The Future of Democracy

Democracy is an imperfect system, especially with such a large population as we have here in the United States, but it is the best option that we have right now. I think that democracy is a really good option for the United States and other countries, but two things need to happen. First, our democratic system needs to evolve as our country evolves and changes, not stay outdated just because we are afraid to change what sort of works. Second, we need to work on our own democracy, not try to force our slightly broken system down other country's throats. 

One way that our democracy needs to evolve is to become more compatible with our capitalistic system. Clearly they are not working hand in hand right now as they should be. I'm not exactly clear on what the best way to go about doing this is, but I know that it's something that needs to happen if we want both systems to stay in tact. In my opinion that is democracy's biggest flaw--that the way it works now is not compatible with capitalism.


This post is the same as the one that I used for the discussion on blackboard. I haven't included any sources from the book, or catchy images, because I think that this one is just for my opinion. I can't think of any images or videos that express what I am trying to say here, and people should be able to take the time to read this post with out having an image to draw them in. What do you think needs to change for democracy to be more compatible with capitalism? Please feel free to comment and share your opinions and functions of democracy, I would love to hear them. 

Economic Policy

Terms to understand this post: 


Fiscal Policy-Manipulates the total amount of government revenue and spending so as to manage overall demand in the economy. Can result in budget deficit or budget surplus (Katznelson, 294). 


Monetary Policy-Attempts to fine-tune the economy by manipulating interest rates, the cost of money (Katznelson, 302).


Discretionary Spending- Under the jurisdiction of the House and Senate Appropriations Committees, which provide authority for federal agencies to incur obligations and make payments out of the treasury for specified purpose. Example: defense spending, highway maintenance, grants and loans for higher education (Katznelson, 303). 


Mandatory Spending-Governed by formulas or criteria set forth in authorizing legislation, passed by Congress, rather than by appropriations. These programs are the result of previous commitments that Congress is obligated to meet (Katznelson, 301). 

I think that the process of developing fiscal policy that provides services and sustainability should focus more on mandatory spending and less on discretionary spending. (The other type of economic policy is monetary policy). For example, the United States should put much less emphasis on military spending--it consumes a whopping one-half of all discretionary spending (Katznelson, 303)!! I think that reducing that number to maybe a fifth of discretionary spending would be a good goal, because putting that much money into defense, besides being unnecessary, is not sustainable. If a country were to spend left over discretionary funds at all, they should be put back into stimulating that country's economy.


Sources:


"Barack Obama Calls For More Defense Spending than Republicans | SwiftEconomics.com."SwiftEconomics.com. N.p., n.d. Web. 17 Apr. 2011. <http://www.swifteconomics.com/2011/02/20/obama-calls-for-more-defense-spending-than-republicans/>.


Katznelson, Ira, Mark Kesselman, and Alan Draper. The politics of power: a critical introduction to Americna government. 6th ed. New York: W. W. Norton & Co.,2011. 2-12. Print.

Welfare?

I think that the welfare system in the United States is slightly ridiculous. My firsthand experience has shown me people who abuse the system, and people who really need it and use it properly. Last year, my mom was receiving a $1250 check from the USPS for disability retirement every month, but we had over $7000 in bills per month. We didn't qualify for food stamps, but I am getting my full education paid for by financial aid and then some. How is it that my education is more important than our starving family?! Food stamps are a type of public assistance program.

These programs, which are supposed to help citizens missed by social insurance, are selective and means tested (Katznelson, 320). A prime example of the ridiculousness of our welfare system is given by The Politics of Power: Under TANF (Temporary Assistance to Needy Families), the maximum benefit for a family of three ranges from a high of nearly $1000 (Alaska) to a low of under $300 (Georgia), (Katznelson, 320). My mother has struggled to simply feed herself, my sister and me for $300, so I cannot imagine trying to support all of us for a whole month on that amount.

