L’s deposits.

The main focus however, was still that the Clintons allegedly received a large share of the development without putting up any money and other specific Whitewater happenings. When the development went sour, additional capital infusions were needed, and there is evidence and testimony suggesting that these cash infusions were obtained illegally from the federal government and never paid back. According to the October 31, 1994 editorial “Evidence in Whitewater Case is Now Firm” in the Washington Weekly, in 1985 the Whitewater land investment of the Clintons and McDougals was in trouble.

The individual lots of the land development were not selling and Jim McDougal approached Capital Management Services, Inc. run by David Hale, a former Arkansas banker and municipal judge. Hale’s firm was authorized by the federal Small Business Administration to lend federally guaranteed and subsidized loans to small businesses operated by minorities and the disadvantaged. “McDougal told me he wanted to ‘clean up’ some problem loans with our friends in the ‘political family’,” Hale said.

Just before Christmas, now Governor Bill Clinton approached Hale at the steps of the Capitol building. “Are you going to help Jim and me out? ” Clinton asked according to Hale. This meeting was witnessed by Trooper L. D. Brown who in later confirmed Hale’s version of the story to Whitewater investigators. The next meeting was in February of 1986, where Hale, Clinton and McDougal were all present. Hale said he felt heavily pressured into approving a SBA loan for $300,000 to Susan McDougal who was a partner in Whitewater.

Susan McDougal, who was a millionaire, was not legally qualified for a SBA loan. Clinton, Hale and McDougal conspired to defraud the federal government. The loan was never paid back, and records show that at least $110,000 of this money found its way into the Whitewater account. The Whitewater partnership did poorly and finally dissolved in 1992, leaving the Clintons reporting a net loss of more than $40,000. The McDougals took full control of the business practices. In July of 1993, the FBI raided Hale’s office and found documents outlining the illegal loan.

Hale was now under investigation for unrelated charges and offered to reveal incriminating evidence against now President Clinton in return for a plea bargain. However, the prosecuting U. S. Attorney in Little Rock, Arkansas, Paula Casey, a former Clinton campaign worker who had just been appointed by Clinton in an unprecedented “sweeping D. A. massacre” wouldn’t hear the charges against Clinton and refused to plea bargain with Hale. This shows Clinton’s control over the situation. Either through him covering it up or by someone he appointed covering it up.

But when the special Whitewater prosecutor Robert Fiske came to Little Rock in 1994, he struck a plea bargain with Hale, and since then Hale has been a frequent guest of the Whitewater Grand Jury in Little Rock. In February of 1994, Skip Rutherford, now the coordinator of the privately funded Clinton Presidential Library, pressured Trooper Brown who had witnessed the Christmas meeting between Clinton and Hale, not to cooperate with Whitewater investigators. After the meeting, Rutherford met with White House officials Bruce Lindsey and Betsey Wright.

Knowing that Arkansas is a violent state”, Trooper Brown recorded a fully protected disclosure of all the illegalities he witnessed during his service on Clinton’s security detail, and started singing to Whitewater investigators. This shows he was probably afraid for his life, but still wanted to do the right thing. Special Counsel Kenneth Starr, appointed by the Justice Department succeeded Robert Fiske, who was a Clinton appointee. Starr and a small army of lawyers and investigators looked into charges surrounding Whitewater and Madison.

The wide-ranging investigation yielded indictments against Jim and Susan McDougal and Arkansas Governor Jim Guy Tucker. According to CNN. com all three went on trial in early 1996. They were accused of conspiring to defraud the saving and loan and defrauding the federal government by obtaining $3 million in loans from a lending company run by David Hale. His company issued loans on behalf of the federal Small Business Association. The conspiracy charge against Mrs. McDougal was dismissed. Hale has pleaded guilty to two felony charges for fraudulently running his business and has testified against the defendants.

He was sentenced to two years and four months in prison. In one allegedly fraudulent deal, Hale claims Clinton pressured him in 1986 to make an illegal $300,000 SBA loan to Susan McDougal, to be repaid by Clinton and James McDougal. Hale approved the loan for one of her companies, which he qualified as a disadvantaged small business, or a minority-owned firm. The money has not been repaid. President Clinton has called Hale’s allegations “bull” and testified in the trial by videotape. The Whitewater investigation reached deeply into the workings of the Rose law firm in Little Rock.

It led to a guilty plea from former Rose partner Webster Hubbell to fraud charges arising from his billing practices at the firm. Hubbell had followed the Clintons to Washington to serve in the No. 3 position at the Justice Department. He is now serving time in federal prison. These are just a few of the people surrounding the Clintons who have been caught. And yet Bill and Hillary keep slipping away. Over time, the investigation known as “Whitewater” grew well beyond allegations related to the Clintons’ financial, legal dealings, and misuse of power in Arkansas.

It also encompassed the Clintons’ responses to the allegations – and such unrelated events as the firing of White House travel office clerks and Bill Clinton’s extra-marital affairs with Monica Lewinsky and others. One of the most interesting parts of this conspiracy, and yet the part that is kept the quietest is its cover-up. Whitewater is just the icing on the cake. The true conspiracy is the power and control that Bill Clinton has been able to wield. He shows this by his distancing himself from the situation, his using lackeys to control things, and eliminating those who get in his way.

According to “The Clinton Body-Count” by the website www. everwonder. com/david/suspicious. html several people associated with the Clintons have ended up dead under mysterious circumstances. This group of people all died in order to hide Clinton’s involvement in his shady deeds. New additions to this list are coming in faster than closets can be found to hide the bodies in. Mary Mahoney a White House Intern died July of 1997. An attractive 25-year-old woman, Mary was a former White House Intern for Bill Clinton working as the Assistant Manager at a Starbuck’s Coffee shop in Georgetown.

In the pre-trial publicity surrounding Paula Jones lawsuit, and mere days after Newsweek’s Mike Isikoff had dropped hints that a “former White House staffer” was about to go public with her story of sexual harassment at 1600 Pennsylvania, gunmen entered the Starbuck’s while the crew was cleaning up after closing. Mary’s two associates were taken to a room and shot. Mary herself had five bullets in her. No money was taken. As of this writing, Mike Isikoff’s “former White House staffer” has never appeared. Another of these deaths is Vincent Foster who was a White House Counsel.

He died on July 21, 1993. He was found dead in Ft. Marcy Park in Washington, DC, of a supposed suicide by gunshot. A suicide note was supposedly found a few days later, torn into several pieces, in his briefcase, after White House staff had entered his office and materials removed. The gun that he supposedly used to kill himself was reported to be still in his hand, but the person who first found the body reports that there was no gun at that time. Many irregularities surround the death and the investigation of it. Foster was also from Hope, Ark. ike Clinton, and also worked for the Rose Law firm.

Foster had intimate knowledge of the Clintons’ personal finances. Foster was involved in an investigation of their finances, and reportedly made a phone call to Hillary Clinton, in Little Rock, just hours before his death. Another strange “coincidence” is the number of dead bodyguards who were to have guarded the Clintons during the time when most of the alleged misconducts occurred.

The first of these are Maj. Gen. William Robertson who was the Deputy Commanding General, V Corps, in Europe, Col. William Densberger a V Corps Chief of Operations and Plans, Col. Robert Kelly of the V Corps Chief of Intelligence, and Spec. Gary Rhodes a Crew Chief all died on February 23, 1993. All of these men were killed when their helicopter crashed in Weisbaden, Germany. No cause was ever determined. The V Corps figured prominently in the US Bosnia-Serbia peacekeeping operations, along with the carrier Roosevelt. These men, and 8 others associated with Clinton’s visit to the U. S. S. Roosevelt all died within 4 months of each other.

Five Navy aviators who were Clinton’s bodyguards / escorts whose names could not be determined died on March 26, 1993. They all died in a crash of an E-2C Hawkeye in Italy. The crash occurred shortly after the plane was “waved off” from a landing attempt on the Carrier U. S. S. Roosevelt, due to a “foul deck”. All five men had been Clinton’s escorts during Clinton’s visit to the Roosevelt two weeks prior. Three other men, who had flown Clinton to the U. S. S. Roosevelt for that visit also died later in a helicopter crash.

Staff Sgt. Brian Haney, Marine Sgt. Tim Sabel, Maj. William Barkley, and Capt. Scott Reynolds all were Clinton bodyguards and died on May 19, 1993. All four men died when their helicopter crashed in the woods near Quantico, Virginia. Reporters were barred from the site, and the head of the fire department responding to the crash described it by saying, “Security was tight,” with “lots of Marines with guns. ” The Marines seized a videotape made by one of the firefighters. All four men had escorted Clinton on his flight to the carrier U. S. S. Roosevelt shortly before their deaths.

My Political Party Affliation

Americans have been consumed by politics since the beginning. It is even easier now, especially in a presidential election year. It seems you can’t watch television without seeing an advertisement for the Republican Party and the Democratic Party. While our political system does allow more then two parties, these two parties are the only two widely voted for year in year out. This leaves most Americans with the tough choice of deciding which party to vote for. The choice seems to be getting harder every year. Both parties try to represent more voters, this is why each lean more towards the middle between each party every year.

Now the voter must decide which issues are the most important to them, and then chose a side. I myself have had a tough time choosing a party. But, by weighing out the issues, at this time in my life I am leaning towards the Democratic Party. I agree with a number of their key issues. First, I strongly agree with their view on minimum wage, their stance on school choice, their choice of crime prevention, their plan for welfare reform, and lastly their pledge to protect the environment. The number of families living off of minimum wage is increasing every year. These families would be living in poverty if not for minimum wage.

Many Republicans are opposed to minimum wage because of fears that it would slow down the economy and increase the unemployment rate. They thought this would happen because businesses would have to cut jobs in order to pay for the higher wages. The problem of having no minimum wage is that while one person can survive on a low wage, it is impossible in today’s world to support a family by making under $5. 00 an hour. The current minimum wage is set at $5. 15 an hour, Democrats have been trying to increase it to $6. 15 by implementing two $. 50 increases over a two year period.

This has been unsuccessful because of the Republican majority in Congress. I believe along with the Democratic Party that the minimum wage is essential to lifting Americans out of poverty. One of the biggest issues during the 2000 Presidential campaign was the issue of education. While both parties agreed that more money needed to be appropriated for education, they disagreed on how it should be spent. The issue of school choice was also high on the list of differences. The Democratic Party would like to give all Americans the choice of which public school they want their child to attend.

The Democratic Party believes that this would make schools increase their standards and discipline. The Republican Party would like to give all Americans voucher for what their child would receive from the state and federal government. With this money voucher the parents could send the student to any school they would like, private or public, and they would only have to pay the difference. While the may seem like a good idea, private school vouchers would take money away from public schools, which are open to all students, and give them to private schools, which can exclude students based on their ability to pay.

School choice is needed, but should not extend to the transfer of state and federal funding to private schools. Unfortunately, crime is rising. Subsequently crime prevention has become a very important. Each party has their own view on how to decrease crime. Democrats believe in stopping crime before it happens through education, teen programs, curfews and more community based police officers. With new after school programs, democrats hope to keep young people busy and out of trouble.

Under the Clinton Administration the government created 100,000 additional community police officers and countless after school programs for urban areas. Democrats as do I believe that with more time and more funds this type of crime prevention could reduce crime dramatically. Both parties agree on only about one thing when it comes to welfare. That is the fact that it needs to be reformed. Each although have their own methods for reforming it. The democrats would like to reform it by limiting the amount of time someone can be on welfare, creating more jobs for people on welfare, and increases federal funding for child care.

Democrats believe that by giving more jobs to welfare recipients that it will increase the chances of these people of getting off welfare and staying off. With increased funding for childcare it gives the children of welfare recipients of being able to succeed later in life. By implementing these actions, I believe the welfare system could greatly be improved. The Democratic Party has always been pledged to the protection of the environment. With the increase of pollution and fewer natural resources this is more important then ever.

Democrats believe that stricter restrictions on clean air and clean water must be done to protect the health of Americans. They also believe in the preservation of certain areas in order to protect an ecosystem. This is debated very heavily right now with the Republican Administration wanting to drill for oil in Alaska. While do not completely agree with all the views Democrats have on environment, especially those found on the protection of endangered animals and plants. But I do agree with them a lot more then I do the Republican view on the environment.

