Monday, September 26, 2011

Common Sense in Politicians

The primary requirement for a successful politician is common sense.
Describe a specific situation in which a politician might need an asset other than common sense to be successful. Discuss what you think determines when politicians need common sense in order to achieve success and when they do not.
___

Every organization needs an effective leader to nurture team work among employees and meet certain objectives and goals. Some leaders may be responsible for a few people; others, such as politicians, represent large communities and therefore, tend to deal with more complicated issues . For example, politicians are confronted with an array of conflicting interests within their communities and must make difficult decisions regarding which problems to solve and where to focus their priorities. To handle these responsibilities, successful politicians need to possess several qualities, including common sense above all things.

A person may have studied years on end and possess multiple degrees from prestigious universities; however, she will still face obstacles in trying to promote positive changes in the real world if she lacks common sense--or the ability to resolve common problems that have a simple solution. A leader possessing common sense can envision problems from a practical point of view that can be explained to and understood by his constituents. In contrast, some people who have been enclosed in an ivory tower lose the ability to view problems from a realistic point of view, often developing theories that have no practical relevance outside academia. While great politicians have the ability to process esoteric knowledge and theories, they also can place themselves in the position of the regular Joe and analyze problems from a common-sense perspective.

Common sense, of course, is not the only asset a successful politician possesses. He must also have the discipline to work toward goals and have extraordinary "people skills" to attract and maintain support. These leaders must also be able to analyze problems on an intellectual level and clearly explain ideas and proposals to different types of audiences. Indeed, the positive assets of a successful politician are seemingly endless. No one, of course, is perfect and can achieve the ideal standard of a "successful politician." Even those considered extraordinary leaders exhibit personal weaknesses that can ruin their careers.

Common sense will always be needed by a politician to be effective in his job. They are voted into office to make positive changes in the community and a lack of common sense for solving problems will prove to be a huge liability. Voters will realize when a politician fails to approach his work from a practical standpoint and will, therefore, punish him at the polls.

Sunday, September 25, 2011

Right to Privacy in the Workplace

Employees should have the same right to privacy in the workplace as they do outside the workplace.
Describe a specific situation in which an employee should not have the same right to privacy in the workplace as outside it. Discuss what you think determines whether or not employees should have the same right to privacy inside the workplace as they do outside it.
___

Given the advances in technology, employers have the ability to monitor virtually every aspect of their employees' jobs. For instance, they can listen into and track telephone calls, read all emails written from company-owned computers, and check websites visited throughout the day. Indeed, working for someone else entails giving up a degree of privacy. Employers have various reasons for monitoring their employees--including their need to ensure that work is being done efficiently. However, employers should balance their monitoring activities and employees' basic rights to privacy. Indeed, a complete lack of privacy in the workplace could lead to the diminished morale of employees and lack of mutual trust.

Most employees realize that they will need to give up some privacy in order to work in an office. However, they should have the right to know exactly how they are being monitored. Employers ideally should hand out a document detailing their monitoring activities and ask for the consent of employees. Furthermore, employers should honor a common-sense, basic right to privacy that need not be detailed on paper. For instance, videotaping bathroom stalls, hacking into employees' personal cell phones, and accessing genetic and psychological testing would be considered as pushing the boundaries.

Employers feel compelled to monitor workers mainly because of a need to protect the organization. In order to maximize profits, they must make sure that employees are making responsible use of time and company resources. Employers are also well aware of the common problems that organizations in general face with regard to internet use in the office---i.e., temptations to view pornography, surfing social networking sites, etc. Employees, of course, have the full right to access these types of web pages on their own time using their personal computers.

Employers have the responsibility to make sure their organizations are run in the most efficient manner possible. Monitoring employees' use of technology is an especially important task in running an office, especially given the well-known ways employees abuse internet usage. However, employers must be sure to maintain a balance of its monitoring activities and the employees' need to feel trusted. One way to maintain trust in the office is for the employer to advise the employees on what information they have access to, as well as the reason for collecting certain data. Indeed, monitoring employees in an extensive way could lead to the dangers of low morale in the workplace and resentment over being micro-managed.

