The Great Switch

Being a southerner, it's pretty embarrassing that the Great Switch Occurred because of Republican presidential candidate Barry Goldwater's opposition to civil rights. From this point on, the South has transitioned from being pretty much completely Democratic to being predominantly Republican. I don't like the fact that the South is still viewed as quite racist, considering that the Civil Rights Era happened a long time ago. However, there are other reasons for this transition. There has been economic and industrial growth in the region that has attracted people from all over the country. This has contributed to a growing upper-middle class. People in the upper-middle class tend to vote Republican because they believe their economic interests will be protected in the form of tax cuts, etc. Also, there is a large group of white southerners who belong to the religious right political movement who vote for conservative republicans who share their values. Thus, the Great Switch was not all about race. 

I also believe that another "Great Switch" will occur again in the South in which it returns to being predominantly Democratic. The final generation that lived during the era of segregation and Civil Rights is on its way out, and the first generation truly blind to face is finally being born. Therefore, I believe that race will be a very small factor in politics in the not too distant future. 

BLOWBACK

Blowback refers to unintended consequences such as terrorist attacks and economic sanctions that result from foreign policy actions/blunders. As the world's only superpower, America has developed an increasingly imperialistic attitude and has become increasingly reckless in its actions abroad. Although there is no other country in the world that can challenge America militarily, terrorist groups can carry out attacks on innocent citizens to exact revenge for certain things that America has done. The 9/11 terrorist attacks may very well have been blowback for some action that the American public has no knowledge.  Furthermore, at a time when America sinks further into debt and countries such as China and India are becoming major world players, the U.S. will have to anticipate the consequences of its actions because these countries actually have the resources to do major damage with their militaries. 

Soft Power

 Using a combination of both hard and soft power during the Cold War, America was able to effectively contain the spread of communism. Although America used much of its hard power in Korea, Afghanistan, and Vietnam, it would not have been able to take down the Soviet Union without the use of soft power. Toward the late 1980's, the Soviet Union's economy was falling apart, and people were beginning to see that communism doesn't really work. Gorbachev championed American values through "glasnost" and "perestroika", causing Russians to demand capitalism and democracy. In more recent years, however, I believe that America has overextended its use of soft power. The war in Iraq is a perfect example. The reason troops have not pulled out of Iraq is because America wants to establish a stable democracy in the heart of the Middle East in the hope that other middle eastern countries will want to copy Iraq and adopt American values. The longer the violence continues there, however, the less appealing American values will seem, and not just in Iraq. 

reaction to sharon hayes (welfare)

This article discusses the reforms to the welfare program in the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996. I agree with Hayes that there are both positive and negative things that have come out of it. I think that it was a good idea, in theory, to try to emphasize the need for welfare recipients to become financially independent, but the execution of this plan is much more difficult. Reform was definitely needed in the welfare program, though. Once on welfare, recipients had no real incentives to go out and get a job, so they became increasingly dependent on welfare checks. This was extremely expensive for American taxpayers, and it was not really helping people because they were completely dependent on welfare for survival. Under the Personal Responsibility Act, the goal is to put pressure on recipients to get a job and give them the training they need in order to do so. The main problem with this is that the majority of recipients are not lacking the motivation to get a job, but the circumstances in which they live keep them from doing so. Also, most of the jobs available to them provide very low wages which cannot even cover their basic needs a lot of the time, especially when trying to support a family. Furthermore, this reform is even less effective at a time when the economy is doing poorly, as it is now. In our present economic situation, it is even more difficult to find work, so recipients will become increasingly desperate to find work. 

Do elections contribute to good government?

Elections not only contribute to good government, they are the backbone of democracy. Voting allows us to settle our differences without resorting to violence. By voting, there is a universal agreement that the loser will yield and consent to whatever policy or official that has been voted on. In a two party system, this is extremely important. Without elections, there would be constant chaos and bloodshed happening between them in their struggle for power. Furthermore, elections are good for government because they are a resistance to monarchies. The main problem with monarchies is that the ruler is often not the best person suited for the position and he does not necessarily represent the will of the people. Elections were put in place to legitimize a politician's rule. People can alter who they are ruled by though voting, and they choose who will represent them best so their interests will be realized. Also, unlike a monarchy, elections create competition among public officials. This causes politicians to make all of their decisions based on what their constituents want so that they will be re-elected. Officials can also be held accountable for their actions, so they are careful not to make any mistakes. There are several aspects of elections that are detrimental to government, though. Due to the fact that America uses a two party system, politicians from both parties can be elected. Therefore, elections can lead to a divided government in which it is almost impossible to get anything accomplished because both sides cancel each other out. Another negative aspect of elections is term limits, especially for the president. Oftentimes, a president has many policy goals, but with only 4 to 8 years in office, it is very difficult to see these goals realized. Overall, though, elections are vital to good government despite a few problems with them.