Choosing a party is still very difficult, even when the issues are singled out one by one. This is because while I do agree with the Democratic stance on some issues, I do not agree with them on all the issues. These issues make it hard to decide on a single party. This is probably the reason why I do not believe in a strong political party system. I usually vote on a candidate based on their stances on the issues, not what party they are from. This is the view of many Americans and this is why America has one of the weakest political party systems in the democratic world.

Colin Powell

Everywhere he goes, Colin Powell is besieged. Bicycle messengers in spandex tights stop him on the streets of Washington and urge him to run for President. Waiters at restaurants advise the retired general to aim for the White House. CEOs quietly pledge money should Powell decide to run. Political operatives of both parties would like to ignore Powell–but can’t. “I don’t think about it a lot,” claims a senior White House official, before admitting, “If Powell does run, he will be a significant player.” Another in the White House is more fatalistic: “If he runs, we’re dead.” Says William Lacy, Bob Dole’s top strategist: “If he jumped in the race today, he would be the principal competitor for us.”

Everywhere he goes, Colin Powell is applauded. In the hall in San Diego where the Republican Party will nominate its presidential candidate about a year from now, the crowd is instantly on its feet as his presence is announced and he bounds down to the podium. He speaks for 50 minutes, without notes, taking the crowd through the cold war, through Korea, Vietnam, the fall of the Berlin Wall, Operation Desert Storm and the occupation of Haiti. Powell, 58, tells moving tales of his upbringing in Harlem and the South Bronx, of sitting in the Hall of St. Catherine in the Kremlin, where he heard Gorbachev declare that the cold war was over. And when Powell has delivered his set speech, the inevitable question rises from the floor: “When are you going to announce that you’re running for President?”

The rapt audience carefully weighs the well-rehearsed answer, word by word.

“Thank you very, very much. And I’m very, very flattered. I’m honored and humbled. It’s a question I receive regularly, and I don’t know what I’m going to do with my life after my book is finished. The book is out this fall, and then I’ll have to make some choices.
“I tell people that I’m not a professional politician. I was truly a soldier.”

Another wave of applause washes over him.

“Even after working two years in the West Wing, there isn’t a single one of my White House friends from those days who could tell you today whether they think I’m a Republican or a Democrat. That was part of the code I lived with. Now I’m no longer protected by my uniform. As I go around the country, I’m trying to develop a political philosophy, just to be a good citizen, not necessarily to run for office. “I want to keep the option of elective office open because I think I should do that. Why close off possibilities? I want to be of some service to the nation in the future. I just don’t know if it will be an appointed office, charitable work, educational work…

“I don’t find a passion for politics. I don’t find that I have that calling for politics. But I want to keep the option open … So the only thing I could say in answer to your question is, ‘I don’t know if I’ll ever announce. Just watch this space. I’ll be around somewhere in public life.'”

Clinton, Dole and millions of American voters are watching the Colin Powell space. More than half the country says it wants an independent candidate for President to break up the duopoly enjoyed by the two parties. And in a TIME/CNN poll, nearly a third of the voters say they would vote for Powell in a three-way race against Clinton and Dole, putting the retired general in a virtual dead heat with the candidates of the two major parties.

Moreover, the poll shows that if Powell were the Republican nominee, he would edge Clinton by a few percentage points. In the Republican field, Powell is preferred by 22 percent of G.O.P.-leaning voters, second to Dole’s 43 percent and well ahead of Pat Buchanan and Phil Gramm, each of whom attract only 6 percent. If Powell were Dole’s vice-presidential choice, their ticket would beat Clinton and Al Gore, while a face-off between just Clinton and Dole shows Clinton ahead.

There are four reasons why Powell could emerge as a major figure in the 1996 race:
Powell himself, by disposition, inclination and personal history, is perhaps the ideal candidate to seize the large ideological center of American politics.
Public discontent with the two-party system has been growing over the decades, and the voters who refuse to label themselves Republicans or Democrats outnumber either party’s loyalists.

The 1996 contest is quickly shaping up as a race between a wounded Democratic incumbent and a Republican who is a two-time presidential loser of advancing years and whose record is scrambling to get in synch with the right-wing fervor of his party.

Unhappiness with these options could yield a search for a new candidate.

Perhaps most important, Powell, while he has not decided whether to run, is methodically positioning himself to make his own run for the office either as a Republican or independent, or to be the vice-presidential nominee on the Republican ticket.
No man in modern American political history has ever had a better chance to become President of the U.S. on his own terms, and thus to redefine the public debate in a profound and lasting way. At the same time, no man with such an advantage has seemed less driven to seize the opportunity. This reluctance, in the jujitsu of American politics, is a huge plus for the time being. As the campaign heats up, it will start to become a big negative. A dithering Powell would become the Hamlet of the 1996 race, a kind of Mario Cuomo with medals. It’s not nice to fool with the political affections of the American people. Powell will soon have to say yes or no. Even if he runs as an independent, which would allow him to skip the primary races early next year, he cannot stay on the sidelines much longer and still build the kind of war chest and organization necessary for this campaign.

There is nothing easy about becoming President.

Powell’s appeal makes it less daunting. What exactly lies at its root? Why does nearly everyone who has worked with him sing his praises? Why is his reputation in the cynical, self-aggrandizing world of Washington nearly without blemish? “I’m sure he has faults,” says Charles Duncan, a former Secretary of Energy, who worked with Powell in the Carter Administration, “but I couldn’t point to one.” Some associates have seen Powell as thin-skinned in the past, but they say he monitors his flaws carefully and is quickly “self-correcting.”

Military figures often carry an intrinsic appeal as tough, decisive leaders, and Powell starts with that quality. He advanced rapidly inside the Army, was the youngest Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and got huge credit for his organization of Desert Storm. But his appeal overflows the confines of the armed services. On a photo of Powell and Ronald Reagan going over a document together, Reagan wrote, “If you say so, I know it’s all right.” At a press conference following the mission to Haiti, Powell stole the show from former

President Jimmy Carter, Senator Sam Nunn and President Clinton.

His performance in public is superb. Gerald Ford, who even as President never had such bearing, calls Powell “the best public speaker in America.” In many recent speeches, Powell has taken his audience with him into Buckingham Palace as he received his honorary knighthood from Queen Elizabeth in a way that makes him seem like a regular guy but also reminds people of how much he has accomplished. In San Diego in early June, he had the audience laughing at the little indignities he suffers now that the full power and glory of being Chairman of the Joint Chiefs is no longer his. He tells them he can’t get his wife Alma to make him lunch and says, “One of the saddest figures in all Christendom is the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, once removed, driving around with a baseball cap pulled over his eyes, making his strategic choice as to whether it’s going to be McDonald’s or Taco Bell.”

“He has that rapport good politicians have with people,” says Paul Wolfowitz, former Under Secretary of Defense. “A lot of them go through the motions very well and convince people that they care. Then there are the gifted ones who are really connecting. He does that, and I think it’s related to the fact that there are things he cares deeply about. There is an intensely human quality about Powell that I think is exceptional.”

The personal story of Colin Powell is exemplary. Born in Harlem and raised in the South Bronx, he grew up in a solid and supportive family, worked hard to move up (although not so hard in college, getting only average grades) and succeeded mostly despite his race but sometimes because of it. The Powell success story is reassuring to those Americans who want to believe that although racism persists, the system is not so corrupted by it as to prevent talented minorities from succeeding.

Powell plays to that emotion in his speeches, talking unselfconsciously about race. “How did I deal with racism?” he asked rhetorically at a speech in San Antonio, Texas. “I beat it. I said, ‘I am not going to carry this burden of racism. I’m going to destroy your stereotype. I’m proud to be black. You carry this burden of racism, because I’m not going to.'” He seems to be aware of the peculiar advantages of his race. In 1972, when he was plucked from a successful but still obscure career to become a White House Fellow, he remarked with knowing irony to a friend, “I was lucky to be born black.”

His race also gives Powell license to recognize and even joke about the ethnic differences in America in the face of both tiresome political correctness and simmering racial hatred. In his San Diego speech he parodied a pompous white military officer speaking in empty and orotund phrases. Then he mimicked a black sergeant talking about the coming war in the Persian Gulf: “We gonna kick butt and go home.” Describing an encounter with Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin at his White House treaty signing with Yasser Arafat, Powell put on a New York Jewish accent. And he even worked around the edges of gay sensibilities. “Arafat … is so taken with the moment that he starts to pull me toward him and hug me and give me a two-cheek kiss. But I can only stand so much new world order…” The audience laughed with him.

Powell’s views on specific political issues are not fully articulated, and most Americans see him largely in policy-neutral terms. Thus he is something of an empty ideological vessel into which voters pour their own beliefs. But in the scores of speeches he has given since his retirement as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, the message he has crafted is a brilliantly balanced mix of conservative values and a somewhat liberal view of the proper role of government.

His most powerful theme has been the importance of family, of America as a big national family, and of reconciliation among warring forces abroad and hostile groups at home. He repeatedly tells the story of a young African-American soldier being interviewed just before going into battle in Kuwait. The soldier was asked whether he was afraid. “He said,” Powell relates proudly, “‘I am not afraid. And the reason I’m not afraid is that I’m with my family.’ He looked over his shoulder at the other youngsters in his unit. They were white and black and yellow and every color of the American mosaic. ‘That’s my family. We take care of one another.'”

Powell leads toward his larger point: “If we can build a spirit of family into the heart of an 18-year-old black private, send him 8,000 miles away from home, join hundreds of similar teams and have them believe that, can there be any question in your mind or in your heart that we have the capacity as a nation to instill that same sense of family, and all it entails, in every workplace, in every community, in every school, in every home back here in America?”

He draws the contrast between his message and that of other politicians. “There’s a lot of shouting and screaming going on in our political system. But we have to keep our lives on certain fundamental principles, and one of those is that America is a family … We’ve got to start remembering that no member of our family should be satisfied if any member of our American family is suffering or in need and we can do something about it.

“We’ve got to teach our youngsters what a family means, what giving to your community means, what raising good children means. We’ve got to restore a sense of shame to our society. Nothing seems to shame us or outrage us anymore. We look at our television sets and see all kinds of trash, and we allow it to come into our homes. We’re not ashamed of it anymore.” But just how, either as candidate or President, he would bring about such results he doesn’t say.

Powell carries a basic set of old-fashioned, conservative social values–he is against sending women into combat, and fought against letting gays serve openly in the military. But he is adding specific and fairly centrist views on other hot-button issues. He is basically pro-choice, against the proposed flag-burning amendment and a supporter of Medicare, which helped him care for both his parents in their final years. On affirmative action he makes a nuanced distinction. While he is against programs that give advantages to people who no longer need them, he supports programs that recognize that “racism has been unfortunately an ingrained part of our society for a couple of hundred years.”

Unlike politicians with long and detailed records, Powell has not had to vote yes or no, not had to enunciate positions in sufficient detail to stand up to real scrutiny and tough debate. He thus runs the risk of seeming naive and unknowing when the public debate sharpens.
Yet the details of his positions may be less decisive than the overall presence he projects. Says Democratic pollster Peter Hart: “Voting for a legislator, we say, ‘I’ve got problems with him on this or that issue.’ But voting for a President, we say, ‘What kind of a leader will this person be? Do I trust this person? Does he have the toughness to govern?'”

In other words, does he have the force of will to propel himself into the main arena of national politics and the steeliness to be a good President? Even though Powell spent his life as a warrior, he never looked for fights. His success was as a bureaucrat, and a very careful one at that. “Powell is not an innovator,” says a four-star general who served with him. “He is a wonderful man, but he is a solid, dependable, reliable tinkerer at the margins.”

Many critics cite Powell’s reluctance to go to war against Iraq and his agreement to end the war before Saddam Hussein and his army were wiped out. As Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Powell had the chance to fundamentally reshape the armed forces for its post–cold war role. Instead he produced a timid and unimaginative plan that trimmed but did not reform the military. Yet he is a skillful facilitator and is seen as “an honest broker who can get things done.” This does not make him a general in the mold of Eisenhower. But even the four-star general who calls Powell a tinkerer concludes that “I would vote for him if he runs.”