Our government should offer assistance to those who need it, despite the people who will inevitably take advantage. I think that doing this does not sacrifice equity, because it gives help to those people who really do need assistance without judging them based on the people who abuse the system. If we put more money into social policy, some people would inevitably take advantage of the welfare system, as they already do, but will our whole country become lazy people who depend on the government? I think, probably not. We should not stop trying to reform welfare, but that reform should absolutely not include taking benefits away from people who need them.


Lets give them both!



Sources: 


Katznelson, Ira, Mark Kesselman, and Alan Draper. The politics of power: a critical introduction to Americna government. 6th ed. New York: W. W. Norton & Co.,2011. 2-12. Print.


Nicolle. "economy « Reactionary Century."Reactionary Century. N.p., n.d. Web. 10 Apr. 2011. <http://reactionarycentury.wordpress.com/tag/economy/>.

Developing Foreign Policy

I believe that in developing its foreign and domestic policies, a nation-state's first priority should be keeping its people safe. In my opinion, the United States has clearly failed at this. Our leaders have been so busy sticking our nose in other countries' business that they failed to protect the American people. Before 9/11 they ignored repeated warnings by their own experts regarding likely attacks of the same kind (Katznelson, 368). The United States has military bases on every continent except Africa, with 15 major military bases and 600 smaller ones (Katznelson, 350). Is this amount of control really necessary? What advantages do US citizens gain from this practice? 


Secondly, a nation-state should concern itself with the overall wellbeing of the world. As the world becomes more and more globalized, individual countries are affected more and more by the state of the rest of the world. Take for example how the disaster in Japan and the crisis in Libya have affected the lives of Americans (just look at gas prices, among other things!). The United States might pursue worthy goals such as working with other nations to eliminate nuclear weapons; taking the lead in promoting alternative energy sources and other steps to deal with global warming; preserving the world's battered ecosystem; reducing poverty, hunger, disease and economic inequalities; and strengthening democracy and human rights (Katznelson, 368).


Sources: 
Katznelson, Ira, Mark Kesselman, and Alan Draper. The politics of power: a critical introduction to Americna government. 6th ed. New York: W. W. Norton & Co.,2011. 2-12. Print.


"WSN Proposals." World Security Network. N.p., n.d. Web. 3 Apr. 2011. <www.worldsecuritynetwork.com/dsp_proposal.cfm%3Fproposal_id%3D230&usg=__lYqNNxw5HLkmaaTvd6BgTXThHko=&h=375&w=300&sz=67&hl=en&start=52&sig2=6IS9uiDrakCd1XO1Zn5new&zoom=1&tbnid=vIsRtY91rTuOcM:&tbnh=139&tbnw=103&ei=haaYTevVGojQsAPZp9XBBQ&prev=/images%3Fq%3DU>.

Freedom and the Judicial System

The (federal) judicial system is highly influential in that it is able to interpret the Constitution and apply federal laws that govern all Americans. Cases begin at the district court level and may go through the court of appeals and ultimately end up at the United States Supreme Court—a panel of nine judges that have the final say in deciding the cases. The Supreme Court decides which cases are worth hearing, and ends up fully reviewing far fewer than are petitioned to it. For example, in 2007-08m it received over 9,600 petitions but only fully reviewed 75 of these (Katznelson, 259).

The Supreme Court is also able to review that decisions of state courts to ensure they comply with federal law. And while this may sound like the judicial system restricts freedom more than it supports it, but this is not the case.

By being able to interpret the Constitution, the judicial system actually gives us freedoms. Consider our freedom of speech, press, and religion. More recently, the judicial system gave women the right to have an abortion. The 1973 case, Roe v. Wade, heard by the Supreme Court, granted women the right to have abortions, and was important in recognizing the constitutional right to privacy. It followed the 1965 case, Griswold v. Connecticut, which overturned a state law banning the use of contraceptives (Katznelson, 272).

Finally, the judicial system supports freedom in a very important way: it gives the weak the ability to challenge those who have power. The Politics of Power states, “Even the powerful cannot do as they please but must submit to the rule of the law.” Though “submitting to the rule of law” may seem to limit freedom, it actually supports it by ensuring that EVERYONE may be free, not just those with the money and resources to do so (Katznelson, 283).