Friday, September 23, 2011

Is Violence ever Justified as away to Resolve Disputes?

Violence is never justified as a way to resolve disputes.
Describe a specific situation in which violence might be justified as a way to resolve disputes. Discuss what you think determines whether or not violence is justified as a way to resolve disputes.
___

Throughout time, humans have often settled disputes through violence. The use of violence is sometimes characterized as an uncivilized means to solve problems. That is, those who are uneducated may use violence because they lack the communication skills and intelligence to solve problems in a non-violent manner. However, even sophisticated entities, such as governments of the developed world, regularly use violence to accomplish their goals. Indeed, history has shown that violence usually begets more violence and therefore, it should never be justified as a way to resolve disputes.

Human are essentially animals underneath it all. Throughout history, education and the development of a positive environment have been used to "refine" humans. Specifically, humans can be taught how to control their instinctual urges, including the tendency to harbor violent thoughts. While some still believe that violence is a necessary evil, certain cultures and communities have successfully rejected violence for the most part. They have learned to cultivate the art of communication and diplomacy as a way to resolve disputes.

Throughout time, nations have established mechanisms, such as United Nations, to solve problems without resorting to violence. They acknowledge the devastating effects of World Wars and want to do everything possible to prevent the recurrence of past atrocities. However, these nations still find violence (i.e., war) as an ultimate solution--sometimes because the enemy does not believe in diplomacy as an effective tool. All organized entities have a desire to survive and sometimes need to act in self defense. Of course, using "self defense" as a justification for committing a violent act treads a gray line. For example, many would reject the notion that a pre-emptive war, such as the one waged on Iraq by the US in 2003, is a justified act of self defense. Indeed, it is difficulty to judge as to what point a nation is in its right to use violence to protect itself.

Perhaps in the future, violence will be viewed as a vestige of bygone days when humans did not possess empathy and sufficient communication skills to solve problems. In certain places, societies have made significant improvements in reducing violence. They have established mechanisms, through law and order, that discourages the use of violence, and encouraged cultural values of peace and harmony.

Thursday, September 22, 2011

Who Exercises Political Leadership?

The exercise of political leadership is limited to those holding office.
Describe a specific situation in which the exercise of political leadership might not be limited to those holding office. Discuss what you think determines whether or not the exercise of political leadership is limited to those holding office.
___

Running a government in an effective manner requires strong political leadership. In the United States, both elected and appointed officials take charge of the most important decisions that greatly influence their constituents' quality of lives. While officials holding office exhibit tangible forms of political leadership, other entities of society---including the media and powerful special interest groups and corporations-- have the clout to influence the direction of politics. However, the power to make changes ultimately lie in the hands of those holding office.

People holding office are vested with powers that shape the course of their communities. For instance, they determine the priorities of their constituents, which interests to attend to, where to allocate funds, etc. Many decisions regarding public space and matters can be traced to a certain official holding office. In a democracy, elected politicians are held accountable for their actions by the people and elections usually serve as a referendum on the leadership abilities of the incumbent. Although appointed officials are not elected, they are often accountable to an elected official who answers to the people. Both elected and appointed officials, therefore, must exercise their political leadership in a way that takes into account the wishes of their constituents.

While officials in office formally exercise political leaderships, other sectors of society can pull strings, so to speak, and influence decisions of the politicians. For example, the media plays a crucial role in checking the power of the people in office. Specifically, it reports on the official's actions in office and helps mold readers' opinions on politicians' job performance, as well as what issues to pay attention to. The media, undoubtedly, plays a huge role on electoral outcomes and therefore, politicians place high importance on their relationships with media executives and editorial decision makers. Furthermore, special interests and corporations often influence political decisions. Officials may be indebted to these groups and count on them for future votes; their overwhelming desire to maintain power leads them to make decisions that are in favor of their benefactors.

Indeed, political leadership is exercised mainly by those holding office. They ultimately decide what issues to prioritize and how to vote. They also--ideally-- answer to the best interests of their constituents. The reality of the political atmosphere, however, is that politicians usually place high value in getting re-elected and therefore, vote in line with the interests of powerful groups that can keep them in power.