But before voters can pass judgment on those issues, the immediate question is, How can Powell enter the presidential race?

The current dynamic of two-party politics in America has forced candidates for both the Republican and the Democratic nominations to play heavily to their core constituencies, which are, respectively, more conservative and more liberal than the electorate at large. These are the activists who vote most reliably in the primaries. Bob Dole, for example, veers increasingly rightward to bolster his support among the Christian right. Bill Clinton, despite his recent decision to back a balanced budget, has worked hard to please leftish groups like labor, the National Organization for Women and environmentalists to make sure he would not be challenged from the left for the nomination. But the tension between attempting to be a general-election centrist and a primary-campaigning liberal has added to Clinton’s image as chronic waffler. A similar tension will also make Dole try to retreat from his recent rightward tilt if he is nominated and has to campaign against Clinton.

The pull of the more activist wings of each party has left both parties incapable of finding and holding the political center. At one point George Bush had a 91 percent approval rating, but he still lost the presidency. Bill Clinton became President without a majority in 1992, and then his party suffered historic losses in the 1994 elections. The Republicans in Congress, only 7 and a half months after their landslide victory, are now supported by only 34 percent of the public on their handling of budget issues in the TIME/CNN poll. Observes Powell: “The American people are channel surfing. And you’re going to channel surf in ’96, ’98, 2000, until you find something you like.”

While political experts have been predicting a profound political realignment to replace the New Deal consensus that lasted two generations, what exists today is closer to a dealignment, with shifting allegiances and only loose party identification. It is in that context that a Powell candidacy could be most powerful.

Many of the centrist Democrats who backed Clinton in 1992, and whose ideas and policies let him escape the lethal tag of “liberal” in that campaign, are disappointed with Clinton’s failure to lead in that direction. The President, however, is not likely to be challenged from within his own party, leaving some centrists hoping for another candidate.

Meanwhile, many Republicans can’t stomach the extent to which the agenda of the Christian right has become the agenda of the Republican Party. Thus some of Powell’s friends and supporters argue that he should run as a Republican. Although the best G.O.P. operatives have already signed on with other candidates who have raised tens of millions of dollars, Dole has not caught fire, and many Republicans who back him publicly are “for Dole for now,” in the words of one Powell booster. New Hampshire permits independents–more than 30 percent of the electorate–to vote in the G.O.P. primary, and Powell could draw enough of them to upset calculations of victory based on likely Republican voters.

Other states, including Georgia, Texas, Massachusetts, Tennessee, Illinois, Michigan and Ohio, have primaries where non-Republicans can vote, and to Powell backers, his strong showing in those states will convince party faithful that he in some ways is just like Ike: not conservative enough for their tastes but powerful enough to beat Bill Clinton. This scenario has two weaknesses. First, most Republicans think they can beat Bill Clinton without Colin Powell and could turn on Powell like a virus. Second, to give up his happily settled life to contest the G.O.P. nomination, Powell will have to see Dole’s juggernaut falter–and falter by autumn if Powell is to have enough time to organize.

At the least, Powell enthusiasts say, the general could easily come second in a bunch of primaries and assemble enough delegates to be a bargaining force at the convention. But that would probably get him the vice-presidential nomination, and he may well get that without doing anything.

The Dole campaign has discussed the vice presidency with Powell’s friends. A Dole-Powell ticket could be bad news for Bill Clinton, because of the general’s popularity and because Powell would probably attract significant numbers of black votes in crucial states where Clinton will need to win. Powell would be the perfect vice-presidential candidate for any Republican nominee. The trouble is that he would be only that: Vice President. And Powell himself has doubts about taking that job.

Perhaps the more plausible route to a Powell presidency would be through an independent candidacy, running right in the middle of the American ideological spectrum, without the taint of party politics, as a military leader with his own ideas and with a government of national reconciliation composed of talented people from both parties.

This course obviously has some allure for Powell and his friends. He dismisses much of the Democratic Party’s politics as brain dead and thinks the Republican right is too extreme on many social issues. The experience of Ross Perot in 1992 is not lost on them either. That so flawed a candidate as Perot could get on the ballot in 50 states and gather 19 percent of the national vote, having quit the race once when he was nearly tied with Bush and Clinton, is seen as proof that an independent race is not just a fantasy.

But not easy either. Perot spent more than $60 million of his own money on his race for the presidency. He had tens of thousands of volunteers collecting more than 1.5 million signatures across the land. Powell’s friends assert blandly that “money would be no problem.” One former Pentagon official who now works in corporate America boasts, “I could raise $50 million in one month just from the CEOs I know.” Says another supporter: “There’d be stories about people sending in nickels, dimes and quarters just to help out, but you’ll get all the big money you want to get.” If Powell ran as a genuine independent, he would not receive federal campaign funds and would thus have to raise tens of millions of dollars to compete evenly with the major-party nominees.

Building an organization would be even harder than raising the money. Yet the Perot experience is an instruction manual. Perot said he’d run if drafted, which kicked off a huge volunteer effort that he did not join until later. Despite a recent decision not to create a formal political party, Perot’s United We Stand America is still very active. Other Perot alumni have split off who would find a Powell candidacy appealing and would lend expertise and manpower. And the experience of less impressive independent candidates suggests that ballot access is not an insurmountable problem. George Wallace in 1968 and John Anderson in 1980 bolted from their parties late in the game and managed to be on every state’s ballot. Lenora Fulani did the same in 1988, running on the utterly obscure New Alliance ticket.

There are already several “Draft Powell” organizations in the field, operating without his blessing or his opposition. But their level of intensity does not put one in mind of Desert Storm. There are two committees registered with the Federal Election Commission, one based in California and one in suburban Washington. Andrew DiMarco, a California lawyer, calls his outfit the Draft Committee for Colin Powell’s Army. So far he’s collected 13,400 signatures urging Powell to run, but his drive is going into low gear until Powell gives some clearer sign of his intentions. The other committee is the Exploratory Draft Colin Powell for President Committee, led by a group of black Republicans. They have sent a letter to Powell urging him to run, appointed regional and state coordinators and printed bumper stickers and buttons, and they vow to collect 20,000 signatures per state by the end of the summer.

Both these groups are predominantly Republican, as is a third organization run by Charles Kelly, a retired Washington banker and former minor official in the Eisenhower Administration. His main effort is to talk to business friends about giving money to a Powell campaign, to preach the Powell gospel to influential Republicans and to organize a shadow national committee. None of this is big league enough to represent a real political force, but that’s not surprising given that they have no real candidate to support–yet.

Powell is treating the presidential option with the same methodical attention he has given most endeavors. He is thinking long and hard about his options and about the likely consequences of his actions, meeting with a pair of close friends, former Reagan White House chief of staff Kenneth Duberstein and former Assistant Secretary of Defense Richard Armitage. They had their last skull session on May 24, when Powell provided a tasty take-out lunch from Chicken-Out, a step up from the greasy grocery-chain fare he had served at their previous meeting. With each public outing on the lecture circuit, he fills in more blanks in his agenda of political positions. And while his book, to be published in September and for which he reportedly received a $6 million advance, was originally planned to end with his retirement as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, he has added a new last chapter about his views on the major issues of the day.

He is also preparing for his book tour, which will begin in mid-September and will take him to 20 cities across the nation. The first event in that launch will be a television interview with Barbara Walters. For that appearance, Powell went to Jamaica to get some TV footage of the land his parents left to come to America. When the book tour and its attendant publicity are over in late October, Powell will no longer be a blank political slate. And at that moment, he will read the polls again to see whether the fuller picture of Colin Powell has diminished or enhanced his political attractiveness.

Will he then roll the dice? He is certainly not saying now. Neither is anyone close to him. Powell and his friends agree that one important vote will come from Alma, the general’s wife of 32 years. What is her verdict? “Alma’s not opining,” says a Powell friend. “But her name isn’t Sherman.” If elected, she will serve.

And Powell himself? His reluctance is deep and his indecision is real. He is flattered by the attention and not unaware of the role a black candidate–and a black President–could play in America. But he does not feel compelled to run either as a role model for African Americans or to demonstrate to whites that blacks can make good leaders.

The core of the problem for Colin Powell is that no matter which course his candidacy would take, either as a Republican–challenging the party’s titular leaders and current front runner–or as an independent, the very act of his running would disrupt the settled pattern of American politics.

Intellectually, Powell can argue both the positive and negative aspects of such disruption. A black President could become a major healer of the racial divisions that plague this country. A true centrist could form a governing coalition that could bring stability and end the “channel surfing” that has marked recent elections. A strong leader elected largely on his own terms, without obligations to interest groups, could define a new course for America, at home and abroad, for the next generation.

On the other hand, a Powell candidacy could finish off the staggering Democratic Party. As either a Republican nominee or an independent candidate, he would attract a substantial number of black votes taking away the most reliable core of the party’s electoral support and vacuuming up votes Clinton needs if he is to win in 1996.

And how could a nonparty President actually govern? It is likely both parties in Congress would be plenty angry with President Powell for having broken up their games. Would there be a proliferation of parties, turning American democracy into a version of Italy’s fractured, shifting coalition style? Friends counter that Powell could form a bipartisan government of national reconciliation. But he has known many Third World coup leaders who say they have taken power to achieve national reconciliation.

Powell, by his own admission, has always been a supremely cautious calculator of risks and rewards. He succeeded as a political general by knowing where the boundaries were, knowing what was possible and what was not. There is nothing in the life of Colin Powell to suggest he would be the man to toss a grenade into the entrenched positions of American politics. On the other hand, Powell has bounded up the career ladder two and three steps at a time. He is a very determined man.

Meanwhile, he is thinking, calculating, weighing his choices.

The invasion of Grenada

For a country as powerful as the United States, there comes a responsibility to protect its allies, neighbors, and supremely itself. However, there are times when this sense of responsibility misleads the U. S. into using force that is excessive or unnecessary. We are walking a fine line of political laissez-faire and obligation to intervene, but add the element of a Lyndon Johnsons obsessive fear of the spread of Castro-style communism (Musicant 363), and consequently, we will find ourselves resurrecting gun boat diplomacy and the Monroe Doctrine.

Although under the veil of ensuring safety to our citizens, the invasion of Grenada is an example of where we overstepped our legal bounds, fabricated justifications and reacted without preparation, inconsiderate of the criticism which was definite to follow. A main concern of the United States was its 1,000 citizens on the island. Of these citizens, 600 were medical students at St. George University. Because of the political turmoil, the U. S. stated to its public that the students and citizens on Grenada were in danger. President Reagan also stated to the press that there was no way for our citizens to get off the island.

However, the State Department had issued a formal note to Grenada asking about the safety of its citizen, to which the minister of external affairs replied, The interest of the United States citizens are in no way threatened by the present situation … which the Ministry hastens to point out is a purely internal affair(Musicant 374). The Chancellor of the school, Charles Modica, was announcing that the students were in no danger, and that the school was expected to continue to have good relations with the Government (Weinberger 108).

This display of good will coincided with the report Margaret Thatcher, Britians Prime Minister, received from the Deputy High Commissioner in Bridgetown, Barbados, who had visited Grenada, that the British citizens were safe and that the new regime was cooperating in making arrangement for those who wished to leave(Thatcher 330). The same cooperation was being offer to the U. S. , contradicting the Presidents statement, which was made long after notification from Grenada that Americans were free to leave on regular or charter flights.

Also clearly in contradiction was Lieutenant Colonel Oliver North report to the press stating that the airports were open for two hour even the day before the invasion (Speakes 161-162). There was no evidence that the student or citizens were in any danger, except during the invasion. In fact, eight days after the murder of Bishop, no incident involving an American had arisen. The idea doesnt even make sense considering that one of the island main sources of income was the school and tourism. Tourism, was the answer given by Grenada to the questions of our State Department who asked what the air strip being constructed was to be used for.

