12/12 - Inverted Totalitarianism

Inverted Totalitarianism

Inverted totalitarianism is a term coined by political philosopher Sheldon HYPERLINK "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sheldon_Wolin"Wolin to describe what he believes to be the emerging form of government of the United States. Wolin believes that the United States is increasingly turning into an illiberal democracy, and he uses the term "inverted totalitarianism" to illustrate the similarities and differences between the United States governmental system and totalitarian regimes. The United States has been increasingly taking on totalitarian tendencies. The democracy of the United States is sanitized of political participation and refers to it as managed democracy. Under managed democracy the electorate is prevented from having a significant impact on policies adopted by the state through the continuous employment of public relations techniques. The essential role that propaganda plays in the system is the ability to control and pacify the people. The media, for example, is a tool that the government use to spoon feed people into thinking or acting a specific way.

I think knowing this information is both alarming and empowering, it depends how you take it. It can be empowering if it makes you look at our government, at our media while applying critical thinking. Instead of allowing the media to tell us how to think we can receive the information as one point of view and  start looking for other point of view before we form our opinion in the matter.

12/5 Interest Groups

“The common characteristic which distinguishes all of the large economic groups with significant lobbying organizations is that these groups are also organized for some other purpose. The large and powerful economic lobbies are in fact the by-products of organizations that obtain their strength and support because they perform some function in addition to lobbying for collective goods.” (Olson)

Interest groups represent people or organizations with common concerns and interests. These groups seek some sort of economic advantage and benefits for their members, through advocacy, public campaigns and even by lobbying governments to make changes in public policy. Economic interest groups are numerous and powerful. These groups are usually well funded because members willingly contribute money in the hopes of reaping greater political influence and profit. Economic groups work to win private goods, which are benefits that only the members of the group will enjoy. There are a wide variety of interest groups representing a variety of constituencies.

There are many economic groups out there and this information can be useful to anyone. You don’t have to be a political activities to belong to one of these groups. Some of us belong to economic group and some of us might join a economic group in the future. I think it’s important to know what’s out there, what are some of my option and how can I benefit from these group should I decide to join in.

11/21 The Judiciary

The Judiciary

Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka (1)

This case revolves around an 8 years old girl named Linda Brown who wants to go to school around her neighborhood in Topeka, Kansas. The school that she wants to go to is an all-white segregated school. The school official refused to register her to the school due to the fact that the board of education in Topeka keeps the white and non- white schools separated. Brown’s parents filed a lawsuit to force the schools to allow her to register to the school nearby. The case made its way to the Supreme Court. When this case made it to the Supreme Court, the question about segregation in public schools and equality was addressed.  The Court was asked to determine whether the segregation of schools was constitutional. Brown's attorneys argued that the operation of separate schools, based on race, was harmful to African-American children while the Board of Education, on the other hand, claimed that the separate schools for nonwhites in Topeka were equal in every way, and were in complete conformity with the “separate but equal” standard.

 “Segregation [in public education] is a denial of the equal protection of the laws. To separate [some children] from others of similar age and qualifications solely because of their race generates a feeling of inferiority as to their status in the community that may affect their hearts and minds in a way unlikely ever to be undone.”

Chief Justice Warren wrote in his decision that segregation in the public school cause harm to children of color. The Supreme Court went on saying that even though the facilities, teachers, and supplies are equal, separation itself was fundamentally unequal and that it was a violation of the equal protection clause of the 14^th amendment. The Court also wrote that a quality education was critical for all children and ruled that it was the state's job to ensure educational equality.

I thought that this case was extremely important because this case does not deal with palpable inequalities such as bad facilities or bad supplies that can be corrected, but with the fundamental  notion that separating us solely based on our skin color is wrong and unequal. It is a major step forward for civil rights movement. This case inspires people to challenge segregation in education and social life everywhere. This case also brought about education reform.

 

11/14 - The Presidency

 

The Presidency

 

“What I'd like to do is talk about the vision the Democratic Party has for this country. You know, I think that there's enormous strength in the country, enormous resilience in the country, but people are struggling, and as I've been traveling throughout Illinois over the last 18 months, what I've been seeing are people who are concerned about their economic security, concerned about their ability to pay for their health care, their kids, sending them to college, and if we can project an optimistic vision that says we can be stronger at home, more respected abroad, and that John Kerry has the message and the strength to lead us in that fashion, then I think we'll be successful.”