Wednesday, September 21, 2011

Leaders following the will of the Majority

Great leaders follow the will of the majority.
Describe a specific situation in which a great leader might not follow the will of the majority. Discuss what you think determines whether or not great leaders follow the will of the majority.
___

The Forefathers of the United States laid the foundation for a system of government that honors the will of the majority. Each citizen ( viz. white, male and landholding) would be entitled to vote for leaders who would represent them in government; those voted into office would be responsible for listening to their constituency and making sure that their thoughts are taken into account in the decision making process. Indeed, leaders are responsible for following the will of the majority. However, great leaders possess open minds and recognize that the majority may support ideas that are counterproductive to the nation's best interests.

Politicians are elected to represent the people and they are responsible for taking into account the will of the majority. The will of the majority usually--but not in all cases-- reflects what works best for the nation as a whole. In the case of the United States, majority rule takes into consideration the opinions of "regular" people in society--not just those of the rich and powerful. In autocratic nations, however, all power and decisions are made by a small circle of leaders who are not chosen by the people and therefore, are not accountable to their needs.

In a pure majority-rule system, there exists the danger of repressing the rights of minority populations. For instance, following the majority's interests may subject minorities to second-class citizen status where they cannot express themselves fully and ensure that their fundamental needs are met. In the United States, the Forefathers included the Bill of Rights in the Constitution to serve as a counterweight to a majority-rule system. For example, minority populations can use the Bill of Rights as legal support for infringements of protected rights. Indeed, nations implementing a majority-rule system should provide mechanisms to protect minorities and prevent actions stemming from mob mentality---or actions taken by the majority on the basis of emotion and not reason.

Real leaders have a vision as to what will best serve the nation as a whole and therefore, are able to think analytically about the will of the majority. If they recognize that the will of majority is based on misguided desires, great leaders are able to put politics aside and stand up for what they believe is honorable and right. For example, in times of national economic crisis, the citizens will find a scapegoat to blame for all their problems--in this case, the illegal immigrants from Latin America. Especially in the last year, citizens have rallied for legislation to address the serious problems of illegal immigration; however, some of the actions taken have seem to be motivated more by hate and not by a rational sense of solving the problems. Great politicians recognize when the will of the majority is based on emotion and they do their best to allay or resolve their concerns without feeding into the negative energy.

Great leaders should understand the wishes of the people but in certain cases, take action that may upset the majority. They need to be cognizant of the our history where minority populations have been persecuted and make sure that to encourage citizens to view situations from a rational point of view rather than from pure emotion. Leaders not only decide what actions to take on behalf of the people; they are also able to clearly explain the basis of their decisions and convince others to agree with their reasoning.

Tuesday, September 20, 2011

Tell me Lies, Tell me Sweet Little Lies

In a democracy, the government is never justified in lying to its citizens.
Describe a specific situation in which the government, in a democracy, might be justified in lying to its citizens. Discuss what you think determines whether or not the government, in a democracy, is ever justified in lying to its citizens.
___

In a democracy, the government needs to be accountable to its citizens. That is, public officials have an obligation to explain their decisions to the people so as to avoid corruption. When the government is caught lying to the people, it destroys any trust that people have in its leaders. For the government to run smoothly, the people must respect the institution and have faith that public officials will be totally transparent with their actions. This reasoning follows that the government is never justified in lying to its citizens. However, the vulnerability of the government to internal and external threats may sometimes justify lying for the purpose of maintaining a functioning institution.

When people elect their representatives, they expect the leaders to represent their best interests. Arguably, it is in the people's best interest to be informed about government actions and have the power to speak up when their needs are not met. The people communicate their opinions in different way---e.g., via the media and election season. When a government tells lies, citizens are hidden from the full picture of their leaders' actions and lack crucial information which can influence future votes. Indeed, a democracy flourishes when citizens become empowered in the midst of full and free information.

