Public Opinion and Political Influence

"Or another example of the inversion: Under Nazi rule there was never any doubt about “big business” being subordinated to the political regime. In the United States, however, it has been apparent for decades that corporate power has become so predominant in the political establishment, particularly in the Republican Party, and so dominant in its influence over policy, as to suggest a role inversion the exact opposite of the Nazis’. At the same time, it is corporate power, as the representative of the dynamic of capitalism and of the ever-expanding power made available by the integration of science and technology with the structure of capitalism, that produces the totalizing drive that, under the Nazis, was supplied by ideological notions such as Lebensraum." (Inverted Totalitarianism, By Sheldon Wolin)

Sheldon Wolin is stating in this passage that inverted totalitarianism is essentially the opposite of the Nazi regime. While under the Nazi political regime big businesses were known to be subordinate, whereas in the United States that isn't the case at all. Big businesses and corporations have a great deal of influence in the United States government, this is especially true within the Republican party.

I chose this passage because Wolin provides a greater understanding of what inverted totalitarianism is and what isn't. Inverted totalitarianism isn't like the Nazi regime. Unlike the Nazi regime, inverted totalitarianism is more focused and influenced by big businesses and big corporations. 

Interest Groups

"Even when unorganized groups are discussed, at least in treatments of "pressure groups" and "group theory," the word "group" is used in such a way that it means "a number of individuals with a common interest." It would of course be reasonable to label even a number of people selected at random (and thus without any common interest or unifying characteristic) as a "group" but most discussions of group behavior seem to deal mainly with groups that do have common interests. As Arthur Bentley, the founder of the "group theory" of modern political science, put it, "there is no group without its interest." The social psychologist Raymond Cattell was equally explicit, and stated that "every group has its interest." This is also the way the word "group" will be used here. " (The Logic of Collective Action: Public Goods and the Theory of Groups, p. 8, Mancur Olson)

Every interest group and social movement have one thing in common: a common interest. One individual person typically does not have the power to achieve change, but one group of individuals with a shared interest may have enough power to stir up some controversy and achieve change. Olson is stating in this passage that you cannot form a group by simply throwing a random bunch of people together, a group would require a common interest. No common interest, no group.

I chose this passage because it provides a greater understanding of what a group is. A group is much more than a few people; a group is a few people with a shared interest. The shared interest would be the purpose and reason to form a group. 

The Judiciary

"Yes. Despite the equalization of the schools by "objective" factors, intangible issues foster and maintain inequality. Racial segregation in public education has a detrimental effect on minority children because it is interpreted as a sign of inferiority. The long-held doctrine that separate facilities were permissible provided they were equal was rejected. Separate but equal is inherently unequal in the context of public education. The unanimous opinion sounded the death-knell for all forms of state-maintained racial separation." (Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka)

The verdict for the Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka case was reached when it was agreed that teaching in separate facilities was not considered equal. They agreed that segregating minority children in public schools didn't abide by the laws of 14th amendment. Minority children were not receiving the same education as white children considering that they weren't in the same classroom and were being taught by different teachers.

I chose the Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka case because the verdict paved the way for millions of minority children to get the same education that white children got. They were allowed to sit in the same classrooms and be taught by the same teachers that thought the little white kids. They were given an equal opportunity to a brighter future.

The Presidency

"So let us begin anew--remembering on both sides that civility is not a sign of weakness, and sincerity is always subject to proof. Let us never negotiate out of fear. But let us never fear to negotiate.

Let both sides explore what problems unite us instead of belaboring those problems which divide us.

Let both sides, for the first time, formulate serious and precise proposals for the inspection and control of arms--and bring the absolute power to destroy other nations under the absolute control of all nations.

Let both sides seek to invoke the wonders of science instead of its terrors. Together let us explore the stars, conquer the deserts, eradicate disease, tap the ocean depths and encourage the arts and commerce.

Let both sides unite to heed in all corners of the earth the command of Isaiah--to "undo the heavy burdens . . . (and) let the oppressed go free."