I often wonder, does our judicial system have enough power compared to the other branches of our government--the executive and legislative? 


Sources: 
"An avalanche of cash in judicial campaigns, Pt. 2 « Sustained Outrage." Gazette blogs. N.p., n.d. Web. 18 Mar. 2011. <http://blogs.wvgazette.com/watchdog/2010/10/29/an-avalanche-of-cash-in-judicial-campaigns-pt-2/>.


Katznelson, Ira, Mark Kesselman, and Alan Draper.  The politics of power: a critical introduction to American government. 6th ed. New York: W. W. Norton & Co., 2011. 2-12. Print.

Congress: Authentic Representation?

Congress supports authentic representation of the people in that representatives and senators are elected to their positions democratically. The Senate ensures that each state is represented in congress, and the House of Representatives ensures that smaller areas within each state (which may have different interests than the entire state) are represented. Thus, Congress is made up of 100 Senators and 435 Representatives (Katznelson, 220).

Congress limits the authentic representation of the people in that, like every other legislature in the world, it does not have an exact demographic profile of the citizens its members represent. "A disproportionately unrepresentative legislature is likely to leave many members of the population without representatives who even minimally comprehend their life situations and needs, while other who are overrepresented are likely to have their views taken into account as a matter of course" (Katznelson, 227). 

Congress contains a much lower proportion of Hispanics, African-Americans, Asians and other minorities than it does white, male, educated, rich, professional and business people. Blacks make up 12% of the electorate vs. 7% of seats in the House and 1% in the Senate and Hispanics are 9% of the electorate vs. 6% of House seats and 3% of Senate seats (Katznelson, 229).


Are the white, male, educated, rich, professional and business people in Congress really representing the interests of working class Hispanics, Blacks, Asians, etc.?


Sources: 
"grassroots." Morocco Board News Service. N.p., n.d. Web. 10 Mar. 2011. <http://www.moroccoboard.com/grassroots>.


Katznelson, Ira, Mark Kesselman, and Alan Draper. The politics of power: a critical introduction to American government. 6th ed. New York: W. W. Norton & Co., 2011. 2-12. Print.

The US Presidency and Democracy

The US presidency limits the formation of an ideal democracy more than it supports it. Recently, presidential power has grown so much that the United States is moving away from democracy altogether. In the case of President George W. Bush, the United States may almost just as well have been operating under a dictatorship, so out of control was the amount of power exercised by President Bush. He even recognized that (multiple times!).





When all three branches of government (executive, judicial and legislative) check and balance each other as they are supposed to, the presidency supports the formation of an ideal democracy. However, recently the presidency has found loopholes to avoid the checks and balances that are supposed to be provided by congress and the supreme court

Though the people elect the president, what the president does after that is mostly out of our control, and this is not in keeping with the rules of democracy. President G.W. Bush and the Patriot Act are prime examples of this. President Bush issued many signing statements, which he effectively used to interpret the meaning of laws to fit his own agenda. He also invoked a doctrine, the unified executive, to assert sole and unlimited control over the executive branch (Katznelson, 184). The Patriot Act, passed by congress after 9/11, gave the executive branch "wide latitude relatively unconstrained by congressional or judicial oversight" (Katznelson, 185). It deliberately did away with the checks and balances of the three branches of government that our fore fathers envisioned and therefore severely limits the formation of an ideal democracy.

The presidency was intended to provide checks and balance for the very democratic system of congress, but in fact, more often than not, congress ends up doing this for the presidency (when the existence of things like the Patriot Act don't get in the way).


The Presidency is not supporting the formation of an ideal democracy in the United States. Has the control the President exercises over our country gotten so out of control that the executive branch is harming our country more than it is helping it? 