Does voting matter

 

Many people often decide not to vote because they think that one vote is not going to make a difference. If everyone had this mentality, though, democracy would break down completely. It is important that all eligible voters cast their vote so that the will of the people is accurately reflected.  To vote is a way of expressing an opinion. Voting definitely does matter, especially with respect to certain groups or types of voters. For example, since a very high percentage of senior citizens vote in elections, candidates or elected official make sure to satisfy the interests of this group in order to obtain their vote. This is why there is a focus on social security during election times. Senior citizens are rewarded for voting because their vote is so important to the candidates.  Although one vote may not make a difference, by banding together as a group, one can see real results.  There are many groups out there who are not getting any attention simply because they are not voting.  Elected officials do not try to satisfy their interests because it will not really help them to be re-elected. One example of this occurring is with people who have disabilities. Since it is difficult for these people to make it to the polls, they vote in much fewer numbers than other groups.  Consequently, politicians do not listen to their problems. There are over thirty five million eligible voters who have disabilities, however, so they could potentially have a large impact on elections if they voted together. Politicians would have to start listening to and helping this group if they want to win elections. As you can see, if people will simply work together and commit themselves, voting can have a large impact.

Federal Budget Process

The United States federal budget process consists of procedures that are named in the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.  The first step in the process is a budget request from the president (developed by the Office of Management and Budget), in which he suggests what the budget should be spent on in the upcoming fiscal year. The House and Senate Committees  then hold hearings on this request and create their own Budget Resolution which allocates spending authority for the next year. From here it goes to the House and Senate for the appropriations bills to be passed. After this there is Consideration of Reconciliation legislation if the spending requires changes to the law and Consideration of Authorization 

legislation.

Budget Calendar - http://www.rules.house.gov/archives/budget_time.htm

George Bush is a lame duck

George Bush has pretty much no power or influence left. Americans are focused on the  presidential race, and most of them are hoping for a change from the current administration. Obama's campaign platform is based on this idea since the Bush administration made so many colossal mistakes. Members of Congress are also hesitant to listen to Bush's warnings that neglecting to implement a rescue plan will end up in an economic disaster. This is because George Bush has tried to instill the country with fear in order to justify the Iraq war and the Patriot Act. Furthermore, with the elections coming up soon, many Republicans are intent on making the vote that will satisfy their constituents and get them re-elected. They are much less concerned about supporting and following the president.  http://www.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,1843847,00.html

Powers of House vs. Powers of Senate

The Senate and the House are considered equal institutions in the legislative branch, both they both have powers that are unique only to them. The Senate and the House of Representatives make up the two houses of Congress. a bill must pass though both of these houses before it can become a law. One power of the Senate that the House does not possess is that the Senate's Advice and Consent is required in presidential appointments and treaties. If the president proposes either of these things, the Senate has to agree with a two thirds majority for them to pass. The House of Representatives also has some powers that add to their strength. The House has the sole power of impeachment. The Senate does, however, have the sole power to try impeachment cases. Furthermore, revenue-raising bills have to originate in the House.

GRIDLOCK

There are several causes of gridlock. Gridlock occurs most often when there is divided government. Divided government is when the legislative branch and the executive branch are not unified under the same party. For example, if congress is dominated by democrats and passes a bill, a republican president can veto the bill. Then a two thirds majority is needed in both houses to pass the bill. This problem produces a stalemate, and the bill is unable to be passed. Gridlock can also occur even when the government is unified. One reason for this is the structure of the bicameral legislature. Even when a bill is easily passed in the House of Representatives, it can be stopped by a filibuster in the Senate. A filibuster requires 60 votes to pass a bill, which does not often happen. Furthermore, republicans and democrats have become more and more divided. Republicans today are more conservative than in the past, and democrats are now more liberal. This is a problem because there are less members of the legislature who are closer to the political center and willing to make compromises. The nature of the media and technological advancements in communication have also contributed toward gridlock. Since politicians are always in the spotlight, they are more concerned with satisfying their constituents in order to win elections than being willing to make compromises. Gridlock was intended by the framers of the constitution to prevent colossal mistakes from being made. In current politics, however, gridlock has led to government inaction, and changes need to be made to eliminate some of the checks of the federal government that cause gridlock to be more likely

Selective Incorporation

Selective incorporation is the way in which the federal government interpreted the 14th Amendment and how much of the Bill of Rights should be applied to the states. The 14th Amendment granted national citizenship, so it caused people to question whether a person could now be protected under the Bill of Rights from state actions. American federalism slowed down the process of incorporation significantly because it undermines the power of the states. If the same limits are placed on all states, then there is no longer any diversity among states. This is why only parts of the Bill of Rights were incorporated when it was deemed necessary. In the case of Barron v. Baltimore, the Supreme Court decided that the Takings Clause of the 5th Amendment did not apply to the actions of a state. Thus, the 5th Amendment was not incorporated, and it only applied to actions of the federal government. The case of Gitlow v. New York, however, incorporated the 1st Amendment (free speech specifically). The Court decided that freedom of speech was a fundamental right, so it was incorporated. Finally, in the Palko v. Connecticut case, the issue of double jeopardy was deliberated. Palko had been sentenced to life in prison, but he was then given the death penalty after a second trial. The court decided that double jeopardy was fair and did not incorporate this portion of the Bill of Rights. As you can see, the Court is very unpredictable in its decisions to selectively incorporate the Bill of Rights to apply to the states. 

