Midterm and Final Essay Questions
docx
keyboard_arrow_up
School
Arizona State University *
*We aren’t endorsed by this school
Course
41207
Subject
Political Science
Date
Feb 20, 2024
Type
docx
Pages
18
Uploaded by rufusdoofus
Week 1:
Franklin on Who are the People?
In the Iroquois Nations, what are the perceptions of self-interest and of future generations? Which issues are submitted to the 'whole people'?
In the Iroquois Nations all leaders or Lords shall calmly deliberate on all issues and any perception of self-interest should “be cast into oblivion.” (Franklin, pg. 39)
The Lords must also listen to the people and act in the interest of the whole people including future generations.
If there are issues of special importance or of great emergency affecting the entire body of the Five Nations, then the matter is submitted to the whole people for decision.
Paine's Common Sense
: What advantage do people under an absolute government have compared to those in a mixed government? Is this comparison relevant today?
The advantages mentioned by Paine's Common Sense for an absolute government is that it is simple, and you know who to blame when something goes wrong. For the ruler it is an advantage because they are not restricted by laws and legislation. A mixed government can be a disadvantage for the people as it becomes impossible for accomplishing anything, too much government can equal no government. This comparison is relevant today as it maintains the argument for a democratic republic.
When it comes to the advantages of an absolute government, you have to first look at how and were the main power and control falls. In this case since majority of decisions are based upon one single individual it allows typically for decisions to be determined more promptly. This form of government can be beneficial due to the urgency that it holds, as well as if such individual is able to be encouraged by outside involvement such as ministries or advisors, it can at time drive the overall outcome. Compared to a mixed government with multiple opinions and power holding leaders, making a quick or rather emergency decision can be difficult and exhaust a greater amount of time. With concerns to how society functions today, this can be time plays a huge toll/factor. Due to crisis situations and ultimatums being made, coming up with a decision or point of view is important and should be done with a clear
head in a timely fashion. Sometimes with multiple opinions involved this can evoke people to lose sight of the greater outcome and reason of a particular situation. It is within times like those that offer a greater opportunity to have a government ran through absolute leadership rather than mixed.
Paine argues that perhaps the single biggest advantage of absolute government structures and institutions is the simplicity. Within the absolute governments all of the government authority and political decision-making rests in the hands and control of a single actor that acts as the head of government. This is very common within monarchies in which the designated monarch is the premiere government actor and responsible for enforcing and upholding every policy, law, and objective. However, the drawback to the absolute government is that the head of government receives either the praise or criticism from the citizens depending on the success of his or her policies and run as government leader. The main problem with the mixed government system is that leadership tends to be disorganized, less open, and often chaotic. This because mixed government tends to spread power and authority between separate entities, institutions, branches of government and elected officials. Within mixed governments, citizens often experience problems trying to analyze and understand the role, function, and performance of the government because of the limited about of transparency, and understanding of political processes. This is very relevant in the U.S.’ system of mixed governments, which is overburdened with inefficiencies because of the growing size of the government, power struggles between actors, and poor policy.
Paine's "American Crisis I
": What does he mean by 'sunshine patriot'? What would one look like in our current political context?
Sources: http://www.thisdayinquotes.com/2011/12/times-that-try-mens-souls-summer.html
Paine derides those not fully committed to the cause of freedom by being soldiers only when it was convenient for them
by labeling them “sunshine patriots”, or enlisting to fight during the summer months only. While the term can be used to literally describe those who would be soldiers only until their crops needed to be harvested in the fall months, I feel like it’s also a metaphor: summer and sunshine are fun and easy while dark, stormy winter is not. Sunshine Patriots are those who care more about looking like they are willing to fight and sacrifice for their country, but are not actually committed enough to put in the hard work when it’s time to do so. Today’s sunshine patriots are chicken hawk politicians who push for and promote war or aggressive military action, but who also proved unwilling fight earlier in their lives, often doing all they could to avoid war themselves. Other examples include ordinary citizens who wrap
themselves in the flag with outward displays of loyalty (lapel pins, bumper stickers, social media posts, yellow ribbon magnets, etc.), but shrink from actually getting involved with reading complex legislation, contacting their representatives or volunteering themselves.
Those who wrap themselves in the flag when it benefits them or makes them look strong, decisive, brave. Stolen valor.
Paine's "Rights of Man"
: What is his defense of the 'rights of the living' and what would we have to do today to honor those rights?
Declaration of Independence
: Why does it list grievances? Who is the audience?
When reading through the colonists' grievances in the Declaration of Independence,
I think a couple of intentions behind these complaints are clear.
First,
I think these grievances provide the reasoning behind their want to declare as compelling evidence for their request. For example, they provide a grievance regarding unfair trials, and therefore the right to a fair trial was included in the Declaration. Second, not only does it provide the Government with the reasons behind the declaration, but it also allowed the rest of
society to view these reasons as well. Because other citizens of British government would have been more informed based on these grievances and their proposed remedies, they most likely garnered more support for their cause that would have otherwise been insubstantial; which
in turn could have impacted whether or not the declaration was recognized.
- To correct myself on my line about unfair trials to be more clear
....
one of the colonies grievances was in regards to not receiving fair trials, which provided a valid reason for wanting to pull out from British government, so they could later remedy this grievance by including it within the Constitution.
The audience of the Declaration of Independence is two-fold.
While mainly intended for the King of England, it was also written to help rally the support of the colonists for the American Revolution. It listed grievances to demonstrate that the King has lost his power to rule by consent. There are 27 grievances listed in the Declaration of Independence, the following of which are just a few: "For cutting off our trade with all parts of the world", "For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us", "For imposing taxes on us without our consent", and "For depriving us, in many cases, of the benefits of trial by jury".
In concerns to the declaration of independence the list of grievances is supposed to address all the unfair treatments of the colonists
and what they have faced. It is within the grievances that the people try to address how King George is not a prideful leader in their views. The colonists try to note that due to all the hardship they faced under the rule of England that they no longer wish to be part of such operations and authority. The audience in this piece is the King and power authority within England. To show that the colonies will no longer stand for such treatment and that they are now demanding change and full removal from such predicament.
My take on why the Declaration of Independence listed grievances was due to the fact that Thomas Jefferson
wanted the American people to realize the reasons on why the United States rifted away from England and that the English people were a complete different type of people and that the citizens of the United States were American and not English. The audience is the people of the country.
The Declaration of Independence had a few different audiences. The most important, intended audience reached by the declaration was the colonists. The reason the grievances were listed was to rally public support for a revolution. There were many colonists at the time still loyal to the King, the list of grievances set out to show specifically why the people needed to form a new government.
The authors of the Declaration of Independence, principally Thomas Jefferson with assistance from John Adams, Benjamin Franklin and the assembled Continental Congress, indicated in the document itself, why there had to be a list of grievances. In the first paragraph, it states, “a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.” The authors, who were well versed in the political theories of the times, apparently did not want to take a purely theoretical approach. They wanted to lay down a strong foundation for the revolution and an itemization of the actions of the British
crown and government that were compelling them to act was therefore required. The target audience was, first and foremost, King George III and the English Parliament, but they were certainly mindful to the broader audiences to be considered and addressed them accordingly. They recognized that they were speaking to the international community as they stated, “To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.” British subjects outside of the colonies were addressed when the authors discussed attempts to engage their fellow subjects of the ‘injuries’ they were enduring at the hands of the king and his government. They were addressing the population of the British colonies in America, both Loyalists and Patriots alike, as they sought to prove that “Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes”, which was meant to assure the
colonists that the need for the split was necessary due to British actions. Finally, they were mindful of the momentous situation and the potential effect on the future and, probably, were concerned how their actions would be viewed by future generations so, they were addressing posterity.
Week 2:
US Constitution
: Does the US Constitution describe a federal form of government (i.e., federal vs state powers), a national form of government (i.e., national vs individual powers), or both? Explain.
The US Constitution describes a federal form of government in the Articles of the Constitution by detailing the structure of the federal government. The first ten amendments to the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, outline several rights and powers of individuals and the states. The Tenth Amendment of the Constitution confirms any power not granted to the federal government belongs to the states or to the people, thus affirming a federal form of government.
The United States Constitution serves three distinct functions; it creates a national government consisting of a legislative, an executive, and a judicial branch complete with a system of checks and balances among the three branches; it divides power between
the federal government and the states and; it protects various individual liberties of American citizens.