They did not; however, believe them. The State Department believed that the runways were too small for commercial planes, and saw the air strip as a strategic military post for the Cubans who were helping to construct it. They even believed the construction workers were actually well trained soldiers(Shultz 324). However, common information in any encyclopedia would lead to the conclusion the air strip at 10,000 feet, was a perfect length for the type of commercial planes that Grenada would be receiving. This of course would be good for the economy.

And the notion that the construction workers were Cuban soldier is ridiculous considering half of them were over forty and all interviewed by foreign reporters upon arriving back to Cuba. To further dispute that the airport was a military installation is the foreign investment and involvement. The British technicians from the Plessey company worked with the Cuban civilians in construction of the airstrip. English companies supplied the electrical and technical equipment for the airport. Countries that are members of the Atlantic alliance contributed in one way or another in the construction of the airport.

It is ludicrous to think that England or these other countries would help Cuba construct an military airport(OShaughnessy 235-237). The numerous contradictions and blunders of the invasion comes from little research and preparation. Our enthusiastic attitude reflected that of William Caseys of the CIA, Hey, F*ck it …. Lets dump on these bastards(Musicant 373). Most of our commanders on our aircraft carriers had no idea about the number of troops they were up against, arms or deployment. The best map they could find was a five by eight, updated to 1895(Musicant 377).

A marine officer stated Ninety percent of the intelligence I had came from the BBC(British Radio)(Musicant 376). This lack of information and misinformation led our forces to accidentally bombed an insane asylum and killing twenty one patients. Even our special forces like the SEALs and Delta team, met terrible failures. One team of SEALs sustained casualties even before reaching the island when some members drowned after unpracticed airplane jump. An attack by Rangers on a hostile bastion caused casualties even though it was empty, when two helicopters crashed into each other and fell among the soldier on the ground, slicing off limbs.

A senior officer had this to say about the whole invasion, Whatever was screwed up was the fault of North, the Navy and the gutless JCS (Joint Chiefs of Staff). [Special Forces] should not have been used and their performance was absolutely horrible. (Musicant 389) Despite the failures, the United States Army awarded 8,612 medals to those involved, 7,000 of whom hadnt even stepped on shore(Musicant 381,382,388,389). All of this doesnt even include the opinion held by other nation of the legality and true intentions of our actions.

Margaret Thatcher charged the U. S. th contravention of international law and gross meddling of in the internal affairs of an independent state(Musicant 380). Ronald Reagan displayed a lack of respect for international laws and brought disdain from many other countries. We invaded a commonwealth of our allys. Comparisons have been made to our actions being similar to that of the Soviets. The world saw the U. S. stoop to the tactics of its enemies. The New York Times said The cost is the loss of the high moral ground, a demonstration to the world that America has no more respect for laws and borders, for the codes of civilization, than the Soviet Union (Meese 219).

Our action displayed clearly we had no respect for sovereign nations and their internal affairs. We provided an example for other nations to employ in dealing with the little annoying countries they faced. The invasion of Grenada was clearly unnecessary and detrimental to the reputation of the United States. The safety of our citizens and construction of the airstrip were never enough justification. There were hardly enough solid facts for our leader for make decisions on. More care should have been put into the preparation.

The president should have asked more that just if the military could handle it. If the facts arent enough the allegations held in common belief are worse for our image. Speaker of the House, Tip ONeill is sure that the invasion was to divert the attention of the public from the humiliation suffer in Beirut and give them an victory to celebrate. (ONeill 366-367) This whole invasion was a poor decision made by an actor playing the President, tried to do, what he has tried his whole life accomplish, win good reviews from the public.

Politicians and Social Order

A social order. A persons beliefs and values that allow them to make the choices that to have the type of government they want. My social order- one of an African-American, 17-year-old, low middle-class female- will differ widely from my mothers, or Shemairs, or even your social order. For instance, I strongly value education. So does my mother, Shemair, and I am sure you do, too. My mother might value my education because it will help her later on in life. Shemair might value my education ecause it means that we will be able to move out after graduation.

You as my teacher, will value my education because it proves that your education was good and your life as a teacher is worthwhile. I value my education for the sake of getting knowledge. Everyone might have the same value and yet they will have different reasons for valuing it. The same is true of our political values. People might want a strong government because of the type of social order that they hold. The government maintains my personal and political social order.

The government allows me to vote for people who have the same purposes as I do. Representatives who fall into my political social order are the ones who will get my vote as I get older. For instance – the issue of abortion. I am strongly against abortion for any reason at any time. When it comes time to vote for people to be a part of my state government, I am going to choose someone who believes that killing at any stage in life is immoral. This way, through elections, I will have the ability to participate in the overnment.

I will have someone who protects individual rights, thus maintaining my social order, and keep the government holding the same ideas as me. The principle of our democratic government will allow me to express my individualism. My personal liberty will be established because the government protects our interacting values that we hold. Another value that we have is the idea of equality of opportunity. This fact is evident in the decision to have affirmative action used in places such as colleges, universities, and jobs.

I elieve 100% that affirmative action is good and justifiable. I will vote for someone who pushes for affirmative action in the state of Florida. My social order clearly shows that I want someone who favors post-secondary education, especially for minorities. Also, the idea of majority rule will be upheld in all of the elections that we hold. This way I can have free expression in my personal life, as well as in the political arena. The reason why I will be protected is that our government says that all elections are to be free and fair.

The Different Political Systems

The different political systems which Machiavelli and Rousseau heralded contrasted greatly. Reasons for each of their doctrines were completely different, therefore the style of the institutions vary considerably. However it could be argued that the way of life for an ordinary citizen may not necessarily be as different. This essay intends to show firstly, the reasons behind both writers theories; secondly, the different political systems resulting from these; thirdly, the way of life under each system. Both writers’ style of writing suggests that it is written for males, the name of Machiavellis book alone is an example of this.

It is therefore very difficult to write this essay with females in mind, where possible, an impersonal pronoun has been used but unfortunately this is not always possible. With each persons’ reading of the two authors, different visualisations of how each sytem will present themselves occurs. However in order for this essay to be of any relevance, some central themes in each writer must be evident. It therefore makes common sense in concentrating on generalisations of hypothetical States rather than attempting to relate each writer to an existing one.

Machiavelli has been described by some as a realist. The main objective for Machiavelli is success, or more poignantly defined as, success for the ruler of a country. His idea is a handbook for all monarchs in how to gain, maintain and increase ones’ own power and glory in principalities, either existing, new or conquered. Machiavelli does not deny Christian values such as compassion, generosity or forgiveness but he believes that these traits, when followed by the ruler will lead to exploitation by the citizens and either the loss of power or a full scale civil war.

Both of these could have been avoided by the ruler by being able to act more ruthlessly when (and only when) necessary. Machiavellis’ concept of human nature is pessimistic, he believes that men are generally “ungrateful, fickle, feigners and dissemblers, avoiders of danger, eager for gain. “. Machiavelli saw the Monarchs position as a balance between maximising power for themselves and giving away enough to the citizens for them to remain loyal.

A train of thought that runs through Machiavellis work is that the Monarch is sovereign and should only give up any part of his power if he considers that the action will create more power, glory, loyalty or security. Rousseaus’ main concern was liberty, or the freedom of the individual citizen to act independently from other citizens. His concept of the General Will – where the citizens under the system vote for the laws that they believe necessary and so are incapable of breaking them because they also deem these laws morally correct – is central to this argument.

Rousseau believed that the advancement of human society was corrupt as liberty had been eroded, therefore in a modern society, “Man was born free, and he is everywhere in chains. “. Generally, Rousseau can be said to be an optimist or even a romanticist about human nature, his idea of the state of nature is pictured as care-free, with simple desires and little else. Machiavellis’ system is a framework which can adjust to each idea, apart from the assumption of a monarchy not much else is described. References tend to be actions which are necessary for Machiavelli.

For example, in a mixed principality recently conquered Machiavelli advises two courses of action, firstly to slaughter the existing ruling families which removes the threat of them attempting to regain power, secondly to not make any changes to the existing laws or impose new taxes, in order not to further aggravate the conquered citizens. This second course of action shows Machiavellis pragmatic approach not to write about what should be, but rather how the ruler should best adapt to a given situation. Machiavellis’ concern was the ruler keeping power.

He states a number of times in ‘The Prince’ that the two main attributes needed to hold on to power are a good army and good laws. Quentin Skinner points out that “laws’ here should probably not be understood in a narrow sense: rather Machiavelli had in mind ‘laws’ and ‘customs’ (or unwritten laws); in short, the factors making for political and social cohesion and stability. ” As long as these two goals are adhered to, the rest is not as difficult. Contrary to many peoples beliefs, Machiavelli did not believe merely in a tyrannical government. He argues for the ruler to be rational and to an extent, moral.

When necessary, such as with law-breakers or conspirators, the punishment must be severe, uncompromising and swift, “men should either be caressed or crushed; because they can avenge slight injuries, but not those that are very severe. Hence, any injury done to a man must be such that there is no need to fear his revenge”. It is quite feasible under Machiavelli for the Monarch to be well disposed to their subjects, as long as it is understood that any kind of subversive action will be dealt with, “there are two ways of contending: one by using laws, the other, force.

The first is appropriate for men, the second for animals; but because the former is often ineffective, one must have the recourse for the latter”. The bulk of Rousseaus argument for his political system can be found in ‘The Social Contract’. Firstly, a group of people meeting Rousseaus prerequisites come together and form a tacit contract between them in the form of giving up every right they have to all the others, by doing this, no one can have any right over another but they collectively still have all the same rights only now “more power to preserve what he has”.

If anyone alters this contract, it becomes null and void. This group of people are now the People, the people have a common ego, life and will, they are an united, artificial body. All members of the People are voters in the assembly and share the sovereign power. Rousseau sees the People as the sovereign, any act therefore has to be approved by the People, this Rousseau termed, ‘The General Will’. Simply stated, it is where every member of the assembly meet and vote, the majority decision is the General Will.

The People, because they do not have any private rights, do not make decisions based on personal advantages, but on public benefits. Because it is done for public benefit and not private gain, Rousseau considers it to be inherently good and free, those who voted in the minority should realise that because of the result, if their idea had been accepted it would not have been the General Will and therefore their freedom would have been reduced. Rousseau accepts that the people may not always know what is correct for them, he therefore introduces the concept of a ‘Lawgiver’ or ‘Legislator’.

The Lawgiver is a person who has not taken part in the Social Contract and therefore cannot benefit it, he also possess superior intelligence, he works for the long term benefit of the citizens and can understand mens’ passions without feeling them.. This can be seen to be a major weakness in Rousseaus’ theory, it is very hard to imagine a situation where an individual would possess these abilities, would want to perform the task and in no way be tempted to turn the system to their own advantage.

The only being which seems capable and willing to perform these role is a God, then problems of communication arise, those who may claim to ‘hear’ the Lawgiver may be acting in their own interests, thereby defeating the very reason for this political system. Machiavelli recognises that unnecessary cruelty towards the subjects will only anger them increasing the likelihood of a conspiracy, especially in a state where the monarch has come to power by popularity, either by the nobles or the citizens, “above all else try to win over the people, which will be easy if you protect them”.

If Machiavelli feels this strongly about winning the people over by protecting them it appears that it is quite feasible that a logical case for the Welfare State could be made. Obviously, when Machiavelli refers to protecting the people he means by the army. However a Welfare State – the concept of which was not incepted until the nineteenth century – would bring a number of advantages which appear to agree with Machiavellis argument, firstly it will allow more members of the state to be healthier, consequently a healthier body of citizens will mean a larger and healthier army.

Secondly, it will make them more benevolent towards the Monarch, especially if he takes credit for its conception, “do those things that increase popularity”. It appears not to violate Machiavellis laws on generosity and meanness, here it is stated that if generosity is practised to benefit the “vast majority.. and acting meanly to the few to whom he gives nothing” in the defence of the country, it is good. Being generous to the elite is bad and so undesirable.