At least President Obama recognizes his power and is attempting to use it to fix some of the mistakes of our former "Dictator-In-Chief," Mr. Bush. "Those seeking the presidency are far more motivated by ideological commitment and the desire to wield power than by a lust for wealth" (Katznelson, 181). America should examine which of these weighs more heavily on presidential candidates: ideological commitment or the desire to wield power. 


Sources: 
jaxhud. "YouTube- Bush Dictator ." YouTube - Broadcast Yourself. . N.p., n.d. Web. 5 Mar. 2011. <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aD3xfT0c99g&feature=related>.


Katznelson, Ira, Mark Kesselman, and Alan Draper. The politics of power: a critical introduction to American government. 6th ed. New York: W. W. Norton & Co., 2011. 2-12. Print.

Influence on the Political Process

In my opinion, individuals influence the political process mostly through voting, but there are a few other ways they can make their opinions heard. Individuals can educate other people about their political views, and start social movements and interest groups. Rosa Parks is a great example of how an individual can tremendously influence the political process. Her protest on the bus in Montgomery, Alabama precipitated the Montgomery bus boycott, which eventually ended segregation on buses (Katznelson, 150).

This is also a good example of how social movements can be highly effective. The Montgomery bus boycott was a highly effective social movement. It lasted just over a year, and resulted in the federal court ruling in Browder v. Gayle, which declared bus segregation unconstitutional. The boycott was so effective because the African-American community (a large population) were the primary paying riders of the bus system, and they used alternative forms of transportation for a year, denying the Montgomery bus system the funds it needed to continue to run.

Interest groups and social movements influence the political process by mobilizing large numbers of people to work towards a common goal. Recent interest groups are more professional and specialized, so they are able to make less demands of members but greater demands of the government. Social movements use more unconventional and confrontational methods to influence politics. Social movements are riskier, so they are a more demanding form of political participation (Katznelson, 137). Since they are less organized and bureaucratic (Katznelson, 137) they have the ability to influence the political process in different ways than elections and interest groups, such as making government officials aware of their stance through media and protests.

Social movements have been very effective in the past. So, why have we seen a decrease in social movements and such a surge in interest groups in the twenty-first century?


Sources:
Katznelson, Ira, Mark Kesselman, and Alan Draper. The politics of power: a critical introduction to American government. 6th ed. New York: W. W. Norton & Co., 2011. 2-12. Print.


"Rosa Parks' Life: A Call to Carry it On MELVIN DICKSON / The Commemorator v.15, n.3, 1dec2005." Mindfully.org | Mindfully Green. N.p., n.d. Web. 27 Feb. 2011. <http://www.mindfully.org/Reform/2005/Rosa-Parks-Dickson1dec05.htm>.

Public Opinion and the Formation of a Democratic Society

In theory, public opinion should influence the formation of democratic societies tremendously, since the definition of democracy is “a system of government by the whole population,” (Oxford American Dictionaries, 2011). In fact, more often than not, it doesn't.


One thing to note here is that most modern democracies function differently than “small town democracies” used to. In a small town it was possible to gather everyone’s opinion in a setting like a city council meeting, and everyone could weigh equally on decisions about governing the town. Because the United States is a large society, democracy works much differently here. With a large society, it is not possible to sit the whole population down in a room to gather their opinions or make decisions about how to operate said society. In the United states, since it is not realistic to have 300 million people come to a consensus about anything, we have elected representatives who may or may not actually have the true public opinion at heart.


In a society with elected representatives, political participation becomes a very important consideration in how public opinion influences the formation of that society. Often political participation rates are not high, which means that the same prospect of governing based on public opinion becomes much more difficult and public opinion becomes much less influential.  However, when people do participate politically, public opinion can affect the formation of a democratic society through what the people vote for. Additionally, what people want and believe does affect what the different branches of government do, and who resides in those seats of power.


The core mechanisms of political participation (especially in the United States) are political parties, finance and elections (Katznelson, 128). Political parties offer voters more clear-cut choices (Katznelson, 128), which can encourage less educated voters to participate more. Finance plays a key role in political participation by helping decide who gets to compete in general elections. And of course, elections give the public a venue to express their opinions.