As such, this amazing document can be said to describe both federal and national types of Government. It divides power between the national government and the state governments (also known as federalism) such that the federal government is very strong, with much power over the states, but at the same time, it is limited to the powers enumerated by the document. On the other hand, it also serves to protect the personal liberties of citizens from intrusions by the government as contained in the Bill of Rights. By so doing, it
serves to adjudicate political authority between national and state governments as well as protecting individual rights.
To put it simply, the constitution describes both a federal and a national form of government. The federal aspect is apparent throughout most of the document, as it describes which powers are delegated to the three branches of the federal government. The
Bill of Rights explains the rights of individuals that may not be infringed upon by the federal government. Finally, the tenth amendment makes it clear that both state and individual rights are protected by stating that any powers not explicitly delegated to the national government are "reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."
The U.S Constitution describes both a federal form of government and a national form under one governance system. The Constitution specifically identifies that some responsibilities and activities are specifically meant for the federal government including, the enumerated powers. However, the Constitution also implies that the rest of the powers are left to the individual states, which supports a separation of power. At the same time, the Constitution supports a national form of government because it gives members of the federal government the power and authority to address issues on individual citizens themselves.
For example,
the federal government has the right to tax individual citizens and families, and not simply collect taxes from the states. This integration of different power and authority within the system highlights a combination of federal and national forms of government, which is exerted to guide and monitor the actions and conditions of the country.
The US Constitution describes both a federal and national form of government. On one hand the power to tax and create armies describes more of a strong national government. On the other hand, the separation
of powers between the branches of government
are emblematic
of a federal form of government. In Federalist #39 James Madison makes the distinction many times that we are neither federal nor national, but rather a composition of each. Thomas Jefferson described in an 1823 letter to William Johnson that the constitutions intent was to make it such that, the United States to others, are a single, strong unit, but amongst ourselves divided powers with checks and balances.
Madison's Fed #10
: Why does Madison think the US should not remove the causes of faction? And how is the US constructed to help control the violence of faction?
Federalist #10 however, is pretty straight forward; factions, for better or for worse, are naturally part of society they can be controlled but should not be put down. Without factions we lose our voice and there would be no point for representatives because we would have no position to hold. Madison makes it clear that the Constitution is not here to quell the voice of smaller states but to make sure dangerous fringe groups cannot overwhelm the majority and take hold. He notes that within States particularly leaders
may be able to "kindle a flame" but it would be unable to spread.
Madison's Fed #39:
How does Madison define republicanism and how does the Constitution reflect this principle?
Madison's Fed #51
: Within the legislative authority, what is the remedy for its own tendency to dominate other branches?
In Madison's Federalist No.
51
he illustrates the importance of dividing the government into several different branches to divide the power. This is what we commonly refer to as our "checks and balances" in government. Hamilton discusses multiple different remedies to avoid any sort of branch domination including that each department be able to elect their own members and
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help
subsequently have no say in the election of members to any other departments. These separate departments will allow different social, religious and political groups to be equally represented and safe from the dominance of another power. Lastly, he notes the need for security against these different departments combining to become a central power, ultimately protecting the people.
Madison argued that the legislative branch could predominate the other two branches and so the Constitution would require both internal and external checks and balances against the legislative branch growing too powerful (p. 109). In The Federalist No. 51, Madison discussed the legislative branch’s internal check being
the existence of the two houses of Congress. As Madison points up, “The remedy for this inconvenience is to divide the legislature into different branches” through “different modes of election and different principles of action.” This approach provides a more populist House of Representatives with one set of primary responsibilities and a politically elite Senate with a different set of legislative authorities. The idea being that the two houses, having much of their powers separated, would result in a legislative body that would not overwhelm the executive or judicial branches especially when other, external checks and balances were in place.
Madison's Fed #54
: Why, in the end, does he agree with the proposed method of counting slaves as 3/5 for both taxation and representation?
Hamilton's Fed #15
: Describe his logic that unless we extend national authority to individuals (not just states), we will lead to constant civil war?
Hamilton's Fed #23
: What does Hamilton mean by an energetic government? What are examples of our current government's 'energy'?
Alexander Hamilton argued that the energetic government is a political culture and governance system that is driven by the development of a Constitution. A government that is classified as energetic is distributed powers, responsibilities, and political authority to meet the citizen’s needs, and work toward societal policy interests. He argues that written texts like the Articles of Confederation did not ultimately work or meet large-scale needs because they were not constructed with the focus on granting institutional powers, and responsibilities that are required to guide the country. A constitutional, energetic government possesses the ability to issue and collect taxes, and build a strong military system, which the Articles failed miserably at.
His key argument is that the federal government has to be given and protected powers that force the state governments to comply with certain national and federal level standards, procedures, and goals. The Constitution achieves this by identifying and describing the three branches of
government, their specific powers, and relationships with the state. Some of the current governments energies today are increasing worldwide economic growth, fighting terrorism, encouraging free global trade, and promoting international peace.
Hamilton's Fed #78
: Why should judges have life-terms (tenure for good behavior)?
Judges should have life terms so that they can be truly independent. If a judge’s job could be threatened in any way, he or she could not be impartial and the rule of law would suffer. If judges were elected, they’d have to take public stands on issues, run for election and re-election and be subject to bribes, corrupt influences and other quid pro quos. A life term also allows for the finest judges who know the law and precedents the best to hand down judgments consistently over a long period of time.
Sources: http://law.jrank.org/pages/6820/Federalist-Papers-Federalist-No-78-Power-Judiciary.html
http://judiciallearningcenter.org/judicial-independence/
Week 3:
on liberty
: What does he mean by “They grope for liberty in fits and starts, and, failing, resign themselves”? (52) Are there any modern examples of this?
Through this sentence, he means that Americans have a high regard for equality such that liberty is compromised and ignored in the process. Liberty often gets disrespected even though Americans had worked hard to win their independence. Americans are ready to
perish rather than lose their equality. In pursuit of equality, different groups are placing increased demands on the system; for instance, workers are demanding a hike in minimum wages even when the relative worth of their jobs may not be that much. In trying to advocate social and economic equality, the liberty of opportunity to earn and get ahead is getting compromised.
on townships
: How does he describe the kind of political participation was found in the townships?
Tocqueville
describes townships as the smallest level of political institution, run by local members of government. The participation at such a local level is important because it allows for people of this small community to feel as though they have a say in the government that affects them on a daily basis. He argues that this leads to more loyal and stronger members of society, thus requiring less involvement from the state and local governments in these smaller communities. Tocqueville
notes on pg. 115 that "Americans make substantial, real, sacrifices in public affairs
....
they almost never fail to show their loyalty to one another." This idea,
of individualism and free institutions
relates to the township premise in that giving a tangible power to the people will create a much
stronger and peaceful local community.
Reference: Tocqueville
pg. 56-58 and 115
Tocqueville recognizes that the township is the purest form of direct participation/passion from people.
He knows that first is the township,
the state, and then the federal government as support (57).
He saw that people had pride in their town because they had a sense of community and purpose, and that the individual was valued at that level (57). Tocqueville saw that it was at the town level that a spark of interest to lead and be a part of something bigger was ignited in some individuals, and those individuals went on
to lead at higher levels of government (57). He recognizes the town/city level of governance/politics is indeed important because it "has more of a face than elsewhere" (58).
on moral majority
: What are reasons for the moral supremacy of the majority? Why are there no “natural and permanent disagreements” in America?
on instability
: Why does the majority’s omnipotence potentially lead to instability?
In the United States of
America, those who have the authority to make laws have supreme power.
Tocqueville
states " ... it is in the nature of democracies to
bring inexperienced people to power" (Tocqueville, 71) which leads to legislative instability.
It is these new representatives that come in every few years with grand desires and have the power and speed to put them into effect quickly that encourages democratic instability and allows lawmakers to be indecisive on the few matters of serious importance. It is this ultimate power that allows lawmakers to establish laws so quickly, but is also the reason
that, at the time, "Almost every American
constitution
has been amended in the last thirty years" (Tocqueville, 72)
Tocqueville is concerned with the ease with which public opinion changes. Because the majority will can alter quickly, and impose that will upon the creation and execution of laws, public works, and policies, there is naturally less stability in such a system. Some projects may never come to completion before the majority redirects resources, while one can have little confidence that a law will remain consistent. As an example today, American health insurance companies struggle to anticipate future changes to the law while at the same time attempting to learn to comply with those just recently enacted.
on tyranny
: How can America have liberties, yet lack protections from tyranny?
on free thought
: Does Tocqueville believe that the Old World has more freedom of thought than the New World? What examples support his view?