Otto von Bismarck (1815-1898) the first German Chancellor (The Iron Chancellor) was considered an ultraroyalist and waged aggressive foreign policies, he however also created universal suffrage, a codification of law, reformed the coinage and created a minimal welfare state in order to consolidate a young German state and unify the people behind him. It is of course easy to argue against this idea of the Welfare State being consistent with Machiavelli, for example, it may be suggested that if the people are weak they will be too concerned with problems such as food to worry about other throwing the Sovereign.

However, hunger is only a slight injury and is not protecting the people. This the people can avenge. In ‘A Discourse on Inequality’ Rousseau pictures his ideal place of birth and consequently how the average citizen living under his system would live, it would be well governed; democratic – where the Sovereign and the People are the same; there would be equality; everyone knew each other well and consequently no act of vice or virtue could go unnoticed, “a state where the delectable habit of meeting and knowing one another made love of country a love for fellow citizens rather a love for the land.

But most importantly Rousseau “wished to live and die free” Under Rousseau, the individual has little property rights, the people as a whole own the land, “Because public possession is in simple fact more secure and more irrevocable than private possession, without being any more legitimate”. The only sign of ownership is that no one previously owns it, it has signs of cultivation, and no individual may have more land than that he needs for subsistence.

The average citizen under Machiavellis system can be seen to be a healthy individual who is most likely to be involved somehow in the defence of the country, directly in the Army or indirectly in support. They would be law abiding because of the great fear of punishment, which would more often than not be severe. They would be free to carry out any activity they wish to do as long as it not against the Monarchs will or considered subversive. If the citizen belongs to a recently conquered country, the way of life should not be too different from the previous regime as the laws should not have been changed.

He is less likely to be involved in the army and would probably live a subsistence life. He would be subject to direct rule and should be able to have direct access to the Monarch. As time goes on and the conquered country begins to take on the characteristics of the dominant state, the life of the citizen may change to one similar to the conquering country. The individual living under Rousseaus’ political system would live in a relatively small area, possibly a town or small city so that it is easy for him to know everyone. He would be constantly attending meetings where he must debate and decide whether an action was free or not.

He would have little or no privacy because he has no rights, plus it is the right of the People to know every ‘vice and virtue’. He would be relatively self sufficient, able to make repairs on his home and grow his own food. He would accept and not be able to break any of the laws that the General Will has created because he would morally agree with them. If he did attempt to break any of the laws, everyone else would know and force him to adhere to it; he would not necessarily be forced because it was immoral but because by remaining within the laws, he is free.

A good example of this notion often referred to as ‘being forced to be free’ is the road transport system, there are laws which govern the way cars are driven (for example: drive only on the left), if everyone is forced to keep to these laws, the roads are less impeded by other cars and everyone has the maximum possible freedom. The lives of the two ordinary citizens would both have different emphasis. They would have different beliefs, for example, a Rousseauian citizen would have strong notions of freedom and autonomy whereas the Machiavellian individual would be loyal to their ruler as long as he believes he benefits from being ruled.

However both citizens still have a single person ‘governing’ their laws, one has a Monarch, the other has a ‘Lawgiver’. Both have to live under a system of rules which they have no choice but to adhere to. These rules are rigid and the punishment for breaking them is quick.. It does appear that both citizens could go about their daily life in a fairly similar way, they are free to do what they wish as long as they do not infringe on the laws of the land. An individual living in a conquered country under Machiavelli would not be part of the army and so would probably live a subsistence life much like Rousseaus’ citizen. ery notable difference is that a citizen living under Rousseaus’ system would know everybody in the ‘state’, Under Machiavelli, it could be any size, but most likely much larger.

Rousseaus’ citizen would constantly be attending meetings and voting in the assembly. Machiavellis’ citizen would most likely have no or little notion of democracy or freedom. As can now be seen, both Machiavelli and Rousseau are attempting to solve a problem with different priorities. For one it is freedom, the other it is power. It is natural to assume that the systems now put forward by the two writers are very different and they both are.

Both have notable characteristics such as Machiavellis’ notion that a ruler should not reward his close servants at a detriment to the majority, or Rousseaus’ idea of regaining freedom. Both do not describe in detail exactly what should occur but instead give a loose pragmatic framework which allow many possibilities to be covered, for example it could be argued that Machiavelli would have been in favour of a Welfare State. Both appear to fall down on a number of issues, for Machiavelli this can be seen to be the decline in the number of absolute monarchies and the frequency of invasion, especially in Europe.

Rousseau fails to adequately explain the position of the Lawgiver. The beliefs of each citizen are very different. as described earlier, their daily routine would not be all that different, it appears that it would be possible to have similar laws (although for different reasons). They both have an individual above them, they both would be free to do anything they feel that does not break the laws or threaten the monarch/social contract. To summarise, it does appear that both citizens would live similar lives.

Communism and Democracy

People all over the world look to the United States for the latest trends, fashions, and technology. The United States have set all these standards during the majority of the last century, by being a government that represents freedom. All over the world people who were trapped in Communist governments hope that one day they too can be as fortunate as the people living in America; to them this freedom is part of their American Dream. The world during most of this and last century was ruled by two different political viewpoints.

These points were portrayed in two different forms of government. Today, democratic governments are taking over most other forms of government. It is a race of countries and nations, trying to gain an edge onto each other. Communism is a system that follows the roots of Marxism. It unites the people into one class and call for industrial power. All the people work, the people are all at the same social level. It creates a false sense of unity. Most of these communist governments are dictatorships; the government oppresses all opposing views.

Communist polices deny people their basic rights and freedom. The people cannot even own their own private property. The methods of Communism ave been varied slightly by each different government. Stalin and Lenin were the driving forces behind Russia’s Socialist Workers party. Fidel Castro ran the party in Cuba. Mao Tung ran the Chinese Workers party. Democratic governments support basic rights and freedoms. People in the United States can participate in government activities by voting and opposing their views.

People are protected under the Constitution and Bill of Rights. These documents lay down the blueprint for freedom. As a man, women, or child, you are affected by these important documents they guarantee your basic rights ike freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and economic freedom. Lincoln best put it in his Gettysburg address stating, ” A government of the people, by the people, for the people”. People can control and sway political parties by placing their vote to make a difference. It is based on the concept of one man, one vote.

In theses democratic parties, there is a distinct difference of social classes. People of power commending prestige and money. Others not so fortunate live off of welfare. The USA has been the status quo of places to live for a number of reasons. Everybody has his or her own reasons to appreciate the freedom that we have. We as the people have the power to change, impeach, and lobby for what we believe in. A democracy is a form of government in which substantial portion of the citizens directly or indirectly participates in ruling the state.

Besides the United States, the Parliament of Great Britain represents similar viewpoints as our government. They gained power over the crown for a short time, but lost it when they couldn’t decide on a constitution Democratic and Communist governments do have a few basic similarities. The both hold a vote to voice the opinion of the people. However, most modern communist dictatorship does not even use these votes for elections. They are just used to locate public resentment or opposing views, and then the secret police take care of these outlaws.

Censorship is used in every form of government to hide secrets to cover up opposing opinions. The Soviets had complete control over all the media, by doing so people only hear politically correct information. It is a way to brainwash someone into believing his or her views. In the United States, the schools sometimes decide to ban media because f what it promotes. It is rare to have this event happen. Communism and Democracy have more differences then similarities. A democratic government allows people to participate in public affairs.

Democracy also can allow the people to rule. People who live in America have their basic freedoms (Speech, Religion, and Economic) they are free to choose what they say or do to a point. Communist governments do not approve of this, by controlling their freedom. The government can rule the people’s daily lives. America is formed as a political state in which we as people give up our personal right to nterpret the law (anarchy) for a guarantee that the community will protect their natural right of life, liberty, and property.

People living under communist rule have very few personal belongings; the government took most of theirs. The communists try to make everyone equal by not allowing personal property. They also state that everyone must work. Economic freedom allows people in democratic countries to get ahead in social status and wealth. The economic and social classes of the people in the US illustrate this point. Under communist rule, Nobody can cross the dictator or ppose his or her views it would certainly be considered treason and the consequences lethal.

Over the last few years, The crash of the Iron Curtain was inevitable, starting with the fall of the USSR, continuing with the Berlin Wall. It is signaling the failure of communist governments worldwide. Communism is in decline. Only a handful of Communist dictatorships remain in the world today. Cuba and China are the last two major communist governments in the world today. Together, They both suffer isolation and lag in technology because of the UN trade embargoes and bad diplomatic relations with democratic governments and leaders.

The 2000 presidential election

Environmental issues, and policies have recently come to the for-front of American politics in the past four decades. This recent rise in the environment is due in part to the rapid boom in population in the past 40 years. The two major party candidates for the 2000 presidential election have keyed in on certain environmental issues to make strong arguments for the presidency. Gov. George W. Bush, who is the republican presidential candidate, is pretty much anti-environmental, but the rich people love him.

Vice President Al Gore, who is the democratic presidential candidate, is in favor of conserving the environment, he also has his devoted group of followers. Their environmental concerns are one of the many reasons that they have our country going in chaotic state of being. Gov. George W. Bush claims to be committed to a new era of environmental protection. Some of his proposals include: The redevelopment of abandoned contaminated industrial facilities, known as brownfields. Directing the EPA to establish high standards for brown field cleanups. These higher standards will provide a lot more flexibility that the current Superfund standards.

They will also fully protect human health and the environment. Gov. Bush believes that prosperity is meaningless without a healthy environment. But problems arise when leaders rely on Washington for regulation and dictation for environmental issues from afar. For that reason, as President, Bush will set high standards, and work to build conservation partnerships between the federal government and the state governments, local communities and private landowners to meet and exceed those standards. Another major issue is the Kyoto protocol. Bush believes that the Kyoto Protocol is ineffective, inadequate and unfair to America.

The Kyoto Protocol, according to Bush exempts 80 percent of the world, including major population centers like China and India from falling in line. Bush, will also the new Tier II standards that will require lower sulfur, cleaner-burning gasoline and cleaner cars. From Bushs standpoint the local and state governments best handle land management decisions. The challenges of urban sprawl draw attention to the need to give a new lease of life to our inner cities, through improved public schools, cleaning up and redeveloping brownfields, reduced urban crime rates and creating a strong, healthy economic environment that supports job creation.

Vice President Al Gore has made the environment his signature issue. He has challenged America to make the next ten years the Environmental Decade-making extraordinary progress in cleaning our air, water and soil; cracking down on polluters; developing cleaner sources of energy and curbing the risk of global climate change. The democratic presidential hopeful, Al Gore, is proposing a new Energy Security and Environment Trust (ESE)-a bold and unprecedented, commitment to achieve and even more prosperous economy, powered by cleaner, more reliable energy, in a healthy, truly livable environment.

The ESE is a new $150 billion fund that will create a cleaner environment by providing tax breaks and other financial incentives for clean and reliable sources of electricity; long-term energy solutions to reduce our reliance on imported oil; and new energy- efficient transportation technologies. The Trust Fund will also offer American consumers tax breaks and other incentives to purchase energy-efficient cars, sport utility vehicles, trucks, homes, appliances, and other products. For me, a commitment to the environment has always run deeper than politics.

We have to do whats right for our environment, because it involves all of our lives-from the simple security of knowing that our drinking water is safe, to the more ominous thinning of the ice caps at the top of the Earth. -Al Gore Al Gore wants to build a strong record of preservation for open spaces and protection for natural treasures, he supports full funding for our National Parks, and he wants to stop commercial exploitation of environmentally sensitive land. Gore also promotes smart growth and livable communities.

Thus, creating Better America Bonds to preserve open spaces and clean up brownfields. Gore also wants to protect the people from industrial and toxic waste by making the brownfields tax incentive permanent, and supporting Superfund cleanup of the worst environmental problems in the country. Vice President Gore believes that choosing between the environment and the economy is a very bad decision. He knows that in the long run we cant have one without the other. Bush and Gore both adhere to the analytical categories of conservation, preservation, laissez-faire, and ecology of Benjamin Kline.

They arent really choosing sides, but they are picking and choosing their arguments carefully. Staying as close as possible to the middle of the environmental issues instead of bearing either to the right or left, both candidates have the country practically split down the middle. Gore and Bush both want conservation of the environment, Gore is just pushing harder to take care of preservation. Bush, on the other hand, is more for conservation. Preserving the environment means taking care of it so that it remains in good shape.