And if a beachhead of cooperation may push back the jungle of suspicion, let both sides join in creating a new endeavor, not a new balance of power, but a new world of law, where the strong are just and the weak secure and the peace preserved.

All this will not be finished in the first one hundred days. Nor will it be finished in the first one thousand days, nor in the life of this Administration, nor even perhaps in our lifetime on this planet. But let us begin." (Inaugural Address of President John F. Kennedy Washington, D.C. 

January 20, 1961)

In this snippet from John F. Kennedy's inauguration speech he preached peace. He pleaded with the country - with the world - to set aside their differences and unite. Kennedy's presidency took place during the Cold War so this call for peace was much needed. He wanted to move forward, not linger in problems that were holding them back.

I chose this paragraph because there were many issues Kennedy could have spoken about, but instead he chose to speak about peace. He was very aware that achieving peace would not be easy, that it would not something that could be achieved overnight, but instead would be a long, tedious process that needed to begin immediately. It begins with one person; it begins with one good deed. 

Congress

"In contrast to North Carolina's Republicans, Indiana's did a remarkably good job of drawing sensible district boundaries. The same holds true for Nevada's Democrats, although with only four districts, the district boundaries in Nevada are dictated to a large degree by the state's borders." (America’s most gerrymandered congressional districts, Christopher Ingraham)

We know that gerrymandering works best in small, oddly-shaped, non-compacted congressional districts, and although Indiana's congressional districts are oddly-shaped, they are still large enough to prevent gerrymandering from occurring. Nevada on the other hand, has one the largest and most "normal" shaped congressional districts in the country, which would explain why gerrymandering is not an issue in that state.

I chose this passage because it illustrated the extent to which a congressional districts size, shape, and compactness can affect the probability of gerrymandering occurring. Seeing the Gerrymander index scores, 113th congress map really put into perspective how much gerrymandering is actually occurring around the country. 

Equal Rights

"Oppression makes a wise man mad. Your fathers were wise men, and if they did not go mad, they became restive under this treatment. They felt themselves the victims of grievous wrongs, wholly incurable in their colonial capacity. With brave men there is always a remedy for oppression. Just here, the idea of a total separation of the colonies from the crown was born! It was a startling idea, much more so than we, at this distance of time, regard it. The timid and the prudent (as has been intimated) of that day were, of course, shocked and alarmed by it." (The Meaning of Fourth of July for the Negro,  Frederick Douglass)

History happens when change happens; change happens when people make them happen. "If it ain't broke, don't fix it" is a very popular saying, a saying that applies to history. Throughout history people saw many "broken" issues and took it upon themselves to fix it, they sacrificed themselves and their family for a better tomorrow. Douglass was right when he said "oppression makes a wise man mad," many - if not all - revolutions happened in the name of change.

I chose this passage because change is happening right now. There are many wars going on in the middle east right now, wars that will bring on change regardless who wins. Even though we may not be experiencing it first hand, it is happening. There will always be something in life that needs to be improved, and it is up to us to make sure that happens.

American Liberites

"Now, in view of this entire disfranchisement of one-half the people of this country, their social and religious degradation,—in view of the unjust laws above mentioned, and because women do feel themselves aggrieved, oppressed, and fraudulently deprived of their most sacred rights, we insist that they have immediate admission to all the rights and privileges which belong to them as citizens of these United States." (Declaration of Sentiments and Resolutions Woman's Rights Convention,
Held at Seneca Falls, 19-20 July 1848)

Everything and everyone has a breaking point, and July 1848 was just the beginning of the breaking point for women putting up with crap - for lack of a better term. You can feel just how much Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Susan B. Anthony wanted things to change, you can feel just how fed up there were with being seen as less than men, and you can feel that all in this one passage. Stanton and Anthony were the pioneers in women's rights. Because of them, a discussion began, a discussion that may have been rather uncomfortable to have during that time, a discussion about gender equality.

I chose this passage because Hillary Clinton is running for president. A woman. If you would have told someone that a woman would run for president back in 1848 they may have called you crazy and would have possibly laughed in your face. This passage shows just how far we have come as a country, it shows how better we are as a nation. Sure, there may still be a problem with gender equality when it comes to wages, but women can vote, own a company, get an education, keep their last name when they get married - if they choose to get married - amongst a slew of other things. Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Susan B. Anthony played a critical role in making that happen for women. 