Tocqueville believed that there had more freedom of thought than the new world.
He feared that society would turn into herds, and go along with the masses as the state grew. He said that the lack of free thought caused the omnipotence of the majority in America.
He argued that, in a democracy, chains are not used to keep men in line but that it goes deeper, to the soul.
on jury duty
: How does jury duty temper the tyranny of the majority?
Jury duty tempers the tyranny of the majority by bringing the people out of their daily lives and into the political system.
Tocqueville
felt this was the best way to prepare people for freedom.
The power is given to the governed, and
with this power people are presented with new ideas, compassion, and a better understanding of the judicial system. Tocqueville respected this process, and found it significant to our Republic
form of government
.
Jury duty tempers the tyranny of the majority by putting the fate of a court case and someone life in the hands of the people instead
of just one person. De Tocqueville states that jury duty was so useful because it makes an average person who isn't as informed in the world of politics or anything regarding that feel like they have duties towards society and that they take a share in the government. Jury duty tempers the tyranny of the majority by limiting the power of the tyrant. This is probably why the jury duty selection process has to be as foolproof as possible to keep everything as fair as possible avoiding one of De Tocqueville's
biggest concerns which is the all-powerful ruler abusing its power.
The tyranny of majority effects minorities opinions, leaving them to become obsolete
and make their views seem rather intolerable/useless to how the majority views societal choices. However, with jury duty due to the diversity that it is intended to
promote this can tend to reduce the levels of discrimination against minority perspectives. Allowing for a greater assortment of prospects
to take part in the jury it encourages more openness
between one another to promote a wider array of views to be expressed.
on individualism
: Why does de Tocqueville believe that individualism is destructive of society? How is individualism linked to conditions of social equality?
Tocqueville believed that individualism was destructive of society because it encourages egoism, an idea meaning that man chooses to shut himself off from the rest of society, and only becomes concerned with his and his own. Thus, men do not seek to help each other, and they do not seek to improve society, as they are not concerned with others. Tocqueville further states that social equality is linked directly to individualism. He believed that once men are on equal footing and consider themselves equal, that they will once
again naturally gravitate into small groups that focus only on themselves and their immediate needs.
De Tocqueville believes that individualism,
or "a calm and considered feeling which disposes
each citizen to isolate himself from the mass of his fellows
and
withdraw to the circles of family and friends"
(506)
is harmful to society because it decreases the sense of community and mutual obligation necessary to foster healthy democracy and equality. when people focus
more on themselves and their immediate circle, they tend to pay less heed to the strife of those less
fortunate. this in turn weakens the links between different classes and can lead to those poorest in a society to fall behind. in this way, individualism and societal conditions of equality are linked in that the more a society becomes individualistic in philosophy, the worse societal conditions become and equality is threatened.
on voluntary assoc
: Why do democratic societies need voluntary associations? How can they be problematic?
For any democratic entity to achieve its ultimate goal, Tocqueville asserts that it ought to create and maintain a culture of citizenship
through solidarity and active participation in public projects. Voluntary associations are based on the same tenets, only that the associations are less political and more of humanitarian endeavors. Therefore, the intertwining of a democratic approach that is complemented by voluntary associations helps to create a cadre of citizens who are personally fulfilled through a wide range of social institutions. In addition to completing a democracy, voluntary associations provide a process of education, shaping the cultures and characters of citizens, thereby solidifying a political nature through citizenship. However, as liberty and moral authority are often immiscible, there is always a danger posed by voluntary associations influence on the citizens' political education, triggering an evaluation of the effectiveness of democracy. Additionally, voluntary organizations can only work if the individuals behind the voluntary associations go beyond self-interest and contractual ties.
on women:
How does de Tocqueville perceive American women as opposed to European women? Are American women equal to American men? Explain. Tocqueville admits that there is a large difference in equality among the sexes and that it’s almost a natural law to be that way. He implies that American women are not equal to men – yet. Tocqueville believes that women will one day be
equal to men. He does grant that each gender has a role and observes that America recognizes and emphasizes the strengths of each gender in fulfilling those roles. He compliments American women on their drive and strength while maintaining feminine qualities. European men do not see women as their equal, and to their detriment those women in turn feel the same way about themselves. But for America, her success and future greatness is borne from elevating the
status of women to equal that of a man.
on indifference
: How is this quote relevant today "liberty creates intense hatreds, but despotism leads to general indifference" (114)? Tocqueville
on indifference: The quote that Tocqueville uses is extremely relevant throughout history and especially today. It maintains its relevance due to our natural human tendencies. What it tell me is that freedom opens the door for creativity. Living in a fee society that is liberated allows people to share ideas freely. Any open discussion is bound to be full of discord due to the innate
differences between human beings. No two people will ever agree on every single topic or issue that exists. We are much too diverse
to ever completely share minds. The freedom to speak is what drums up ambivalence between people and communities. When those voices are silenced in a despotic society, creativity is stifled. There is no room to argue or try to improve through constructive conversation because the control lies in the hands of the ruling group or leader. People eventually become indifferent because striving for something outside the norm is futile. The control that exists allows people to fall back into a sense of contentment.
When I think of liberty, I think of first-world countries and their access to social media and (mainly) democratic governments. In situations like this, people can tweet ideas, write their local representatives, have dissenting opinions, and more. In today's times it
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help
is easy to have arguments because everybody can share their viewpoints. When I think of despotism, my immediate thought is North
Korea. Their country is under intense social control so they are not allowed to even have adverse thoughts about their country. The people of North Korea have essentially been molded into complacency through decades of communist rule. Tocqueville's
quote applies both then and now.
The liberties of free thought and the right to participate in a democratic system allow citizens a sense of power as well as a tangible way to try to translate their beliefs and ideals into policy. Although this is important, Tocqueville noted that “liberty creates intense hated…” which I think is apparent in the United States now more than ever. Extreme partisan divides deepened over the course of the last election, in which individuals’ sense that their political opinions matter was seen in the passionate participation of civilians in
the fierce campaigns of candidates like Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump, who ran on radically different platforms. Although the political fervor from this election (which was possible because of the liberty of free thought, voluntary political association, and participation in democracy) was great in many ways, it certainly created tension and hatred between parties that made the idea of “middle ground” seem like a far-off myth.
Week 4:
Washington on foreign relations:
In his Farewell Address, Washington said “The Nation, which indulges toward another an habitual hatred, or an habitual fondness, is in some degree a slave.” What hypothetical examples does he give for both?
Washington states that the American policy, in regards to foreign relations, is one of neutrality. We must not have animosity or hatred for other countries. A hypothetical example Washington gives is one in which a country becomes so passionate in their hatred for another, they make irrational decisions that are not best for the people as a whole. There is hostility in this scenario, creating unnecessary
wars with potentially questionable motives.
It is in this society the countries are slaves to the hatred for one another and both liberty and peace will be lost. Washington also shows concern for a foreign policy situation in which there is a "passionate attachment" of one country to another. In this example, he illustrates a government that might concede to another country due to a false sense of a common interest. This scenario can cause trifle within the population as some feel that their privileges are being taken away in order to maintain the devotion to the other country. Ultimately, this can lead to corruption and, again, degradation of both liberty and peace.
In his farewell address, Washington warned the American people against indulging in either habitual antipathy or habitual sympathy for any foreign nation. He explained how inveterate hatred for another nation can lead a country to make irrational policy decisions. He wrote that resentment and ill will can lead a government to “adopt through passion what reason would reject...” Washington concluded that peace and liberty are lost through these decisions. Next, he wrote about the danger of favoring a particular nation. He said that one thing that might happen is that one nation could concede privileges to a favorite nation while denying those same privileges to an objectively equal nation. This would injure the nation making the concessions “by unnecessarily parting with what ought to have been retained, and by exciting jealousy, ill-will, and a disposition to retaliate” in the non-favored nations. He also warns that a nation can be subconsciously coerced into going to war for or with a favored nation without any real justification or common interest. In both of these cases a nation is a "slave" to their favored nation at no ensured benefit to them, and often actually at the cost of their own best interests.
Washington on trade:
According to Washington, what is the best approach to our trade policies with other nations?