Conserving means using what we have and maintaining a balance, so that there wont be a complete depletion of the natural environment. In comparison, Richard Nixon and Al Gore had very close similarities in their campaigns of environmental issues. Richard Nixon started the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in 1970. The EPA required federal agencies to prepare an environmental-impact analysis of all proposed projects. Nixon was so much into preserving that in 1970 his Commission on Population Growth and the American Future promoted zero population growth.

This meant that the birth rate should not be higher than the death rate. Fewer people would cause less stress on the environment, thus, preserving the environment. The most alarming thing about the similarities of the two is the fact that Nixon was a Republican, which means he should have been more on conserving the environment, instead of preserving it. George W. Bush is more like Theodore Roosevelt they are both conservatives, very rich, and both of them are Republicans. Roosevelt knew that something had to be done to preserve nature, so he started the conservation movement.

Decades of urban growth, westward expansion, and industrial growth had taken a considerably bad toll on the environment. So he began promoting wilderness preservation and better management of natural resources. Roosevelt realized the call for conservationists planned development of the nations natural resources. Roosevelt supported the National Reclamation Act of 1902. Roosevelt had to go with the moneymaker, conservation, to help build the economy. As a matter of fact, the conservation and preservation problems of Roosevelts time still exist today.

The similarities of past presidents and todays presidential hopefuls are astounding. It seems as though history continues to repeat itself. Just as in the past we are trying to find a place to come together and work something out to conserve and preserve nature. Both political parties are trying to gain a win one through the preservation of the environment, the other through the conservation of the environment. The thing is we need both to maintain a healthy and livable environment.

The Republican Party

Government in education has always been a disputable topic. The Republican Party believes that the role of federal government must be limited. Teachers, parents, and school boards should have most of the control over schools. The party is in favor of home schooling and calls for enforcement of laws that would protect the familys privacy to do so. As college tuition continues to rise, Republicans want to increase the access to these universities with savings accounts. These savings would target higher benefits for students who take more challenging courses in high school.

There is also much debate over prayer in schools. The Republican Party continues to work to get voluntary prayer back into schools. I think that the most important aspects of President Bushs plan are to: require annual testing of grades three through eight, provide five billion dollars to ensure that every child can read by the third grade, and provide 2. 4 billion dollars to train and recruit highly qualified teachers. Education is a top Democratic priority. The party believes that every failing school in all of America should be turned around or shut down and then re-opened with new and better leadership.

Every eighth grader in the country should be comfortable using a computer because technology is everything around us now and more important, the future. Democrats believe strongly in a zero tolerance policy towards guns in schools. The party also believes that character education is extremely important in our schools. There are three elements to better schools in a Democratic view: reduce class size, modernize facilities, and hire new teachers. Teachers should also be paid more because they are professionals.

The Libertarian Party believes that in our current school system, poor kids end up at the worst schools. Wealthy parents can afford to send their children to better or safer schools while poor parents have no choice but to send their kids to public schools which are free but can also be a much harsher environment for learning. The Republican Party wants to reform and toughen the current immigration system in order to emphasize family. The system needs to devote resources to border control and give priority to spouses and children.

The party believes that needed skills for determining eligibility for admission to our country should be emphasized. Republicans also support increasing the number of H-1B visas to ensure that workers with more high-tech skills are placed into specialized positions. The H-2A program for short-term agricultural workers also needs expansion. President Bush supports the concept called English-Plus, which insists on English proficiency but recognizes the valued richness that other languages bring to our country.

Democrats are in support of the reforming of the INS to provide better services. Also, there needs to be increased resources for English language courses. The party believes that family reunification should continue to be the most important aspect of our current immigration system. Democrats want protection of immigrants who are hired by employers in order to exploit them. There is need for restoration of basic due process protections, so that immigrants can no longer be deported for minor offenses. The Green Party says, Dont blame immigrants for social and economic problems.

Our nation was built with a rich mixture of immigrants and we must continue to respect the contributions and potential contributions of those immigrants. Policies should promote fairness, non-discrimination, and most importantly, family unification. The party believes that particular attention should be paid to minorities who are political exiles and refugees. This includes people who are Russian Jews, Eastern Kurds, Tibetans, and Haitians. Green members also believe that our current relationship with Mexico needs some added attention because our bordering nations offer economic opportunities.

The Green Party is in opposition of those who raise up ethnic and racial hatreds for the sake of political gain. Immigrants cannot be blamed for social and economic problems. Civil Rights could be the most questionable platform in all parties. The Republican Party is in strong support of the traditional definition of marriage; that is the union of one man and one woman. Republicans believe that federal judges should not force states to recognize any other living arrangements as marriages. The party does not believe sexual preference should be given special legal protection or standing in law.

The party will not allow government to ban religious symbols from the workplace. Members also believe that religious institutions should not be taxed. The party supports women advancing in the military, however it calls for the ending of co-ed basic training. President Bush stated that strong civil rights enforcement will be a cornerstone of his administration. The Democratic Party declares that police should have zero tolerance of racial profiling. The party views profiling as a violation of the basic American principle of innocent until proven guilty.

Democrats believe that hate crimes arent just assaults on other people, but they are assaults on all of America. These crimes should be punished with extra force and protections should include hate crimes based on gender, disability, or sexual orientation. Members of the Democratic Party are proud to lead the fight of discrimination based on race, gender, religion, age, disability, and sexual orientation. The Libertarian Party is kind of an extreme because they want to repeal all laws against homosexuality.

The party also believes that the right to complete freedom of expression includes pornography. Libertarian members strongly support rights of American Indians. Included in those rights are: individuals should be free to select their own citizenship, Indians should have their property rights restored, the Bureau of Indian Affairs should be abolished leaving tribal members to determine their own system of government, and negotiations should be undertaken to resolve all differences between tribes and government.

Upton Sinclairs book The Jungle

The events that occur in Upton Sinclairs book The Jungle were same things that people in the early 20th century had to deal with everyday. For example labor was exploited to the employers benefit. Political corruption and prostitution were some main points in the book. The most important idea, the book supports socialism over capitalism as an economic and social structure. These things are what they had to go through and will be further explained. The labor force was exploited to the employers benefits. The workers didnt have any set wages.

A very few days of practical experience in this land of high wages had been sufficient to make clear to them the cruel fact that it was also a land of high prices, and that in it the poor man was almost as poor as in any other corner of the earth; and so there vanished in a night all the wonderful dreams of wealth that had been haunting Jurgis. What had made the discovery all the more painful was that they were spending, at American prices, money which they had earned at home rates of wages–and so were really being cheated by the world!

There were unsafe working conditions that the workers had to tolerate day after day the company had no care of. . The injury was not one that Durham and Company could be held responsible for, and so that was all there was to it, so far as the doctor was concerned. Also was no job security, the workers fear of being fired anytime of the day. For example, due to their overproduction in the summer, the workers were forced to shut down in the winter making the workers unemployed when they need financial support the most.

Political corruption and prostitution were some things that went on in the story. The politicians didnt care about anybody but themselves and the vote that they get. Whose fault was it that at the hours when workingmen were going to their work and back, the cars were so crowded that the conductors could not collect all the fares? And besides, the companies were thieves, people said–had stolen all their franchises with the help of scoundrelly politicians! Also prostitution was a big problem also.

Young girls who are just trying to survive or women who have to families need means to support them were forced into prostitution as an easy way of getting money. Marriage and prostitution were two sides of one shield, the predatory man’s exploitation of the sex pleasure. If she had no money, she was a proletarian, and sold herself for an existence. The book also supports the idea that socialism over capitalism as an economic and social structure. The book shows that the working class is lowest end of society, but if the workers can make a difference.

If they pull together and fight the system they will win their freedom. When a Socialist was elected to office he voted with old party legislators for any measure that was likely to be of help to the working class, but he never forgot that these concessions, whatever they might be, were trifles compared with the great purpose–the organizing of the working class for the revolution. These were some of the things that went during that time. It was a hard time for the immigrants but it turned out that these immigrants were the ones that made this great country America. Without them we wouldnt be at where at without them.

Political Effects of the Renaissance

History has shown us how civilizations evolve over time. Broadly interpreted, the age of Diocletian marked a decisive stage in the transition from the classical, the Greco-Roman, civilization of the ancient Roman Empire to the Christian-Germanic civilization of the early Middle Ages. Similarly interpreted, “the age of the Renaissance marked the transition from the civilization of the Middle Ages to the modern world”(Ferguson 1). Therefore, the Renaissance is the beginning of the modern world and modern government.

In law the tendency was to challenge the abstract dialectical method of the medieval jurists with a philological and historical nterpretation of the sources of Roman Law. As for political thought, the medieval proposition that the preservation of liberty, law, and justice constitutes the central aim of political life was challenged but not overthrown by Renaissance theorists. They contended that the central task of government was to maintain security and peace.

Machiavelli maintained that the creative force (virtj) of the ruler was the key to the preservation of both his own position and the well-being of his subjects, an idea consonant with contemporary politics. Italian city-states were transformed during the Renaissance from ommunes to territorial states, each of which sought to expand at the expense of the others. Territorial unification also took place in Spain, France, and England. The process was aided by modern diplomacy, which took its place beside the new warfare when the Italian city-states established resident embassies at foreign courts.

By the 16th century, the institution of permanent embassies spread northward to France, England, and the Holy Roman Empire. Renaissance churchmen, particularly in the higher echelons, patterned their behavior after the mores and ethics of lay society. The activities of popes, cardinals, and bishops were scarcely istinguishable from those of secular merchants and political figures. At the same time, Christianity remained a vital and essential element of Renaissance culture. Preachers, such as San Bernardino of Siena, and theologians and prelates, such as Sant’Antonino of Florence, attracted large audiences and were revered.

Moreover, many humanists were concerned with theological questions and applied the new philological and historical scholarship to the study and interpretation of the early church fathers. The humanist approach to theology and scripture may be traced from the Italian scholar Petrarch o the Dutch scholar Desiderius Erasmus; it made a powerful impact on Roman Catholics and Protestants. Some medievalists contend that the inflated eloquence and dull neoclassicism of much humanist writing undermine the claim that the Renaissance was a turning point in Western civilization.

Although these contentions are valid to some degree, the Renaissance clearly was a time in which long-standing beliefs were tested; it was a period of intellectual ferment, preparing the ground for the thinkers and scientists of the 17th century, who were far more original than the Renaissance humanists. The Renaissance idea that humankind rules ature is akin to Sir Francis Bacon’s concept of human dominance over nature’s elements, which initiated the development of modern science and technology.

Medieval notions of republicanism and liberty, preserved and defended with classical precedents by Renaissance thinkers, had an indelible impact on the course of English constitutional theory and may have been a source for the conception of government espoused by the Founding Fathers of American constitutionalism. Above all, however, “the age of the Renaissance marked a decisive stage in the transition from Middle Ages to the modern world”(Ferguson 1).

A Presidential Election

Every four years there is a presidential election. The elections are important to most Americans because it can change the future for many generations. There are many who run for this very important position, those who run get into to parties of those who will take office with them. There are third parties, and some very unusual parties, but it usually is narrowed down to Democratic and Republican. This year the two candidates are: George W. Bush for Republican and Al Gore for the Democratic Party. I have already turned eighteen and I am able to vote but I chose to wait a few until I feel I am mature enough to vote.

If I were to vote, I would probably vote for Al Gore. I feel that he is qualified and should be president because he is the vice-president for Bill Clinton who is currently president. I agree with most of his issues concerning Drugs, Education and Juvenile crime, Gun Control, Civil and Gay Rights. The Clinton-Gore team has already started with spending more money on addressing the issues of drugs, for advertising and education and the drug use has supposedly gone down, this also addresses, that Gore would be able to pick up where Clinton left off.