Another Stab at the U.S. Constitution

"Moreover, we have learned a lot in the last 225 years about shortcomings in the framers’ design: the person who wins the most votes doesn’t necessarily become president; the adoption of “winner take all” rules (permitted but not mandated by the Constitution) produces election campaigns that ignore most of the country and contribute to low turnout; the legislature of any state can decide to choose electors by itself and decline to hold an election at all; and the complex procedure for dealing with an election in which no candidate wins a clear majority of the electoral vote is fraught with peril. As a nation, we have come to embrace “one person, one vote” as a fundamental democratic principle, yet the allocation of electoral votes to the states violates that principle. It is hardly an accident that no other country in the world has imitated our Electoral College." (Revisiting the Constitution: Do Away With the Electoral College, Alexander Keyssar)

Alexander Keyssar believes that if every vote were to count, elections would result in a larger turnout. If we were to instate the "one person, one vote" rule - or the popular vote - the outcome may be entirely different than we if remain with the electoral votes. During the presidential election of 2000, George W. Bush won the electoral votes, but not the popular votes, the popular votes went to Al Gore. Bush had 50,456,062 votes, meanwhile Gore had 50,996,582 votes. Had the election gone by the popular votes and not by the elector votes, we would have had President Gore instead of President Bush. Having electoral votes in place should be seen as more of an incentive to go out and vote.

I chose this passage because many do not understand how electoral votes work or why they are in place. Many believe that their votes are not as important as they actually are. They may think that voting isn't worth their time so they may not vote when the time comes; they may still believe the "one person, one vote" rule, but that is simply not how it works. You must vote in order to have your political party win. If you stay home you cannot be disappointed if your political party of choice does not make the cut because there were not enough popular votes to win the state - it is all relative, popular and electoral votes. It can be seen as unfair how someones vote may be completely disregarded, but there is a method to the madness.



Sources:

Keyssar, Alexander. "Revisiting the Constitution: Do Away With the Electoral College." The New York Times. N.p., 8 July 2012. Web. 6 Oct. 2015. <http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2012/07/08/another-stab-at-the-us-constitution/revisiting-the-constitution-do-away-with-the-electoral-college>.

"U. S. Electoral College." National Archives and Records Administration. National Archives and Records Administration, n.d. Web. 09 Oct. 2015. <http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/2000/popular_vote.html>.

The Declaration of Independence

"We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor."

July 4th, 1776, the day when we cut ties with Britain; the day when we became free. This passage from the Declaration of Independence not only sums up what we became, but it also illustrates where we came from. We once had to answer to Britain, but now we were now free to do as we pleased without having to answer to Britain. Free - as it stated - "... to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce..."

Freedom. Freedom is the one word that came to mind when reading this passage from the Declaration of Independence. Freedom from the British Crown and freedom from the State of Great Britain. I chose this passage because it oozed freedom. It shows how far we have come as a country, we went from being a handful of colonies, to being fifty states - fifty free and independent states. 

Sources:

"The Declaration of Independence: A Transcription." National Archives and Records Administration. National Archives and Records Administration, n.d. Web. 01 Oct. 2015. <http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/declaration_transcript.html>.

What is America?