In what ways do our current trade policies follow (or not follow) this approach?
Washington advised that America carry very little in the way of political connections to its’ trading partners. He stressed this by describing America should maintain an "equal and impartial hand.” The idea is that America should avoid encouraging, offering, or accepting special privileges in regards to trading partners. In the framework of American politics today, the U.S. does not participate in trade policies that support Washington’s views and advice. America mostly trades with a group of powerful political allies. They
are actively engaged in long-term trade agreements with preferred state members of the European Union, NAFTA, and formerly the Trans-Pacific partnership to create mutually beneficial political and economic gains. The U.S. also carries a history of punishing political foes by applying strict, long-term sanctions for state actions they do not agree with. Modern examples include, the trade embargo against Cuba that lasted for decades, and the recent harsh sanctions against Iran for advancing their nuclear weapons program. Instead of remaining impartial, America uses its’ powerful position in the international system to trade and engage in highly politicized, and at times vengeful fashion.
One of the most referenced points of Washington's Farewell Address is the he warns against alliances of any kind, even if they are strict (184).
He continues this argument by then explaining that formal trade ties can often lead to horrible mistakes and misfortune for both states (186). He says he wants to enable people to trade with whom they want to while maintaining rights for those who trade, and making sure the government supports them. Today, there are many alliances and free trade going on. For the most part, modern government has ignored the warnings of our first President.
Marshall on Congress in McCulloch:
How does Marshall answer the claim that ‘establishing a bank is not an enumerated power of Congress’?
Marshall on state rights in McCulloch
: How does Marshall dismiss Maryland’s right to tax the Bank of the US?
Maryland’s right to tax the 2nd
Federal Bank of Maryland was dismissed as unconstitutional by an unanimous decision of the Supreme Court because the justices reasoned that the states have ‘no power, by taxation or otherwise, to retard, impede, burden, or in any manner control, the operations of constitutional laws”. The logic around the issue begins with a discussion of the intent of the ‘necessary and proper’ clause in Article One, section 8, of the United States Constitution. Marshall explains that, although there is no specific authorization to create a bank, the necessity of administering the federal government’s rights to collect taxes, borrow money, regulate commerce, conduct war, and raise and support a military force may make it ‘necessary’ to charter a national bank. He notes that the federal power is limited to passing laws in order to execute the enumerated powers where not having the ‘necessary’ laws might make any enumerated power non-existent. So, since there exists the need to manage federal finances, Congress is allowed to create a national bank and no state is able to impede the operation of the federal bank by a tax on the operation of that bank although the state still could tax the bank’s property as long as that tax was fairly calculated by comparison to
other businesses in the state.
Thoreau on civil disobedience:
What does Thoreau mean by "the definition of a peaceable revolution"?
Thoreau on voting:
Why is voting like gaming?
Thoreau felt that voting is a sort of gambling because "people were not vitally concerned that the right should prevail." People cast their vote for who they think is right, but are willing to leave the decision up to the majority, even if the majority is not in the right. People's reputation is not staked on the vote they cast therefore they submit their vote and then wait for things to run their course.
He goes on to say that any wise man would not leave the right to the mercy of chance, nor want it to prevail through the power of the majority. I understand where Thoreau was coming from, but "right" and "wrong" is very subjective, what is right by one
person will likely not be right by another.
Thoreau makes the argument that all voting closely resembles a form of gaming because of the process, and the luck involved in trying to choose a qualified representative. Thoreau seems to be ahead of his time because he made this statement well before the modern age of technology, media, and innovation, which makes voting even more of a game in today’s politics. However, Thoreau suggests that voting is a passive process, which is changing today because of the constant political news coverage, and greater access to information. Candidates use television, the internet, social media, and other forms of mass communication to create the most desirable public image, and political agenda, and to reach the target audience. However, today voting is still like a game in that elections are generally about the candidates that can generate the most effective, and persuasive political campaigns, regardless of their qualifications or actual ability to perform the job. Thoreau ultimately suggests he is skeptical of the voting process.
Henry David Thoreau expressed his opinions about voting in his essay
Civil Disobedience saying, “All voting is a sort of gaming, like checkers or backgammon, with a slight moral tinge to it, playing with right and wrong, with moral questions; and betting naturally accompanies it.” Similar to playing a game, towards the end of an election you are given two people to vote for. In this “game” Thoreau felt that the players were not deeply concerned if the “right should prevail.” Thoreau believed that voting without action did not accomplish anything, because the outcome was left to chance. Instead of just going through the motions, Thoreau believed that every individual was responsible for putting forth the effort to bring about change. This “game” of voting is the largest amount of involvement some individuals have in the government. The easiest way to get involved would be to vote for a candidate whose platform supports your beliefs. If a candidate is against human trafficking, by voting for them you might believe that this is a valuable
contribution to the fight against human trafficking. In agreement with Thoreau voting at its core, “is only expressing to men feebly your desire that it should prevail.” It is important that our civic duty extends beyond voting every four years. Instead we should look for ways to bring about change and get involved with organizations that can help accomplish such feats.
Thoreau said this about voting “playing with right and wrong, with moral questions: and betting naturally accompanies it. Meaning the American citizen is going to vote for the person who has the same morals and closest values to themselves. He refers to this as a game because the majority will obviously win and the minority was at a loose. Right or wrong Thoreau believes Americans should have more say in the government then just a Vote on who should get elected.
With voting being an anonymous
type of forum it allows for the spectacle of unknown that can also be demonstrated in a typical gaming module. The activity itself holds a sense of open opportunity leaving many loop holes to be possible yet not encouraged. In that sense voting encourages a sense of chance, making people less focused on the minimal details of it all. Thoreau saw it as people do not concern themselves that they ultimately will be victorious in what is right versus wrong.
Thoreau
argues that voting is like gaming in that there are winners and losers in an election. he also argues that as with games, there
is a right and wrong way to vote. voting simply to do it, or voting with an assurance that your vote matters more than someone else's is the "morally wrong" way to vote. it is similar to cheating at checkers or backgammon in his eyes.
Henry David Thoreau expressed voting as a game of moral chance won by the majority.
Similar to checkers or backgammon in the respect of chance but with the moral tinge of expressing what is right and wrong by the beliefs of those whom cast their vote. Cynically the view of right and wrong he believes is little expressed by the virtue of the vote; because such a thing should not be left to chance by the masses of men have little virtue. Voting for the right is doing nothing for it but simply expressing one’s desire feebly for the chance of success.
Instead Thoreau believed, “[to] devote [oneself] to other pursuits and contemplations, I must first see, at least that I do not pursue them sitting upon another man’s shoulder” (Thoreau, 241) because action and change require the commitment of those desiring such, for complacency does nothing for change.
Voting is like gaming as the individual casting the vote is just concerned about his or her preference. The voter is not focused on whether the right is prevailing. The voter leaves the outcome to the majority. Even when a person votes for the right, he or she is merely expressing his or her weak desire for the right being prevailed in the society. The outcome is not dependent on one person. Just like gaming, the outcome is dependent on chance. Most voters do not give much thought to the political process going behind voting. In fact, for many voters, voting may be the only time when they actively get involved with the government.
Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address:
Why does Lincoln distinguish between the living and those who battled at Gettysburg?
In Lincoln's Gettysburg Address he distinguishes clearly between those living and those who lost their lives at Gettysburg. He does so to, for one honor the dead, and the sacrifice they made. He also, most importantly
is trying to show that the battle has not ended for
those who were alive to hear the Address. They needed to press on, move forward and keep fighting. This meant uniting as a Union and ending slavery.
He distinguishes between the living and those who fought at Gettysburg
because there is a huge difference between the two. The living has a mission to carry on to make sure that our nation lives on. The dead and those who fought,
who are essentially one in the
same,
already gave to make sure the nation continued forward with "a new birth of freedom." Their job has been done, while the living had a job to make sure that our government "shall not perish from the earth."
Lincoln’s 2nd Inaugural
: Lincoln seems to humbly appeal to God’s wisdom rather than judge the South. Does he succeed?
Civil War Amendments:
In what ways were the 14th and 15th amendments a "constitutional revolution"?
The constitution could have been described as a ‘slave based’ document before the 14th and 15th amendments were adopted. The constitution concentrated power to the states and states’ rights. However, the 14th and 15th amendments represented a “constitutional revolution” because they gave the federal government much more power. After defining citizenship for the United States, the 14th amendment then states that “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens…”. This, in effect, forced states to have to come to terms with racial equality by granting each person – regardless of race – the right to vote and have their voices heard.