Gore also has plans for drug treatments for every addict who wants one. Gore also wants more involvement form the communities, which I believe would make a difference. Mandatory weekly drug testing for state prisoners and parolees, this can ensure that the convicts are staying drug free which can help clean up communities. Gore believes that after-school programs cut down on drug use. I agree with this, because I am in school and that can help some kids keep busy, and off the streets. I think this also would mean that he would not cut any programs but help promote the schools, and the future generations.

An important issue that I absolutely agree with is a tax break for college graduates. I am about to go to college and already have a brother in college. Gore has plans for making the saving and borrowing process of college easier, tax breaks, student loans, grants, and a National Tuition Savings program to send college hopefuls to college. Gore has many plans to help improve schools in general and make them safer. Gore wants plans to hire more teachers, improve classrooms, and help failing schools, test teachers, he agrees with the union for vouchers, salary, and class sizes.

As a student, I agree that t there are lack of teachers and classrooms. This can lead to failing schools and it may be too hard to turn them around and make them better. I also feel that teachers should get more pay because they are training the future of America, they help kids get through life and prepare them to go out and do good. I certainly think they should be paid more because of all the schooling they go through just to teach. I think they should paid just as much as the professional athletes, doctors, and lawyers. Gore wants to transform the educational system within four years, which I think is a good goal.

Gore also has a five point plan to have high school exit exams, which I think are important because some people get away with graduating and not know how to read or deal with everyday problems. The focus should be on character, discipline and safety. Some of the problems with this are to start by making secondary schools for juveniles who bring guns to school. I feel that gun control is very important and that everything can be worked out to benefit everyone. The focus should be on gun safety, and not on hunters and sportsmen, who already know how to handle guns.

Homeowners and sportsmen should not have to suffer and should not be restricted. I feel that the guns should be kept out of wrong hands. Gore also plans on having mandatory background checks and child safety locks. He also passed the toughest gun control for the next thirty years. He wants plans for a state-run photo gun licensing. I feel that gun control is a touchy subject for some people due to the diversity among them, There those who useit for assault and those who use them to protect their families and sportsmen.

I think gun control as well as other weapon control is important for overall crime prevention. Civil Rights is an important issue for many people across the United States. The civil rights have evolved and Gore hopes for it to evolve more. Clinton has plans under way to help racial profiling. Gore wants to ban it under executive order, and investigate racial profiling on the federal level. Gore also recognises disparities in sentencing African Americans. He also has plans for women and their small businesses. Gore also want to eliminate the do not ask, do not tell system in the army.

I think anybody should be able to serve to protect his or her country. He wants to stop discrimination and supports Vermonts civil union law. He does not feel that they should be allowed to get married. I do not agree with some of his issues including this one. I feel that gay people can do what they want because its their own business and not ours. They uld do what ever makes them happy they are human and deserve to have the same rights as everyone else. Everyone should be entitled to their own ways and opinions especially when it comes to their personal life.

I feel these are some of the issues that would directly affect me, or those that are close to me. I do not really agree with everything that Gore has to offer. I have not read about any that are appealing to me, so I feel that I should not vote. I do not see the point in voting if I cant agree with the majority of what the candidate has to offer. Other issues that I don t agree with is abortion I feel it should be pro-choice regardless of the situation. Overall, I feel he is qualified mostly because hes currently vice- president. I think that may be an issue, which may persuade most people, for voting for him.

Andrew Jackson Essay

Jackson was a protector of democracy for “Equal protection and equal benefits” for all men. He wanted to be rid of any organization or institution promoting specific privilege to anyone. Jackson felt that over time, the offices of the federal system had grown mold to a uniform party. He proceeded to seek diversity amongst officers, and while he removed no more officials than Jefferson, he succeeded in diversifying the system. Since he believed that the power belonged to the people, Jackson instituted a new method for selecting presidential candidates.

While previously there was held a Congressional Caucus, Jackson initiated a national nominating convention in order that the people might elect their candidates. Jackson responding to challenge: Nullification crisis Jackson was presented with the problem of dealing with angry South Carolinians who were angered by tariffs. His vice-president, Calhoun, a native to the protesting state, resigned from the vice-presidency to aid his state. He aided in preventing their secession from the Union, as he joined the pro-nullification group of elected officials.

The governor of South Carolina, Hayne, led the nullifiers, and Calhoun took his seat in the Senate Jackson was infuriated with Calhoun, who realizing there was no wide-spread support for nullification [as time progressed], was bailed out by Henry Clay. Clay devised the plan that would lower the tariff eventually back to its original value. Maysville Veto As president, Jackson saw a distinct separation of federal and state government. When the Maysville Road Bill came into existence, the funding for the pike was to come partially from the Federal government.

Jackson chose to veto this proposal, though, because the building of the road was a project within the state, and should therefore be funded by the state that it benefits. While his intention was proper, the veto came under scrutiny because while the construction was an intrastate project it was to be part of a nationally benefiting road. Jackson’s vetoes, however, were for the most part accepted. Movement of the Indians west of the Mississippi

Jackson possessed a certain hatred for the Indians, which came to be the national attitude; rather than the original belief that they were civilized savages, they were now considered uncivilized savages incapable of being tamed. White settlers wanted removal of Indians for fear and, more importantly, their land. Militias formed in the West and were very successful. In the South, many people wanted to allow the Indians that were civilized, like the Cherokee, to remain on their land. The eventual result was the passage of the Removal Act, which provided the necessary funds for the relocation of Indians to the West.

The Cherokee then found favor in their appeal to the Supreme Court (Marshall and Jackson were long time foes), however, Marshall didn’t enforce the ruling, and the Cherokee were eventually dissolved due to Jackson’s hatred. Some escaped to North Carolina, others took money to leave, and the remaining majority of all were forced from their homes [at bayonet point] to make a long “trek of tears” to their new homes, west of the Mississippi. The Seminoles, however, were partially stubborn. Some left for relocation, while others joined escaped slaves to rise against the government.

While unsuccessful, we never managed to totally relocate them. Jackson dismantles the Federal bank Seeing that the National Bank was a monopoly, Jackson set out to destroy it. Jackson was successful enough in winning people to his side of the issue that he forced the bank’s president, Biddle, to take measure. Biddle responded by winning over some of Jackson’s followers along with certain influential people. Biddle applied for renewal of the charter for the bank four years early, and it passed Congress but was of course vetoed and deemed by Jackson to be “unconstitutional.

Congress was unable to override the veto, and so the issue became a political determinant in the following presidential election. Jackson was reelected, though, and continued to “destroy the monster” by taking out of it the federal funds. Needing the approval of the secretary of treasury, it took Jackson three men to find someone to cooperate. Jackson then began to cutting funds from the bank and putting them in “pet banks. ” It got to the point where the National Bank had poor credit to loan. Businesses hence suffered, and Biddle and Jackson blamed it on each other.

Biddle, feeling the suffering would result in rechartering, was aided by foreign friends who appealed to Congress for recharter, however, as they failed and business failed, Biddle did as well and Jackson killed the Hemingway was taught music, hunting, and fishing from his parents, but the one thing that interested Hemingway the most was writing. Ernest Miller Hemingway was born at eight oclock in the morning on July 21, 1899 in Oak Park, Illinois (Baker 3). Almost sixty-two years later, on the morning of July 2, 1961 Hemingway selected one of his shotguns from his closet, went upstairs, and shot himself in the head (Baker 564).

Born in the family home, Hemingway was the second of Dr. Clarence and Grace Hall Hemingways six children; he had four sisters and one brother. He was named after his maternal grandfather Ernest Hall and his great uncle Miller Hall (Baker 2). Ernest was married four times in his life. He and his first wife, Hadley Richardson, were introduced while he was living at his friends house (Brian 9). The two quickly fell in love. While he could do no wrong with his writing career, his personal life had began to show signs of decline.

He divorced his first wife Hadley in 1927 and married Pauline Pfeiffer (Brian 1). The civil war caused another kind of war for the Hemingways, a marital war. Hemingway had met a young writer named Martha Gellhorn in Key West and the two would go on to conduct a secret affair for almost four years before Hemingway divorced Pauline and married Martha Gellhorn (Brian 63). Later, Hemingway was seriously injured and was hospitalized. His wife Martha, showed no signs of compassion. He then met Mary Welsh, who he said was Marthas “antithesis. ” Hemingway divorced Martha and married Mary (Brian 79).

Hemingway received his formal schooling in the Oak Park public school system. In high school he was mediocre at sports, playing football, swimming, water sports, basketball and serving as the track team manager. He also enjoyed working on the high school newspaper (Baker 17-29). Hemingway graduated in the spring of 1917, and instead of going to college the following fall, like his parents had expected, he took a job as a cub reporter. The job was arranged for him by his uncle Tyler who was a close friend of the chief editorial writer of the paper.

When he heard the Red Cross was taking volunteers as ambulance drivers, he quickly signed up. He was accepted in December of 1917, left his job at the paper in April of 918 and sailed for Europe in May (Baker 38). The war was an inspirational time in writing for Hemingway as well. He wrote his popular novel, A Farewell To Arms. Another of Hemingways war novels was For Whom The Bell Tolls. Examples of his work in short stories are, “Hills Like White Elephants,” a symbolic story concerning abortion and choice, and Take Nothing, which is a volume of his short stories.

Ernest Hemingways “Hills Like White Elephants” is thought to be one of his most symbolic stories. His development of theme and symbolism makes the story stick out from the other stories he has written in the past. These two aspects of literature that he focuses on in this story make it very interesting. Through the use of symbolism, Hemingway shows the process of maturity, choice making, and abortion. In “Hills Like White Elephants,” theme is an important element of literature. Through this story, Hemingway examines women and the choices that they have to make.

He also discusses pregnancy, abortion, and maturity. The two main characters in this story are Jig, the woman who is pregnant, and the American man, who is never named. These two characters are confronted with a choice, whether or not the woman should have an abortion. The theme of adulthood is shown because the characters in this story make their own choices. They are mature enough to have a relationship, have a baby, and think logically about the effects of having an abortion. ” (Mansilla) Along with the idea of maturity, comes the idea of pregnancy.

Jig seems to be a mature woman. She has taken on the responsibility of pregnancy, and is now trying to make the mature choice of whether or not to have the abortion. “The theme of pregnancy is a main theme. The story shows what comes along with being pregnant; choices, responsibilities and maturity. (Mansilla) Choices are being made by the characters throughout the story. The American man and Jig have to decide what to drink, and on whether or not she want to actually “do it”, referring to having the abortion or not. The man says that she does not have to if she does not want to.

Symbolism is another important element in this story by Ernest Hemingway. This story is one of Hemingways most symbolic stories. Every part of this story has nothing to do with hills or white elephants. Mansilla states that the title “Hills Like White Elephants” is symbolic. The hills symbolize the tomach of a pregnant woman, and white elephants symbolize things that are unwanted, such as the fetus. Another example of Hemingways use of symbolism in this story is during the conversation between the two at the storys beginning. They look like white elephants” she said.

The man replies, “I have never seen one. ” (Hemingway 342) When the man states that he had never seen a white elephant before, it symbolizes that he had never before been a father (Mansilla). During the course of the story, the man and woman are faced with many decisions about having the abortion or not. While they are talking , Jig tates, “It isnt ours anymore And once they have taken it away, you never get it back. ” (Hemingway 344). This remark shows that once the woman decides to have the abortion, she can not go back.

They can not re-create the baby after it has been destroyed. Hemingway has written many short stories that include literary concepts such as symbolism, and theme, however, this one stands out from the rest, Every line in this story has some significant meaning. Not only the lines spoken by the characters in the story are symbolic, but the title as well. Ernest Hemingway wrote many short stories about war, love, maturity, and ther aspects of life. He examined how both men and women feel about certain subjects.

Despite the fact that Hemingways education came to a halt after his enrollment in the Red Cross, he wrote brilliant stories that combined the use of theme, symbolism, and other literary aspects. These stories are very thought-provoking and have not, and never will be forgotten. Hemingways brilliant use of these literary elements is what has made Ernest Hemingway the very well known, ever-so-popular author that he has always been. His novels, short stories, and poems will live on to inspire future writers, as they have done countless times in the past.