"One of the questions on the paper was, 'Are you an anarchist?' To which a detached philosopher would naturally feel inclined to answer, 'What the devil has that to do with you? Are you an atheist?' along with some playful efforts to cross-examine the official about what constitutes an ἁρχη [Greek: archê]. Then there was the question, 'Are you in favour of subverting the government of the United States by force?' Against this I should write, 'I prefer to answer that question at the end of my tour and not the beginning.' The inquisitor, in his more than morbid curiosity, had then written down, 'Are you a polygamist?' The answer to this is, 'No such luck' or 'Not such a fool,' according to our experience of the other sex. But perhaps a better answer would be that given to W. T. Stead when he circulated the rhetorical question, 'Shall I slay my brother Boer?'—the answer that ran, 'Never interfere in family matters.' But among many things that amused me almost to the point of treating the form thus disrespectfully, the most amusing was the thought of the ruthless outlaw who should feel compelled to treat it respectfully. I like to think of the foreign desperado, seeking to slip into America with official papers under official protection, and sitting down to write with a beautiful gravity, 'I am an anarchist. I hate you all and wish to destroy you.' Or, 'I intend to subvert by force the government of the United States as soon as possible, sticking the long sheath-knife in my left trouser-pocket into Mr. Harding at the earliest opportunity.' Or again, 'Yes, I am a polygamist all right, and my forty-seven wives are accompanying me on the voyage disguised as secretaries.' There seems to be a certain simplicity of mind about these answers; and it is reassuring to know that anarchists and polygamists are so pure and good that the police have only to ask them questions and they are certain to tell no lies." (What I saw in America, pg. 5)

When Chesterton tried to get his passports regularize he was met with a series of questions about his personal beliefs, asking if he was an anarchist, an atheist, or a polygamist - which begs the question: Is America really the land of the free as mentioned in our beloved national anthem? Out first amendment right as Americans is the freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, right to peacefully assemble, and the right to petition government for redress of grievances, so why should him being a potential anarchist, atheist, or polygamist matter? And if it does matter, why is America called the "land of the free"? If an anarchist, an atheist, or a polygamist were to answer yes to the question mentioned in the passage, would they be disqualified from their running to be an American? If not, what purpose do those questions serve?

I chose this passage because I feel that it highlights some inconsistencies within our government today. Although the laws may seem hypocritical as it pertains to the Constitution, it is important to understand that in order for America to advance as a county we must keep a progressive outlook regarding our founding fathers doctrines. It is important for the progression of this country; it is important for its citizens.

Sources:

Chesterton, G.K. "What I Saw in America." N.p., 13 Nov. 2008. Web. 26 Sept. 2015.

"First Amendment." First Amendment. N.p., n.d. Web. 26 Sept. 2015. <https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/first_amendment>.

Power

"A majority of Americans (56%) believe that government is trying to do too many things that should be left to individuals and businesses, while 39% hold the view that government should do more to solve the nation's problems. Responses to this question have been quite fluid over the two decades in which Gallup has asked the question. In October 2001, in the aftermath of 9/11, 50% said government should do more to solve the country's problems -- the highest in Gallup's history of asking the question. Sentiment that government should do more was lowest in the 1995-1998 time frame, when only about a third held this view and about 6 in 10 said government was doing too much.

Republicans and Democrats respond to this question in extremely different ways, with 88% of Republicans saying the government is doing too much, while 66% of Democrats say the government should do more. Independents tilt toward the "too much" view." (Despite Negativity, Americans Mixed on Ideal Role of Gov't)

The role of government in this country is relative to the state of the Union - not only economically - but as it pertains to security as well. In the aftermath of 9/11 Americans wanted to be protected, so the USA PATRIOT Act (Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001) was signed into law on October 26, 2011. From 1995-1998 our economy was strong and it was also a time of peace, therefore, Americans wanting less government involvement was understandable. Republicans traditionally prefer smaller government and less regulations, whereas Democrats traditionally prefer more government and more regulations.

Poll numbers paint a picture for us, they describe how Americans feel about an array of topics. I chose this passage because it helped me gain a greater understanding as to how current events affects how much government involvement Americans prefer. This passage also helped me understand the importance of these poll being conducted, especially now with the upcoming 2016 Presidential election closing in on us, and the Republican debates going on. Presidential candidate poll numbers will be very influential in who becomes the next President of the United States of America.



Sources:

Newport, Frank. "Despite Negativity, Americans Mixed on Ideal Role of Gov't." Gallup.com. N.p., 28 Sept. 2011. Web. 19 Sept. 2015.

"Bill Summary & Status 107th Congress (2001 - 2002) H.R.3162." Bill Summary & Status. N.p., n.d. Web. 19 Sept. 2015.