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help
The balance of power between the states and the federal government swung heavily towards the federal government. Or, in other words, a “constitutional revolution” occurred.
15th A
: According to Elizabeth Cady Stanton why did “men have no right to pass [the 15th A.] without our consent”?
Elizabeth Cady Stanton states “when it is proposed to change the constitution or fundamental law of the State or Nation, all the people have a right to say what that change shall be.” (Cummings, pg. 323)
The 15
th
Amendment expands voting rights to more men (former slaves, men of color or other race) but excludes expanding those rights to women.
Elizabeth Cady Stanton claims there would be an overwhelming vote against this expansion of voting rights for men and “the admission of another man to the ruling power of this nation” (Cummings, pg. 323) by women until the right was also expanded to include the women of this nation.
The amendment further perpetuates the place of women at “man’s feet, and not on an even platform by his side” (Cummings, pg. 323) according to Stanton.
For men to decide the place of a woman without their consent is an affront to the constitution’s protection where all people have a right to voice their opinion on changes which impact the governed. By the omission of women’s voting rights in the amendment, it reaffirms women’s position as a class of people governed without consent.
According to Stanton,
men had no right to pass the 15th amendment because it completely ignored another large group of people in
women. Stanton was, rightfully, outraged because she felt as if women were just as important than black males in receiving
the right
to vote. She did not think that they should be able to pass new amendments without women at least being involved in the decision-
making process. Her remarks took on a tone of racism and alienated some of her biggest supporters, some of whom were black males and females. She was just fighting for equality for herself as a woman and felt that it should take precedent over those who had just recently escaped underling status as slaves. Stanton saw black males as less deserving of women and therefore, women should get a say in the passing of the amendment. In the end her posturing was to no avail as the amendment passed. Her continuous fight for equality for women was vital in gaining the right to vote for women just a few decades later, though.
Stanton exclaims that it should not be passed
because it is discriminatory toward women and that they too "have a
right to say" how
the laws are changed.
15th Amendment continues the notion that women are lesser than men, that they belong "at man's feet, and not on an even platform by his side". The disenfranchisement of women has kept them at the "lowest depths of their political degradation".
Politically they are in no better position than black men were to white men prior to the amendment. If women knew the gravity of the amendment she suggests that there would be an overwhelming opposition.
Susan B. Anthony trial
: Is her argument about “not knowingly committing a crime” persuasive or not?
I thought that Susan
B.
Anthony's argument about not knowingly committing a crime was definitely persuasive.
If there is someone to blame here,
it should have been the officials in Rochester New York for giving into her persistence
ways which lead to Anthony and her sisters to go through and vote. Anthony pulled a heads up move by avoiding paying her bail so that this would get passed on to the supreme court faster but her attorney decided to pay out of pocket to avoid her going to jail. This just showed how prepared she was to take on this trail head on. One of her main arguments was when she refused to sit because she knew that if she did, she would not be able to say anything else. The famous words of Susan B. Anthony on this was
Yes, but laws made by men, under a government of men, interpreted by men and for the benefit of men. The only chance women have for justice in this country is to violate the law, as I have done, and as I shall continue to do."
Because Susan B.
Anthony was such a large advocate of women and women's suffrage,
I don't think it's persuasive at all to say that she walked into that polling place "not knowingly committing a crime."
At best,
I think she "consciously avoided knowing"
that she was committing a crime. The reason I say this is because her rhetoric was largely based on those three words:
"We the people"
from the preamble of the Constitution.
Her argument tries to make the compelling case that the Constitution and its amendments, were created with no gender or race distinctions that would bar women from their right to vote, therefore, making the charges against her much larger than just breaking the law,
but unconstitutional.
Further,
she had previously discussed in her periodical the
Revolution,
that the male pronoun used in the amendments was intended as an all-inclusive pronoun rather than a distinctive one, and that based on this argument, women might be able to assert their right to vote lawfully
.
Yes, Susan B. Anthony was extremely persuasive by explaining that if not a citizen, then she would not have the right to freedom. Since she is bound by the Constitution and the law therefor she is a citizen, and has the right to vote. She explained that they could not have it both ways. She did not knowingly commit a crime because no crime had been committed.
Week 5:
Bierce definition of Man
: Why does Bierce define man cynically as ‘occupied in exterminating his own species’?
Ambrose Bierce 's definition of man begins by saying that he is a creature "
....
so lost in rapturous contemplation of what he thinks he
is as to overlook what he indubitably ought to be." He goes on to state that man seems obsessed with exterminating not only other species, but himself as well. This belief stemmed from his experiences during the Civil War, and the atrocities he witnessed. After viewing his fellow countrymen kill each other by the thousands, Bierce inevitably came to believe that the desire to exterminate one's fellow man overrode other, peaceful alternatives. This can be seen by viewing his definition of peace as a "period of cheating between two periods of fighting." Bierce took the cynic's view of humanity being violent by nature.
Ambrose Pierce was a soldier in the Civil War,
the most brutal and violent war of its time,
a war in which men fought their fellow countrymen.
It is the brutality that he witnessed that helped shape his view of humans and his pessimism on the human nature. Seeing that sort of violence among people who used to live in harmony with one another would make it very difficult to maintain a positive view of people as well as where we're headed as a society. He viewed man as so caught up in their ego and who he thinks he is, that he never stops to think about who he should be.
In addition to his pessimistic view on the human condition, he views us as
creatures that "multiply" so rapidly that we'll "infest"
the entire habitable earth.
Bierce defined himself as cynical,
and
he's a man,
so I think that this is quite the treat (p.189). He says that men are too occupied worrying about what they seem to be or want to be rather than what they actually are or could be. He also says in this quote that "men" are mainly interested in killing others and animals, yet they are so interested in procreation and "infesting" the rest of the world (and Canada). He sees that war is not good and that people (globally) need to treat each other better. He knows that "men" aren't inherently good (p.187). Bierce was quite the bold writer.
In pursuit of short term gains, man ignore the long-term consequences of his actions. His focus is on over utilizing and overexploiting
the natural resources because these resources are common. Men compete among themselves to exploit these resources so that they are not left behind in gaining from their use. In doing so, however, men become involved in undermining the long-term sustainability of their own species. Men are engaged in deliberate destruction of their environment. For their own short-term benefits, men have been cutting down forests and engaging in mass scale killing of animals. It is resulting in making the planet unsustainable not only for other plants and animals but also for themselves.
Bierce definition of Un-American:
Why is "Un-American” defined as "wicked, intolerable, heathenish". What is the double-meanings of this word and what are the ramifications of such a widely-held belief?
I think that Un-American is defined as "wicked, intolerable, heathenish" by Bierce is described in those words because being Un-
American essentially means that you are lacking common sense in a way. One prime example would be being able to know a house form a horse by the roof on the house. Being Un-American can be defined as intolerable due to the fact that when this was being defined, it was a pivotal time in our country for everyone to try and be united as one. I can see that being un-American can mean heathenish by people idolizing others who do not deserve to be look up to like that.
Bierce:
What disturbing realities stood out to you in The Devil's Dictionary? When reading Bierce’s “The Devil’s Dictionary”, I was struck at just how much the definitions and descriptions he uses could be applied to conditions in our day. Most people I speak to about politics and current affairs can be quite cynical and pessimistic towards the topic. What stands out to me the most is just how negative Bierce is when describing government, economics, gender relations and philosophy. At first I was saddened that conditions between then and now do not seem to have improved or changed much at all. After a while though, I began to laugh and found each entry
to be quite entertaining. I think I know why though - towards the end Bierce comments on himself with a few entries, including one for “cynic” and one for “satire”. My favorite entry is less funny and more profound, however. On life, Bierce describes the present as: “that part of eternity dividing the domain of disappointment from the realm of hope.” This is how I feel as well.
Twain on religion
: According to Mark Twain, in what ways is religion like patriotism and nationalism?
Staying true to one’s country is a very common act portrayed by virtually all right minded citizens of every country in the world. This feeling is also true as far as an individual’s religion is concerned. As such, a dilemma often arises when an individual has to choose between these two. Mark Twain likens religion to patriotism and nationalism too. Just as being religious motivates the actions
people take, being loyal to one’s country blinds and induces them towards war,
(Twain & Blaisdell, 2013). Additionally, he also quotes that just as religion emphasized devotion to the flag, those involved in war continue to depend on their religious affiliation hoping for victory. Finally, he also asserts that both religion and patriotism are characterized by devotion, honor and the pursuit of welfare.