Fascism, a form of counter-revolutionary politics

Fascism is a form of counter-revolutionary politics that first arose in the early part of the twentieth-century in Europe. It was a response to the rapid social upheaval, the devastation of World War I, and the Bolshevik Revolution. Fascism is a philosophy or a system of government the advocates or exercises a dictatorship of the extreme right, typically through the merging of state and business leadership, together with an ideology of aggressive nationalism. Celebrating the nation or the race as an organic community surpassing all other loyalties.

This right- ing philosophy will even advocate violent action to maintain this loyalty which is held in such high regards. Fascism approaches politics in two central areas, populist and elitist. Populist in that it seeks to activate “the people” as a whole against perceived oppressors or enemies and to create a nation of unity. The elitist approach treats as putting the people’s will on one select group, or most often one supreme leader called El Duce, from whom all power proceeds downward.

The two most recognized names that go along with Fascism is Italy’s Benito Mussolini and Germany’s Adolf Hitler. The philosophy of Fascism can be traced to the philosophers who argue that the will is prior to and superior to the intellect or reason. George Sorel, Friedrich Nietzsche, and Georg Hegal are main philosophers who’s beliefs and ideologies greatly influenced the shaping of Fascist theory. Sorel (1847-1922) was a French social philosopher who had a major influence on Mussolini. Sorel believed that societies naturally became decadent and disorganized.

This decay could only be slowed by the leadership of idealists who were willing to use violence to obtain power. Nietzsche (1844-1900) theorized that there were two moral codes: the uling class ( master morality) and the oppressed class (slave morality). Nietzsche believed the ancient empires were developed from the master majority and the religious ideas and views grew out the slave majority. The idea of the “overman” or superman which symbolized man at his most creative and highest intellectual capacity was brought about by Nietzsche as well.

Hegal believed people should sacrifice for the community. He thought war was also necessary to unify the state, with peace bring nothing but a weak society. Hegal also sustained that laws should be made by the corporate organization of the state. Fascism values human nature in a group for the benefit of the community. The group as a whole is called the human will, which is ruled by a select group or one leader, with the power being passed down from top to bottom. Fascism seeks to organize an organization led mass movement in an effort to capture the state power.

When the power is in the firm grip of the ruler, or IL Duce, the government will be used to control the population and everything in it so the community will be benefited. Fascism’s ideal government would be fashioned around the good of the community or nation. Everyone would work for the benefit of the nation and that is all. Regularly this would take place with the merging of the state and business leadership, with concern only of the nation. In this the nation will also take care of its members if the need should arise.

This could be money ,shelter, food, or any other need that might come about. The ideology of Fascism has been identified with totalitarianism, state terror, fanaticism, arranged violence, and blind obedience. Adolf Hitler established his own personal ideology, Mein Kampf, which means My Struggle. The book was written while Hitler was in prison and not yet in ower. Mussolini fashioned his ideology after he took control of Italy. Despite their two different angles on the use of Fascism Hitler and Mussolini both worked similarly on how they established their principles in the same basic manner.

Their principles came from basic responses to various issues the leaders faced. Fascism is an authoritarian political movement that developed in Italy and other European countries after 1919 as a reaction against the profound political and social changes brought about from inflation, and declining social, economic, and political conditions. Italy, which was ready for a new political aspect, was the birthplace of fascist ideology. Benito Mussolini was the man who brought this ideology to Italy.

Mussolini had been looking for the perfect opportunity to take complete control of the country and now was the time to do so. Mussolini said “Fascism, which was not afraid to call itself reactionary_does not hesitate to call itself illiberal and anti-liberal” (Nazi Fascism and the Modern Totalitarian State) this statement can be easily recognized in the steps that Mussolini took to gain control of Italy. In 1919 Mussolini and his followers, mostly war veterans, were rganized along paramilitary lines and wore black shirts as uniforms.

After defeats at the polls Mussolini used his new financial backing friends to clothe a gang of thugs who would attack other street gangs supporting other ideologies that Mussolini disliked. These black shirts also vandalized, terrorized, bullied, and on occasion took control of self-governing governments by force. Paralyzed by these violent occurrences, the government did little to combat the fascists. Mussolini furthered his popularity by supporting eight hour days, elimination of class privileges, universal suffrage, and tax advantages.

Adolf Hitler’s Nazi (National Socialist German Worker’s Party) party is the most recognized example of fascism. Nazism is the ideology and policies of Hitler and his party from 1921 to 1945. Nazism also stressed the superiority of the Aryan race, calling for the unification of all German-speaking peoples into one single empire. Unlike fascism, the state was second in importance, behind only racial purity for the nation. Hitler used his book Mein Kampf to establish a plan of action for creating this racially pure state.

In January of 1933 Hitler was named Chancellor of Germany by Hindenburg. By the end of the year Hitler had concentrated his power as a fascist dictator and began a campaign for a racially pure nation that eventually led to the Holocaust. In order for Hitler to maintain his ability to control the German people he had to organize several militia groups. Hitler even wrote down important points of the Nazi party that had to be followed. These Twenty Five points of Hitler’s party were enforced by these militia groups.

A few of the points made by Hitler are as follows: immigration of non-Germans must be prevented, no individual shall do any work that would I any way hurt the interest of the community for the benefit of all, a creation of a national (folk) army, all editors and their assistants on newspapers published in German must be a citizen, and all material to be published must go through the government for approval. To keep control of the population and maintain the law, Hitler setup he set up militia groups to see that everything was in order.

Hitler began to organize the SA, his Nazi storm troopers, which in Mein Kampf he referred to as “_an instrument for the conduct and reinforcement of the movement’s struggle for its hilosophy of life. ” (The Rise of Hitler: A New Beginning) Realizing the liking of uniforms by the German man the SA adopted a brown-shirt outfit, with boots, swastika armband, badges and caps. The accessories on the outfit would become important because of the visual tools providing easy recognition and visibility, allowing for an increase of notoriety in and out of the Nazi party.

Hitler then created a special unit that would only answer to him and be his personal body guards. The elite groups was known as Schutzstaffel, the staff guard or SS for short. The SS took a black niform, modeled after the Italian Fascists. Josef Berchtold, a former stationary salesman, was the groups first leader. The Gestapo, established in 1933, was a secret state police. All these groups were used to carry out mass murders of anyone or any groups that posed a threat to Hitler and the party’s beliefs.

They would also create, destroy, and falsify any record that would benefit the party and the nation. Hitler, using modern technology, furthered his power. He used the microphone, radio, and newspaper to create any appearance that fascism will be the new political power in the twentieth century. Hitler once said that “The great masses of people_ will more easily fall victim to a big lie than to a small one. ” (Nazi Fascism and the Modern Totalitarian State) He accomplished this feat by use of the microphone, speaking to thousands at one time he was able to rally support for his cause.

He used the power of the airwaves and print to setup a vial hatred of Jews, blacks, and the physical handicaps, calling them all imperfections of society and they must be destroyed. With the Jews being the main scapegoat of the Nazi party. Hitler could have held to his be belief that the dehumanization and capegoating of the enemy as an inferior race could have aided in the plot to justify genocide. Hitler used the media in the sense that he and his leaders had to approve anything that was being published.

Allowing for selective material to be let about the party and other world events. Mussolini’s Brown Shirts and Hitler’s Nazi’s are not the only right wing element to have an influence in today’s society. There are numerous other groups who have their own agenda to deal with. Even though these groups have differences generally they do agree on certain main issues. With their core administration dealing with issues centering on anti-government. The issues are gun control, taxes, Constitution liberties, and federal regulations.

These militia groups believe that the government is tyrannical, and there is a secret elite conspiracy on controlling the government, the economy, the culture, or all three. Just as Hitler used the Jews as his scapegoat these militia groups havethere own victims that the use. Federal officials and law enforcement officers, minority groups, gay and lesbian right activists, and people of color or immigrants are just a few of the escape whole the ight-wing militia use. One of the most famous right wing militia movements in the United States is the Ku Klux Klan, or KKK as it is even better known as.

The KKK is a militia group that got started during the disorder of the Reconstruction era. Now the Klan’s political agenda are a number of things. They believe the United States government should protect the jobs and welfare of American’s first, not just anyone in the third world countries. The Klan does not want to continue seeing America sell itself to foreigners such as the Japanese, America should be owned by Americans. Closing American borders to immigrants also is a project that the KKK thinks should handled by putting American troops at the border of Mexico.

The idea that the end of the world is coming is rapidly growing in right wing religious groups. Leading the way is Pat Robertson and the Christian Coalition. Robertson and his Christian Coalition is credited in helping many of the Republican Senators and Congressmen attain their current standings. Robertson even believes by reading Revelation 13 that if America were to change its money by putting codes on it that it have in it the mark of the beast. Some of the states even have their own militia groups. The Michigan Militia is just one of the many individual groups.

The Michigan Militia believes that the American government is undermining the individual freedoms that American’s posses, and even selling out to international organizations. The drug problem is one of the major areas the group centralizes on. Even though the CIA has taken Noriega out of the drug cartel in Panama the business is still running just as strong due to other members of drug families were put back into power. Most of the people who choose to become part of these groups have several factors nfluencing their decision. Desperation generally is the main reason.

They are people who barley are hanging on to their finanical and social status. Wanting to protect themselves and their children from a life of poverty and hardship they join a group that will offer a family atmosphere of love and support. One idea shared by all fascist movements is the evident lack of a consistent political standard behind the ideology. Each individual leader would handle every situation a little differently with no sense of tradition or law. However, one very commonplace aspect about fascism would e its unsympathetic drive to achieve and maintain state power and sovereignty.

On that road to conquest though fascists are willing to abandon any principle to adopt an issue more in acceptance and more likely to gain converts. Fascism and its right wing counterparts have been influencing twentieth century politics in every area. Hitler and Mussolini are perhaps the two most noted people to bring fascism to the forefront of government. Regardless of the power and force fascism has established in the past the same conclusion happens every time, it fails. Leading a person to question the vitality of this type of government.

Benjamin Franklin, one of the most amazing men history has recorded

Ben Franklin was one of the most amazing men history has recorded. Throughout his lifetime he continued to increase his already genius-level intelligence. He had a high quality of life, was a popular political figure, and he strongly believed in his thoughts, beliefs, and ideas. While he wasnt perfect, that was what he struggled to attain. Bens achievements are very numerous. Apart from being a genius after only 2 years of schooling, his other achievements show that he was an overpolitiachiever. Some of Bens achievements are literature-based. For example, he printed the first novel published in America.

He also started the first circulating library in America. Also, year after year, he wrote and published Poor Richards Almanac. Those werent his only achievements though. He organized the first hospital, started mail delivery, organized the first fire company, that is, firefighters; and was a city representative, too! All this is just more proof of him being an overachiever. Because of Franklins many inventions and experiments, our lives today are better. Ben made the first copperplate printing press in America, a chair with a built in table for writing, and a chair that turned into a step ladder for his library.

He also invented the odometer, a heating unit called the Pennsylvania Stove, the lightning rod, bifocals, an electricity generator, and the armonica. By experimenting, he proved that dark materials absorb more than light materials, proved lightning was electricity, and did many more experiments with static and regular electricity. He also introduced artificial fertilizer and discovered lead poisoning. We all should be grateful for how he has improved our lifestyle today. Bens childhood started out like anyone elses, but when he became around age 10, he started to become different.

He was born in Boston, Massachusetts in 1706. The 15th of 17 children, school was not cheap, so he only got to go for 2 years. He started out making soap and candles, but after expressing that he didnt like that, he would like to write, he became apprenticed to his brother, James, who was a printer. James wouldnt publish Bens work, so he submitted it under the name Mrs. Silence Dogood. When James found out, Ben ran away to Philadelphia, Where he would marry and live the majority of the rest of his life.

Ben started writing as a small boy, when most adults were illiterate. That and reading must have increased his intelligence to its genius state. Ben Franklin surely was amazing. He found time and money for all he wanted and agreed to do, which was a lot. Without him, Thomas Edison could not have the electricity to create the light bulb. Without him, certain people would have a hard time seeing things close/far away with the same glasses. Without him, we would have no way to tell how many miles are on our cars. Surely, Ben Franklin was magnificent.