When caught in a lie, the government's credibility suffers. Following the US intervention in Iraq in 2002, the media characterized the Bush administration as having lied to the people. Specifically, the Defense Secretary addressed the United Nations (and American people) about the US need to eliminate the threat of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Whether this information was based on lies or just honest mistakes will probably never be determined. Nevertheless, the fact that WMDs were never found became a scar on the Bush administration and people's overall confidence in their government. In extreme cases, people's mistrust of government leads to an eruption of chaos and at times, revolution.

Governments have different motivations for lying. For instance, most people would think it is inexcusable to lie in order to hide the misuse of funds and corruption schemes. Lies are also made with the intent to ensure the security of nation. Truths can undoubtedly be used by enemies to destroy the nation. Truths can also cause people to panic--bringing the nation to an ungovernable state. Indeed, the government even runs whole departments based on "mistruths," such as the CIA. It is probable that lies told/truths hidden by the government, however, helped prevent occurrences of terrorist attacks on the homeland in the last decade.

A democracy is ideally a transparent form of government where people can trust in its leaders to represent them well. The government, however, finds itself in situations where lying to the people will help prevent chaos and national disasters. While the government might be justified in telling certain lies, there must be in place some type of mechanism that minimizes these instances. In general, government officials should strive to be as transparent as possible to maintain their credibility and help keep the nation running smoothly.

Sunday, September 18, 2011

The Effect of the Plurality of Opinions in a Democratic System

The plurality of opinions in a democratic system often leads to political deadlock.
Describe a specific political situation in which the plurality of opinions might not lead to deadlock. Discuss what you think determines whether or not an abundance of opinions will lead to political deadlock in a democracy.
___

Democracy is a political system in which the government must remain accountable to the citizens. Politicians compete for the vote of citizens and should make decisions in a way that serves the best interests of the people. In order to ensure that the citizens' needs are met, the government encourages the free flow of information and thoughts. Oftentimes, the plurality of opinions prevents timely decision-making. However, the founding forefathers designed the system in a way that slows down the legislative process so that all feasible solutions to a problem can be analyzed in a thoughtful manner.

Pursuant to the 1st Amendment of the US Constitution, citizens have the right to free speech and can vote during elections. Since all Americans (save prisoners and minors) can freely express themselves, their representatives in Congress also reflect the plurality of opinions. In contrast, authoritarian states maintain one set of political opinions characterized as absolute truths. When varied opinions are represented in Congress, it is often difficult to compromise and come up with timely decisions. For instance, the recent debt ceiling debates reveal how differing opinions lead to political deadlock. Congress eventually presented a compromise but only during the eleventh hour while facing credit-rating downgrades and threats of further economic repercussions.

In the current political atmosphere, citizens do not support politicians who compromise. For example, during the 2010 Congressional primaries, politicians running on a center platform found themselves defeated by the more fundamentalist wing of their party. With ideological differences among politicians so stark these days, it is no surprise that Congress seems unable to compromise and produce changes that benefit America as a whole.

Congress, however, has not always been so partisan and unwilling to work with each other. For instance, major reform has tended to be bipartisan in the last half century; the Social Security Act of 1935, the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and the Voting Rights Act of 1965 all passed with solid support from the two parties. On the other hand, the 2010 Health Reform Act was deeply partisan and still faces huge opposition by the conservatives. No doubt, the internet and popularity of political pundits have played huge roles in influencing the "unworkable" dynamic facing Congress these days. Constituents are more aware of how their representatives vote and are better equipped to keep them accountable to their wishes. Politicians are well aware that their popularity in polls will slip due to compromising with the other side; therefore, they take hard-line stances that show their utmost dedication to party platforms regardless of whether they help the nation move forward in a healthy manner.

In a democratic system, the plurality of opinions is valued as a means of forming solutions that serve the best interests of society. When a government values freedom of speech, different thoughts and opinions serve to play off one another with the goal of finding optimal solutions. However, when people are hard set on their opinions and refuse to allow any type of compromise, it is difficult to make progress. Politicians, with such insular mindsets, fail to fulfill their responsibilities to solve the nation's problems. While their varied opinions are valuable for a well-rounded analysis of the issues, politicians should keep in mind the end goal of making government accountable to the needs of the people.