Another noteworthy thing is that “political participation in the United States is slanted toward the rich in terms of voting turnout, campaign contributions, and political activism” (Katznelson, 128). Since the influence of public opinion and political participation are highly connected, this means that the opinion of the rich is more influential in our society than the opinion of others.

How can we work towards a system where it is actually public opinion that influences the formation of our democratic society rather than a select few opinions?

Sources:
Katznelson, Ira, Mark Kesselman, and Alan Draper. The politics of power: a critical introduction to American government. 6th ed. New York: W. W. Norton & Co., 2011. 2-12. Print.


New Oxford American Dictionary . 3rd ed. Oxford : Oxford University Press, 2011. Print.

The Intersection of Government and the Private Sector

The Politics of Power describes how, “capitalism creates a mobilization of bias that gives the corporate elite a decisive advantage” (Katznelson, 64). I think that this is the most important way that the government and the private sector intersect—through the economy and especially through the interactions of the corporate elite.

In a capitalist economy, the government has to do some regulation of markets in order for the economy to function properly (i.e. so we are not constantly in a recession or depression). Liberals and conservatives disagree about the amount of government regulation that is needed here. “[T]he free market has always been a fiction. Markets cannot exist without a government to maintain order, enforce contracts, create currency, and provide a host of other public goods” (Katznelson, 64).

While the government makes the decisions regarding market regulation, corporate elite can use their money to influence these decisions. They are able to do this through campaign donations, payment of lobbyists, etc.

In a capitalist economy, intersection of government and the private sector is somewhat unavoidable. I believe that government should do more to control capitalist markets and control how much power the elite of the country have over public policy decisions. During the 1930s and the Great Depression, America saw how a more expansive roll for government could be effective. Under Democratic Party control and FDR the government helped turn the economy around. FDR’s “New Deal created the outlines of the modern welfare state to cope with the distress. This was followed by the government’s enormous success in managing and coordinating the transition to a wartime economy during World War II” (Katznelson, 66).

Does our current economic recession need a “New New Deal?”

Sources:

Katznelson, Ira, Mark Kesselman, and Alan Draper. The politics of power: a critical introduction to American government. 6th ed. New York: W. W. Norton & Co., 2011. 2-12. Print.

"An Ol' Broad's Ramblings." An Ol' Broad's Ramblings. N.p., n.d. Web. 13 Feb. 2011. <http://olbroad.com/2009/02/13/>.

The Role of Power in Economy, Government and Politics

My last blog post touched on how our country’s elite have a larger influence on public policy decisions than the majority of lower-class Americans. This is important for understanding today’s subject—the role of power in government, economy and politics—because the fact that we have a capitalist economy greatly impacts the role that power plays in these sectors of our country.

I believe that power is what ties together economy and government (As politics is defined by the Oxford American Dictionary as, “the activities associated with the governance of a country or other area, esp[ecially] the debate or conflict among individuals or parties having or hoping to achieve power” government and politics may be used interchangeably). As discussed in the previous post, although all eligible Americans can vote and these votes carry equal weight in elections, people with more money generally have more influence over public policy debate.

The Politics of Power States, “Capitalism does not simply distribute money and wealth unequally. It also distributes economic power unequally. Although globalization and technological change have increased competition and the pace of change, a small elite of corporate executives and large shareholders own and control the means of production, have power over the working lives of their employees, and make decisions that have far-reaching consequences for the entire society” (Katznelson, 59).

In America, economy and government interact with each other in a never ending cycle, which is fueled by power. How power is used is very important to this cycle, because it can dramatically affect the lives of people in our country in addition to the lives of people abroad.