Religion is very similar to expressions of patriotism and nationalism because there are emotional and spiritual arguments and justifications for expressing loyalty for the collective good or greater causes. Religion also thrives are large masses of people coming together, and engaging in certain practices and rituals within institutions to express their commitment, and faith, which is very similar to sense of nationalism and patriotism. For example, the recent political party conventions thrive on nationalism and patriotism, as members of each party attend or view their favorite convention to promote the collective cause, and work toward the greater good of the United States. However, religion, patriotism, and nationalism also carry the potential to divide large groups of people in a common territory as well. For example, different religions do not necessarily share the same common core beliefs. Similarly, patriotism and nationalism expressed within a certain political party or ideology can divide people within the same country
on controversial, sensitive, cultural issues like welfare programs, or immigration.
Mark Twain is using satire in an attempt to mock those who blindly support their country or military. He wrote “The War Prayer” as a
statement to make people see how biased their perspective was. The joke with the old man is that the war is murder and death in the guise of nationalism or religion. In any sense it is wrong and out of the context of not being silent about the murderous overtones, it comes across as weird. The reason the people saw the man as a lunatic was because he was expressing what they were saying in a direct manner to show them how insane it all sounded. The larger point is that blindly following anything is not good. We cannot use religion or even nationalism as the basis for action because other people have different religions or support their own countries. People can kill in the sake of their God or their country but in any other unbiased viewpoint it sounds foolish.
Twain on the visitor:
Why was the withered man depicted as a lunatic at the end of the poem?
In Twain's "The War Prayer",
he explains a scene where church goers are gathering with the volunteer soldiers that are heading to war the following day. The people are praying for a victorious battle and praising the heroism of those participating in the war. Twain, being anti-war, uses this satirical
short story to bring attention to the unspoken truth behind these prayers. This includes the devastation, death and ruin the other country is to endure if the home country is victorious. In the end, the gentleman who comes to bring this to their attention, is ignored and thought to be insane. Twain uses this character to demonstrate how those who praise war only choose to speak of one side, that of victory and glory. They use religion and their faith to glorify their own, yet ignore the disastrous
consequences of their prayers. By calling this man a lunatic at the end of the story, Twain is attempting to illustrate this ignorance and refusal to speak of or acknowledge the truth.
The War Prayer
by Mark Twain was rejected by his publisher and only appeared over a decade after his death in 1923 (Cummings, 2015, p. 390). The powerful statement by Twain was an anti-war statement about the Spanish-American War. The withered man depicted in Twain’s
The War Prayer
was not a lunatic. The aged stranger interrupted a prayer in support of the war to tell the unspoken side of it. The stranger told the audience about the devastating effects the war had on the side that faced defeat. The stranger tried to appeal to the compassionate side of people, by painting a graphic picture of what happened to the losing side. Even
though he makes a compelling point that audience believes that he is a lunatic and that nothing he said made any sense. This is similar to the way the media and those in power fail to report on what is happening to innocent bystanders in war zones. Protestors of war are often labeled as unpatriotic and weak, which was the statement that Twain made.
Current “Twains”
: What current cultural works/media appear to have been influenced by Twain's style and sense of humor?
Eugene V. Debs
: How are workers “displaced by the surplus product of your own labor”? When Debs is discussing workers being displaced by their own labor,
I believe he is directly calling out the fact that capitalists value their bottom line more than the people
that make it possible for them to make money.
While laborers value their livelihood,
capitalists value the commodity more.
If a surplus of a product is created,
the capitalist will dispose of their laborers because they are no longer needed.
Then,
laborers further alienate themselves when they cause a raucous
about being out of work, simply because it causes trouble for the capitalist, who at this point has greater concern with protecting their commodities than they
do the livelihood of laborers. Because the time that this was discussed was following the time of the Industrial Revolution, and because of Debs association with the formation of the Industrial Workers group, we can assume that this occurrence was only increasing (due to machines making production so much faster), so trade unions were becoming even more important to protect to laborers who rely on work to eat.
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help
Eugene V Debs, believed in the protection of workers’ rights and labors, he believed they were entitled to the sweat of their brow; the product of their labor.
Debs was a verified socialist championing the cause and founder father of the Social Democratic Party and Sociality Party.
In regards to labor, the working class was exploited in his views and only paid enough to ensure their return, “… the worker who produces all wealth receives but enough of his product to keep him in working and producing order.”(Debs, 434)
If the demand for the goods produced by the labor is in surplus to the demand of the product or demand wanes the laborer suffers.
As the laborer, “… you are displaced by the surplus of your own labor, that what you produce is of more value under capitalism than you who produce it; that the commodity which is the result of your labor is of greater value under capitalism than your own life”(Debs, 436) for in the capitalistic system the product is scared not the labor.
For Debs market consumption controls industry and the workers are slaves to its will only working enough to perpetuate the system.
Debs trial:
Which of Deb’s historical analogies was most convincing for his cause (e.g., Jesus, Socrates, American revolutionaries, abolitionists)?
Wilson on ‘private property’:
Why does Wilson refer to certain businesses, like mining companies, has having “so called private property”?
Wilson referred to large companies like those involved in
mining as having "so called private property." he used this expression because of the amount of shareholders and individuals involved in the company. With so many people and beneficiaries, these were not what we commonly think of as private property, or property owned by an individual. The only difference between the private property owned by large corporations and public property is the amount of people who are have a stake in each.
From Wilson’s perspective, similar to other growing businesses, mining companies originated on private lands, and property of men. He argues that governments and powerful business actors transform private property into large stock companies and corporations.
However, Wilson says that the federal government, mining companies, and other growing large stock companies have a social and professional responsibility to ensure business operations are executed humanely, ethically, and appropriately. This means that mining companies should be governed, regulated, and monitored to protect human beings, and the environment at full capacity. The welfare of human beings must always be a top priority for any growing business or stock company, and workers and citizens must be included in decision-making processes to ensure this happens. Wilson’s idea is that mining companies just like the private property they were derived from, must uphold human dignity, respective, and inclusion.
Wilson vs Jefferson:
Why was Jefferson's principle of "small government" not applicable in the modern times according to Wilson?
Wilson did not find Jefferson's principles of small government applicable to his time mainly due to industrialization. Wilson knew that Jefferson existed in a simpler time where growth and development had not occurred in this way, and felt government intervention necessary. Necessary to protect the people's safety, living conditions, work conditions, and way of life. Wilson did not want big corporations to take over the common man, and saw the opportunities only growing and knew he needed the government to step in.
Wilson says that Jefferson’s principle of “small government” isn’t applicable because the opportunities that used to be available to every man aren’t anymore. He says that “...every individual was so free to use his powers without hindrance…” He means that society was simple enough and small enough that all the government had to do was stay out of the way and allow people to take the
available opportunities if they wanted. As America became more complex, this idea that everyone has an inherently equal ability to seize all opportunities became less and less realistic. Wilson also points out that as corporations are growing, employees rarely ever actually know their boss (the president of the corporation). He believes that this should be a matter of public scrutiny and government oversight in order to look out for the best interests of everyone involved. Wilson is arguing that government regulation is necessary in order to protect the equality of all citizens.
President Wilson explains that (in 1912)
the United States was not as simple of a place as it was in the early 19th century during President Jefferson's tenure. Wilson says that back then people were almost entirely free to enter in on new opportunities
but
that that sort of freedom in the present time cannot be applied. The way the country is shaped in the present times are obviously more complex today than they were 100 years ago during Wilson's tenure. The United States, like Wilson suggests, needs to be a "cooperative industry".
Wilson vs Roosevelt:
How does Wilson dissect Teddy Roosevelt’s progressive solution to the US Steel problem?
FDR on corporate assistance
: “Mind you, it did not get out of the ditch itself, it was hauled out by your Government.” (462) How did Roosevelt’s administration haul the train out of the ditch?
Roosevelt states, “Mind you, it did not get out of the ditch itself, it was hauled out by your Government” meaning he lifted the United States out of a whole that we had put our self in. It starts by getting money to circulate within the middle class. In order to make this happen businesses owners raised the wage of their workers. By doing so, these workers started to spend more money on goods creating business for everyone. This is what he means when he uses the train analogy, the economy slowly started to get itself
out of a ditch and get the wheels turning.