Obama starts his speech by talking about his background. By doing so, he allows the audience to get to know him better. In order for people to like you, they must know you first. After talking about his background, Obama shares his concerns with the audience about the everyday Americans.  Obama talks about what he observed traveling around America. When Obama talks about people experiences, he talks about different people from all aspects of life. By doing so, he is able to relate to every American in his speech and also unite them all by showing the audience that they all have a common denominator.  After sharing with the audience the problem he sees in America he shares with them his hopes and ideas for a better America.  Through Obama’s speech, we come across his values and history in a flattering way that makes him very electable.

I chose Obama speech because I like him as a president and because I think he is a great speaker. Obama uses simple words and a first- person plural to get us all part of his vision. He’s usage of  the word WE is a great example of that-  “We have more work to do . . .”; “We can make sure that every child in America has a decent shot at life . . .” Obama’s vision is that we see ourselves as one Country, as one America without the division of Race, religion or political views.  Obama vision America as one united community where one person struggle affects us all even if we are not directly involved. 

11/7- Gerrymandering

11/7- Gerrymandering

“What’s at stake, after all, is citizens' representation in Congress. Partisan gerrymandering undermines the whole notion of a representative government. For proof, just look toward the lopsided seat distribution in the current Congress. " (Christopher Ingraham)

Gerrymandering is a process in which we draw political boundaries to give a party a numeric advantage over an opposing party. Gerrymandering occurs in some elections in the United States, due to the fact that state legislatures are responsible for the drawing of districts in the respective states.  How districts are drawn can determine which party will control the biggest amount of districts. Gerrymandering can results in a situation where districts are being controlled by one party. When the control is in the hands of only one party, the idea of representative government is being undermines due to the fact that these elected legislators obliged only to their party’s agenda which restrict politics.

It is my opinion that Gerrymandering undermines the representation of the people. Gerrymandering overpower the interest of the people by putting the interest of the political parties first. It is an abuse of the process that can be very detrimental to democracy.  If America is the home of two dominant parties than both parties voice and interest should be taken into an account. Isn’t it what politics all about?

10/31 Equal Rights

10/31 Equal Rights

"Citizenship, even in its early forms, was a principle of equality, and that during this period it was a developing institution. Starting at the point where all men were free and, in theory, capable of enjoying rights, it grew by enriching the body of rights which they were capable of enjoying.  But these rights did not conflict with the inequalities of capitalist society; they were, on the contrary, necessary to the maintenance of that particular form of inequality" …...Thus although citizenship, even by the end of the nineteenth century, had done little to reduce social inequality, it had helped to guide progress.." (T.H. MARSHALL) 


According to Marshall by ensuring social rights and material well-being, welfare state policies can enable all to participate as citizens. Citizenship at its base was meant to create equality and reduce social inequality. Even Though we are not an equal society we are taking steps in that direction.  
Social citizenship in the U.S is expressed through the model of a welfare state.  At its core, it meant to help develop a just society where everyone take an active part of political life. His analysis of the principal elements of citizenship is used and applied today.Social citizenship is obtained and maintain through "welfare market" where people  become consumers of welfare benefits such as  health benefit and social care. Even though the main purpose of welfare is to reduce extremes economic inequalities, which will support democracy by protecting its citizens and promote active engagement, it ironically contribute to political disadvantage of some groups such as black or Hispanic. Another problem of a welfare state is the fact that it promotes passive dependency of the minority, which are the main consumers of welfare, on the state and its officials.

women rights - 10/24

"We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men and women are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that to secure these rights governments are instituted, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. Whenever any form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of those who suffer from it to refuse allegiance to it, and to insist upon the institution of a new government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness." (Declaration of Sentiments and Resolutions)


Women and man are equal and have a divine right to live their life freely and happily. In order to assure these right become part of our society, a right government must be instituted. If our current government oppress woman we must stand against that kind of government.
When the Founding Fathers came with the phrase "…that all men are created equal…" they really meant all white landowners were created equally. Equality for all is a phrase that came later on in our history. The issue of women's roles in society whether it is in marriage, the church, or the workplace was sharply debated. The man who prefers seeing women as inferior were concerned about the implications of women gaining the right to vote and becoming one step closer to equality. Despite huge progress in gender equality, our country still has a long way to go in addressing the issue of gender inequality. Many of the achievements that have been made for women's rights in the 20th century have been under attack by the Republican party — denying women control over their own bodies, preventing access to vital medical and social services, and blocking equal pay for equal work.