The recession that began in 2008 is a good example of how the use of power in economy and government can affect everyone. During the 2008 recession, the government took over mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to keep the economy afloat, but Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson refused to bail out Lehman Brothers investment bank. Following this announcement, the stock market plunged 500 points in one day and multiple other financial institutions also came close to declaring bankruptcy (Katznelson, 55). In 2007 and 2008, lending companies used their power over American citizens to try to turn a bigger profit, which eventually contributed to the economy’s drop into the recession (Katznelson, 55)

On the other hand, consider Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s New Deal. FDR spent billions of dollars during the Great Depression to try to aid the American people and bring the economy out of the depression. Perhaps even more powerful were his 30 “fireside chats,” which educated the people about the financial crisis and gave them confidence in their Commander in Chief (The New Deal, 2011).

Since economy and government revolve around power, how individuals with power in those sectors use it is very important, especially in a capitalist economy. The elite class of the country in a capitalist economy have huge influence, so maybe we should be asking, “How does the control of power in a capitalist system play a role in economy, government and politics?”


Sources:
Katznelson, Ira, Mark Kesselman, and Alan Draper. The politics of power: a critical introduction to American government. 6th ed. New York: W. W. Norton & Co., 2011. 2-12. Print.

"The New Deal." United States History. N.p., n.d. Web. 6 Feb. 2011.

Opportunities and Challenges of Democracy (In America)

Democracy is a system where the whole population, or at least all eligible members, elects the government. It presents many opportunities for its people, but at least in the United States, challenges come close to outweighing those opportunities.

Freedom is one great opportunity provided by democracy. Citizens in the United States have freedom of speech, press, religion, and supposedly the freedom to elect their own government. In a chapter of the book, The Politics of Power, an excerpt by Robert Dahl from his own book discusses democracy in New Haven, Connecticut. It states that, "By commonly accepted standards...the city was a democracy. Virtually all of its adult citizens were legally entitled to vote, they had a choice of candidates, and their votes were honestly counted in free elections" (11). The same is usually true in the United States (i.e. there is question about the 2000 elections), but does that mean that the whole population elects the government? Not always. In my opinion, the two biggest challenges presented by democracy are (a) that the country's elite have more influence over public policy decisions and (b) that the average American is often ignorant to those public policy decisions due to social position, access to resources and the altered images of reality presented by the media.


The Politics of Power states, "The richest 20 percent of American households earn more than half the country's income; the poorest quintile earn just 3 percent" (2). It is important to note that with more money, these people, CEOs and big businesses "can afford to hire lobbyists, contribute to campaigns, create organizations, gain access to decisions makers and thereby influence debates about public policy" (10).

While America may appear to have formal political equality, its citizens are unequal in other ways, which creates political inequality whether we realize it or not. Dahl asks, "In a system where nearly every adult may vote but where knowledge, wealth, social position, access to officials and other resources are unequally distributed, who actually governs?" (11-12). The country's elite seem to have a greater influence over decisions that affect the rest of us, and it seems that there is little we can do about that. Furthermore, as Dahl points out, social position and resources also affect how Americans vote and are able to influence public policy.


An article on the United Kingdom's, "The Telegraph" website states that "Today, the American electoral process is 'run by the public relations industry', the primary task of which is 'to delude the public by carefully constructed images that have only the vaguest resemblance to reality'" (Chomsky is the author of Failed States). He even argues that these challenges have now become such a large problem that "the situation is now so extreme that democracy is no longer functioning in America."

So we must ask, who actually governs in a democracy? The people? The media?

 Is our country really governed by the collective population or by its elite--CEOs, big businesses and those with the most money?

Sources:

Flint, James . "How big business killed democracy - Telegraph." Telegraph.co.uk - Telegraph online, Daily Telegraph and Sunday Telegraph - Telegraph. N.p., n.d. Web. 30 Jan. 2011. <http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/books/3653834/How-big-business-killed-democracy.html>.

Katznelson, Ira, Mark Kesselman, and Alan Draper. The politics of power:  a critical introduction to American government. 6th ed. New York: W. W. Norton & Co., 2011. 2-12. Print.

Welcome

Hi American National Government Spring 2011. Welcome to my blog!