FDR on ‘private govt’
: FDR argues that private enterprise has become “private government.” (463) Is his description
similar to Wilson’s description of complex corporations?
Week 6:
JFK on war and peace:
What is JFK referring to when he states "...instruments of war have far outpaced the instruments of peace..."? What is the irony surrounding these "instruments of war"?
John F Kennedy was sworn into the presidency on January 20, 1961, during arguably the height of the Cold War.
In addressing the nation, he said, “…the United Nations, [is] our last hope in an age where the instruments of war have far outpaced the instruments of peace…” (Kennedy, 563) the invention of the atomic bomb had heightened the stakes of armed combat.
For the first time in human history, mankind had gained the power to destroy itself several times over, in contrast to his unchanged ability to promote peace.
The irony of these weapons of mass destruction was their innate ability to produce a prolonged peace between countries for fear of escalation.
Mutually Assured Destruction or MAD as it became to be known as was the uneasy Cold War peace that forced nations to consider all options for fear of their destruction.
John F. Kennedy, in his inaugural address, stated that "...instruments of war have far outpaced the instruments of peace..". At the time it was delivered, the arms race between the US and the USSR was in full swing, and these instruments of war referred to nuclear weapons. He also elaborated that the United Nations was "the last best hope." The irony of this statement was that the US was one of the leading producers of these instruments of war. In addition, he states that "for only when our arms are sufficient beyond doubt can we be certain beyond doubt that they will never be employed." Thus, it was a realistic, yet ironic, statement to the world.
In his inaugural address,
President Kennedy was speaking on the importance of the United Nations in a world becoming increasingly
more destructive. The United States and the Soviet Union were smack dab in the middle of the decades-long Cold War. Both sides had largely increased their militaristic forces and their atomic arsenals. Times were extremely tense as several other countries competed with both America and the USSR in a nuclear arms race. JFK is referring to this when he mentions "instruments of war". He was saying that coming together to promote peace and future peacekeeping methods was paramount at the time. What made the entire situation ironic was that the U.S and Soviet Union were upping their weapons production as a measure to keep the peace. They felt as if they had a nuclear or atomic deterrent, it would keep the other side from attacking. In search
for peace, both nations only created more destructive methods. It was a sick twist on a very tense wartime period.
When JFK makes this memorable quote in his inaugural
address, he is speaking of the arms race between the Soviets and the US, which he references many times in different ways throughout the speech (p. 563-564).
He knows at this time that it literally is a race
between the two powers to gain and develop these "instruments of war". He is very concerned at this point in creating this illusion of the goal of peace, yet his actions demonstrated other motives. This quote is ironic because there were instances where Kennedy didn't need to be on the offensive (i.e.
Bay of Pigs), yet he still was. He does state many times throughout the speech that he knows that the "goal" of peace will be a long journey, and one that cannot be achieved alone (p.153).
JFK on foreign policy
: What does JFK tell other nations? Is this an international version of an “energetic” government?
The Kennedy administration their concerns were majority faced on foreign policy,
looking at how ultimately our involvement in international affairs can be more important than domestic. Because of this stance the JFK took it led for him to express his authority into the international community; promoting diversity was a strong component of Kennedy's ideas however it did not go unnoticed on the force and power that the United Stated held while JFK was in office. Kennedy made it well aware that America would and could handle challenging the thoughts of another nation, this leading him to be more reactive in situations that other presidents had
not dealt with (such as the Cold War and the popular upbringing of communism). I believe that the approach that Kennedy took however risky it showed to be was a demonstration of energetic government. He pushed the needs of the international community to be a priority for the nation as a whole, seeing that if such efforts would've been ignored many more tragedies could have occurred. Not all the actions that JFK made were in the best mindset and need for America, but ultimately they were aimed to improve the way of life for the people.
MLK on racial tension:
Describe the type of tension that MLK's nonviolent movement aimed to create? Why did MLK
want to create this type of tension?
MLK aimed to use non-violent forms and characteristics of social movements like sit-ins, protests, marches, and boycotts to speak out against injustices, and provide a peaceful forum for debate. He also hoped that utilizing the non-violent approach would ignite large-scale social and political change for the long-term future. The type of tension he sought to generate and maintain is constructive, intellectual, forward thinking, and analytical. MLK was optimistic that producing this type of tension would force the majority, government officials, and members of other large powerful institutions to carefully examine the negative effects of discrimination, prejudice, racism, and segregation in the United States, and make necessary institutional and legal change to government and policy in America. Obviously, this strategy is regarded as a monumental success because of the achievements realized during the Civil Rights movement like eliminating segregation, and deeming institutional discrimination against minorities illegal and unlawful throughout the entire United States.
The tension that MLK's
nonviolent movement aimed to create a movement to aware people of the social injustices going on against African American's from the police force. African-American's were made to see as thugs and violent people who wanted to do nothing but cause trouble for
everyone else. MLK wanted to
create this type of tension by leading what were supposed to be peaceful marches by proving to the people that African-American's can too, be civil and live amongst one another. His movement obviously sparked a few matches and lead to greater things.
Martin Luther King Jr. once said, “I have consistently preached that nonviolence demands that the means we use must be as pure as the ends we seek” (Edsitement.gov, 2017). He wrote this as he was incarcerated for 10 days for demonstrating and parading in Birmingham against a court order. He wanted nonviolent protests because using violent protests and demonstrations only increases violence and hate, but this created tension because people wanted direct confrontations and to start violence for what they felt was wrong. MLK wanted the tension and attention that showed blacks defending who they were and their rights without the use of violence and instead use law and order and common sense as a way to promote justice. By using nonviolent actions, we promote friendships and understanding and to reconcile with the community.
Martin Luther King aimed to create non-violent tension using moral understanding within the crowd, these tools are still used today. The reason why it is so affective is because it makes the people understand where you are coming from without insulting them. Martin Luther King addressed these issues but also took it a step forward by getting the people to hear his plan on all the wrongful doing that was going on. By creating this tension, it made the crowd think about all the wrongful doing without using physical force. It is said the best weapon in war is to hear the enemy out, and that exactly what Martin Luther King did to spread the word.
MLK on unjust laws:
What are some of MLK’s explanations and examples of unjust laws? What is an ‘unjust enforcement of a just law’? Martin Luther King begins speaking of the difference of just and unjust laws in the context of him bringing nonviolent direct action against those supporting segregation. He addresses that his movement encourages people to break certain laws and follow others. His explanation of unjust versus just laws clarifies his movement, showing his intentions are pure. An unjust law is one that is imposed on a minority by a majority that is not implicated by, or does not follow this said law. MLK also states that these unjust laws
are those written for the minority population that has no say in their enactment. One particular example he uses is the lack of democratic process in the voting of segregation laws in Alabama. The majority of the population is African American, yet they have no say in these segregation laws being imposed upon them as they are unable to register to vote. Additionally, an unjust enforcement of a just law is when one is enforcing a just law but for reasons that are unjust. MLK provides the example of this as he was arrested for breaking a just law but this was only enforced to protect another law that is morally incorrect and considered unjust.
SDS paradox:
The Port Huron statements describes the US as having a glaze of complacency that hides a deep-
rooted fear of chaos. Explain that paradox and how the SDS says it will address it.
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help
ASU as New Left:
How does ASU’s role as the “New American University” reflect some of the New Left’s steps for enacting social change? [https://newamericanuniversity.asu.edu/home]
Reagan on global perceptions:
What, according to Reagan, makes the U.S. so unique, a "miracle" in the eyes of the rest of the world? How is this theme found in previous readings?
According to Reagan, the orderly transfer of authority every four years makes the U.S. a “miracle” in the eyes of the rest of the world. He explains that a smooth transition shows the world that America is united and committed to maintaining a political system which “guarantees individual liberty to a greater degree than any other” (689). This theme of American exceptionalism -- that American history is inherently different from other nations, that America is superior to other nations, and that America has a unique mission to transform the world -- can be found in a number of our other readings. For example, Tocqueville was the first writer to describe the U.S. as “exceptional,” and this theme can be found throughout some of his writings. While reading Reagan’s speech, I immediately drew a parallel to Tocqueville’s beliefs on the moral majority. According to Tocqueville, there are no “natural and permanent disagreements” in America because the US was colonized by “men holding equal rank.” He explains that America doesn’t
have these disagreements because there aren’t yet any classes of citizens who feel either marginalized, or that legislators are trying to deprive them of rights. Reagan uses this same idea that men “hold equal rank,” but says that the government is what’s standing in
their way.