Greatest Impact on Desegregation

I think it's fair to say that the Court's ruling in Brown v. Board actually worsened race relations before it made them better due to the huge uproar it created among white Americans. A good example of this is the extreme rioting and vandalism of public school buses in the city of Boston. The lack of enforcement of this ruling was also a problem. I do not think that the pursuit of ferderal legislation, however,  would have  been a better option because it would have been extremely difficult to pass laws to enforce the ruling of Brown better. The Court is important because it acts as a referee and can make decisions opposite of the tyranny of the majority. Although the Civil Rights Act was vital to facilitation the civil rights movement, it is the Court that has had the biggest impact on desegregation. Without the Court, the laws passed on civil rights would be nothing but words because there would be no real enforcement of them. An example of the Supreme Court enacting penalties for those who do not follow laws on civil rights is the Franklin v. Gwinnett County Public Schools. In this decision, the Supreme Court a violation of Title IX of the 1972 Education Act, which forbade gender discrimination in education, could result in monetary damages. 

Unfunded Mandates

An unfunded mandate is one that is imposed on state and local governments by the federal government without giving them any funding whatsoever. Unfunded mandates are a problem because states are forced to comply to them, but they take out a large chunk of the states' budgets. An example of an unfunded mandate is the No Child Left Behind Act, which sought to improve student performances on standardized tests and threatened to punish schools that do not improve. Although George Bush had promised that it would be funded for, there was a huge gap between the signing of the bill and the actual time it took for the funding to arrive. This problem led to the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act which was named under the Contract with America. The UMRA said that an unfunded mandate valued at over $50 million can be stopped by the House of Representatives. This forced Congress to have to accept responsibility for the mandates. I feel that a better strategy would be to create some sort of commision that was focused solely on reviewing unfunded mandates to determine whether they are economically feasable. Also, raising taxes could provide the money the states need.

What government involvement should there be in cases like Terri Schiavo's?

The Terri Schiavo case demonstrated how chaotic government involvement can be. This is mostly due to the separation of powers. In this case, Schiavo's parents first attempted to get the desired outcome of having their daughter's feeding tube put back into place through the courts. When they were denied, they turned around and took their problem to Congress. While this had some effect, the Schiavo's were still denied. Finallly, they made one final attempt to have the feeding tube replaced by going directly to governor Jeb Bush. Although the separation of powers is important in limiting the power of the national government, it greatly complicates things due to the fact that the three branches often disagree on some issues. The main problem with government involvement in this matter is the length of time it takes to decide on issues such as this. The more people there are involved, the harder it is to make a decision. I honestly cannot answer this question because I don't know what governmental involvement should take place in this case. I can, however, give my opinion on this case in particular. I think pulling the plug on Terri Schaivo was the right thing to do. There is no point to living while in a permanent vegetative state. If i were in one, I would definitely want the plug to be pulled on me. Furthermore, Terri had said that she wished to die a dignified death. 

What government involvement should there be in cases like Terri Schiavo's

What are the similarities and differences between the Honor Code at MBA and the US Constitution?

The MBA honor code and the US constitution have several similarities and differences. Both of them were created by the people. A group of students created the MBA honor code, not the faculty. It was also just a group of Americans recently free from British rule who would decide how the government of the U.S. would operate. It was also decided that any issue concerning honor would be handled by a council of students only. This differs from the constitution because a person who breaks the law is not punished by ordinary citizens, but is handled by the judicial branch. Both the US constitution and the MBA honor code were created to maintain order and prevent certain things from happening. Everyone knows that people do not behave gentlemanly or honorably all the time, so it is necessary to create institutions such as these to keep them in check.

In AP Government this year, I hope to learn more about how America's government works so that I can get more involved in politics. I feel that this is especially important with one of the most important presidential elections drawing near. This will be my first election to be voting in, and I want to be able to make an educated decision on it. As of right now, I am leaning toward Obama mainly due to his energy policy and timetable for withdrawing from Iraq, but I do not like certain aspects of his campaign. I find it extremely annoying when students at MBA proudly assert that they are Republicans when they don't know a single thing about politics and only want to fit in since MBA is mostly conservative. I know this is all politics, but I also have many questions about the American government. I've always wanted to know how Federal and state governments work together and not infringe on one another. I am looking forward to learning about this and many other aspects of government.