10/3- The Constitution

“I am not sure this amendment envisioned the kind of gun toting that is permitted across this country in the last decade. The Second Amendment acknowledged the vulnerability of a nation in its infancy, but could not predict a world where some would move through life feeling more like targets than citizens.” (Melynda Price)



The second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution protects people rights to keep and bear arms. The Second Amendment was intended, as it clearly state, to create a well-controlled militia that will protect the state. Now days we do not have a need for militia due to the fact that we have a very powerful Army. It is Mrs. Price beliefs that when the second amendment was adopted no one could have envisioned how far people would take the right to bear arms.  Mrs. Price believes that the second amendment was appropriate in those time when it was first adopted. When the U.S. was at its early stages there was a need for a local militia to protect the state from its enemies but our country has matured and grew through the centuries and in today world this amendment will creat fear in people who see themselves as sitting doc.
The Bill of Rights is basically a list of amendments like any other, written in a very different time. When we look into this amendment we must ask ourselves if this amendment is still relevant to our current times? And if it’s not relevant as Mrs. Price suggest why are we still endorsing it?
Many will argue that the right to bear arms go far beyond our right to protect ourselves but that it is our god given right to bear arms. Even though guns can be a useful way to protect people in case of self-defense , the evidence shows that their presence in the homes makes people more venerable, not less.  Studies published in the New England Journal of Medicine found that firearms in the home place put people in a greater risk. A gun in the home is 22 times more likely to be used to kill or injure in a domestic homicide, suicide, or unintentional shooting than to be used in self-defense.  In the past 20 years, there have been many shooting in schools and malls that cost many lives. With all this information at hand, why are we so reluctant to discuss an outright ban on guns?  One might say that the reason there is no serious discussion about gun restriction or banning guns is due to the fact that any major legislation that the N.R.A. opposed has little to no chance in  passage. Any bill that will come from the Senate would face stiff opposition from the Republican-controlled House. The opposition to harsh restrictions comes from the fear that any restriction will one day lead to the loss of the right to bear arms. Another reason could be the fact that Guns are part of our history, part of our culture and for that reason some people can not seriously accept limiting gun ownership. while acknowledging our past, we must also acknowledging our present and start talking about the reasons why we must limit the access people have to guns.

9/26 "Melting-Pot"

 

 

"Melting-Pot"

"These people were not mere arrivals from the same family, to be welcomed as understood and long-loved, but strangers to the neighborhood, with whom a long process of settling down had to take place. For they brought with them their national and racial characters, and each new national quota had to wear slowly away the contempt with which its mere alienness got itself greeted."

 

 

 

 

 

In the early 20th century the U.S absorbed  its first largest immigration in its history. About 18 million people came from all over Europe. Today, the U.S is experiencing a second great wave of immigration. Today's immigrants are not coming from Europe but from developing countries such as Asia and Latin America. As we can see  America was founded on immigrants yet over the centuries we seem to forget that and we become intolerant to people that we view as strangers, as "these people". We do not see them as part of us and by doing so we prolong their processes of acclimating to their new country. Instead of embracing these people different culture and learn a new thing, we chose to view it as  problem. Bringing with them their national and racial characters make them stand apart from the "One America".

 I chose this because I think its ironic. We seem to be obsess with wanting to conform everyone around us to " Americans" . But what is America? who decide how an American should behave and look like? We are all immigrants, whether we came with the Mayflower or more recently. Are we really trying to turns others into Americans? or are we just afraid of people who are different of us?  

 

 

 

9/12 Power

9/12 Power

"Americans have strongly negative views of the way the nation is being governed and of Congress. They also, as will be reviewed here, have significant concerns about the power of the federal government...... Yet, in a broad sense, Americans are as likely to prefer a more active government as a more limited one."


The meaning of this passage is that even though Americans are not happy, not satisfied with the way our government works they prefer to stay with the known than to try the unknown. Americans are more likely to give the government more power in the hopes that it will improve the government function.
I think this passage is a great example to what Steven Lukes  arguing. Lukes is saying that at the end of it all it is the people who decide whats important, whats right or wrong, what changes need to be made. It is the people that determined the up-rise or down fall of a government. Americans have the ability to bring about a change in the government.
I chose this passage because i find it funny that even though people are not pleased with our government they will not take action to change it. It is my personal believe that people are being delusional in thinking that more power will encourage our government to function better. I do believe that as a united group we have a voice, a power that can influence. With that being said, if we don't believe that we have the power, if we don't think that our voice can influence or if we are afraid of changes or just don't care than our voice become powerless. I think its can be a very dangerous thing to give the government too much power without holding them accountable for their action. Accountability is a key word.