Reagan on the economic crisis:
How does Reagan appeal to Americans undergoing an economic crisis in his first inaugural address?
I’m not a Reagan fan in the least. I chose to comment on this question because of the unique parallel between 1980 and today, specifically where economic anxiety is concerned. Reagan said, “Idle industries have cast workers into unemployment, human misery, and personal indignity.” Compare this statement with how the unemployment rate in rural America was a hot topic during the 2016 election season as yet again a once thriving industry is succumbing to progress and technology. Skilled workers are finding their skills have become obsolete. Reagan appealed to these people by likening them to heroes – those workers who have helped build America and make it what it is and by appealing to their sense of patriotism. He lays out his vision of a people who take responsibility for themselves; For who can govern others if they cannot govern themselves? Additionally, he seems to implicate intrusive and oppressive government as the reason why so many citizens are shackled – and he promises to remove those shackles.
Wolfowitz on unilateral power:
What is Wolfowitz's argument against collective action and for U.S. unilateral power
and military dominance?
Wolfowitz claims that the main objective of the United States in the post-Cold War era is for the United States to be the world's only superpower. He argues that the best way to ensure this is through U.S. unilateral power and military dominance. Wolfowitz also describes that the United States needs to have the ability to intervene when and where it believed necessary in order to protect U.S.
interests, reach adequate levels of security, and to
promote global peace. Wolfowitz is against collective actions because he claims that they are essentially ineffective in global affairs, and generally produce harmful long-term consequences. He refers to coalitions as “ad hoc type assemblies” that do not stand the test of time after a crisis has been addressed. In most cases, coalitions only meet the interests and goals of a situation at the minimum level, and do not generate any beneficial long-term change for the U.S., or the international community.
George W. Bush on terrorism
: According to Bush, how is promoting democracy around the world an effective approach to prevent global terrorism? President Bush felt that promoting democracy around the world would prevent global terrorism by promoting peace. He used America as an example of people that through their democratic government were able to have their freedoms. When people are free, and have a system of government ran by the majority of the people, they do not act out in terror. Bush expressed his admiration for our system of government and knew that economic development and security is what was needed in Iraq.
According to George W Bush,
he believed that "peace and international stability are most reliably built on a foundation of freedom" (Cummings, 745). His strategy rested heavily on the idea that if and when stable democracies are put into place, they will be more accountable to their people, govern their national boundaries more effectively, and purse policies that benefit their citizens. If these stable governments are in place, there will be little room four terrorism within its countries borders and these countries will assist
the United States in a multinational effort to end terrorism wherever it may occur. The former president trusted that wherever the United States went and whatever policies we choose to adopt; other countries will soon follow.
President Bush believed that promoting democracy would be an effective method to counteract and prevent global terrorism because he believed that introducing ideas such as capitalism,
democracy,
and individual freedom would dissuade the potentially harmful ideals of theocracy.
According to George W Bush “the ideals that have inspired our history – freedom, democracy, and human dignity, are increasingly inspiring individuals and nations throughout the world.
And because free nations tend toward peace, the advance of liberty will make America more secure.” (Cummings, pg. 744)
This strategy of promoting democracy to yield peace and prevent global terrorism
is in large part due to the stability provided by a free democracy in the global community.
Bush also stated “Because democracies are the most responsible members of the international system, promoting democracy is the most effective long-term measure for strengthening international stability; reducing regional conflicts; countering terrorism and terror-supporting extremism; and extending peace and prosperity.” (Cummings, pg. 746)
Bush believes that "democracies are the most responsible members of the international system." He previously states that countries that are responsible towards other countries typically are those that "honor their citizens' dignity and desire for freedom." As he clearly links the two together, Bush believes that if countries were democratic then they would become more responsible towards other countries. That would cut down on global terrorism.
George W. Bush on terrorism: According to Bush, how is promoting democracy around the world an effective approach to prevent global terrorism?
According to Bush, the lack of democracy in several nations result in stagnation, resentment, and violent that get exported abroad through terrorism. Promoting democracy will help in instilling tolerance and hope among people. Democracy helps in taming extremism and place more power in the hands of the people rather than a few authoritative dictators. People, in general, do not support war or terrorism. Democracy can undermine the power of violent radicals and empower political moderates rather than radicals. Countries such as Cuba and Burma that have embraced democracy are now much safer and less chaotic than before. Moreover, having the same government or political system will help in reducing the hatred against western nations such as the U.S.
The spread of democracy has been used as a tool for many years. The belief by George W.
Bush is that, in
places such as Iraq, the corruption and evil of a ruthless dictator like Saddam
Hussein could be quelled if the state were democratic. A system of checks and balances would, in theory check the power of a dictator, and the common good would prevail. Time and time again, we are learning that this is not the case in the middle east, from Saddam
to Gaddafi.
Buchanan on neocons:
Is it possible to be conservative and a realist and still be ‘true’ to conservative beliefs or does this combination make you a neo-conservative?
At least from the foreign policy perspective,
I think conservatives who are realists and neo-cons are completely different people. From the way I see it, realist conservatives are Republicans who have a more pessimistic view of international politics and the use of military force to remediate
international affairs. They are not in favor of using resources to help expand democracy. Neo-cons on the
other hand, are Democrats who have liberal goals, but believe that our military is an amazing resource for obtaining these goals and spreading democracy in foreign states. Even more simply, neo-cons believe in the 'bandwagon,' where nation-states will join in on the spread of democracy, while conservative realist believe more in the domino effect, where military force may have a negative trickle effect across the nation-states. I do believe it's possible to be a realist and still be true to conservative values, since neo-cons maintain their conservative morals, but are critical of solutions like military intervention that can disrupt nation-state balance. Realists
hold the conservative value that maintaining competition between nations is good for innovation, while neo-cons envision more of a 'level playing field' across all nations.
Buchanan on terrorism
: What does Buchanan argue is the cause of terrorism and what solution for defeating it does
he propose?
Patrick J. Buchanan (2015) claims that “Terrorism is a symptom; terrorism is not the disease (p. 733). Buchanan believes that the root cause of terrorism is our “imperial” presence in Islamic territory. In regards to 9/11, he feels that the ongoing War on Terrorism is only fostering an environment in which terrorism occurs. Buchanan (2015) claims that “We were attacked… because of our enemies’ perception that we were strangling the Iraqi people with sanctions and preparing to attack a second time (p. 733). Buchanan claims that the first step in defeating Al Qaeda, whom he defines as the true enemy, is uniting with other nations that also
want to see terrorism done away with. The second step is to end our “imperial” presence in the Middle East. Buchanan (2015) ends the section by saying, “Terrorism is the price of the empire. If we do not wish to pay it, we must give up the empire (p. 733)."
Bacevich on expansion
: Describe two historical examples of American expansionism and explain why Bacevich is concerned with this trend.
Bacevich on the Iraq War
: Explain one of Bacevich’s criticisms of how President Bush handled the Iraq War.
In the extracted text from Appetite for Destruction, Bacevich criticized Bush’s handling of the Iraq War by calling out the way Bush asked for no sacrifices from average Americans while engaging our armed forces in a prolonged war to extend democracy across the Arab world. He explains that while prior presidents recognized that war meant increased taxes and directed economies, Bush sought
to reduce taxes and encouraged Americans to continue their lives without change. This amounted to an effort to act as if the US was not engaged in a war while forcing public debt to “$9 trillion, nearly 70% of the gross national product”. Bush’s actions and those of his administration sought to perpetuate a fraud on Americans by ignoring or covering-up the changing world power distribution to maintain a delusion that America’s influence is waning and the global war on terrorism was really about exporting American influence in the form of a forced democratic movement from Morocco to Indonesia.
Reagan thought 'government was the problem'.
He suggested that government binds the individual and makes it harder for an individual to progress unless they are unshackled from an over-intrusive government that taxes and regulates people and businesses. Therefore, conservatives of Reagan's time, as well as today, would disagree with Wilson's view
Wilson spent much of his term as president trying to roll back the power and influence of big businesses and corporations. Like today, there were 'too big to fail' entities in Wilson's time
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help