Saturday, September 17, 2011

Do the Rich have a Responsbility to help the Poor?

The rich have a responsibility to help the poor.
Describe a specific situation in which the rich might not have a responsibility to help the poor. Discuss what you think determines whether or not the rich have a responsibility to help the poor.
___

During tough economic times, the problem of the widening income divide becomes more apparent. As the rich become richer and the poor become poorer, the United States will find face accompanying socio-economic implications. The poor will find themselves with even less resources and fewer opportunities to break into the middle class. They experience more disillusionment and are more likely to commit crimes. If the poor are left behind without any sort of help, society becomes more broken as a whole. It is arguable whether or not the rich have the moral responsibility to help the poor. However, they should help the poor, at least, to serve their own best interests. The US government recognizes the societal benefits of supporting the poor and thus, receives funds from the rich through its progressive taxation policies.

From a purely selfish point of view, the rich should support efforts to raise the poor's quality of life. There exists a direct link between crime and poverty; that is, those who are unemployed or who do not receive adequate education are more likely to commit crimes. When the rich support the schooling of poor youth, society becomes somewhat of a safer place for both rich and poor people alike. While rich people may not give money directly to the poor, the United States government enforces a policy that takes a higher proportion of funds from the rich to subsidize programs that benefit the poor, such as a public school system and welfare programs. When the poor are not given a hand to rise above their situation, most will continue on with the cycle of poverty and some will fall into a life of crime to make ends meet or because they do not know any better.

Undoubtedly, the rich control the industries of a nation and hire other people to help them make profits. While there remains a need for unskilled, minimum wage workers, the advances in technology and growing competition in the marketplace demands more of an educated workforce. If the rich continue contributing funds through taxes, they allow more people to advance professionally and help contribute to their businesses. With more effective workers who can think analytically, rich people can raise their profit margins and continue to develop businesses that keep up with a changing world.

However, government programs supporting the poor should be designed in a way to help people help themselves, so to speak. For example, direct handouts that allow people to have as many children they want and buy their groceries for an indefinite amount of time will create a culture of dependence. On the other hand, free education and work training will often help people become independent and achieve a sense of pride in their own accomplishments. The funds of the rich should not enable dependency on the government and the rich are in their every right to complain about programs that promote moral hazard. Especially in a time of growing scarcity and an uncontrolled deficit, the rich have the responsibility to take on the leadership to help determine where their funds could be best directed to nurture a more safe and productive nation.

In an ideal situation, the rich should feel the obligation to give back to society by helping the less fortunate. However, if they rose to their situation through honest, hard work, it is hard to tell them where their funds should go. If the rich want to be part of a working society, they need to respect government policies that keep the nation safe and able to compete in the world. This entails paying their fair share of taxes to fund programs that allow poor people to become independent and contribute to a healthy society.

Friday, September 16, 2011

A Politician's True Beliefs are displayed during a Crisis

A politician's true beliefs are displayed during a crisis.

Describe a specific situation in which a politician's true beliefs might not be displayed during a crisis. Discuss what you think determines whether or not a crisis will bring out a politician's true beliefs.
___

Recent polls show that Congress hit record-low approval ratings. In addition to its inability to reverse the economic woes of the country, our nation's politicians appear to put politics above working across party lines to solve problems. Indeed, voters elect these politicians to move the nation forward in the right direction; they cannot make decisions, however, on a timely and sound manner if hindered by red tape and fighting across the aisle. While it may take politicians a seemingly long time to accomplish certain tasks, the occurrence of a national crisis forces them to think quickly and make decisions in a more timely manner. In this case, a politician's true beliefs are often displayed during a crisis.

In the case of a national crisis, people's lives and money are put at stake. Politicians find themselves under increased pressure to alleviate the situation and return the nation to "good times." Indeed, during a crisis, the priorities of politicians--particularly their need to get re-elected-- are revealed by their decisions regarding fund appropriation. For example, after Hurricane Katrina, key decisionmakers were chastised for their slow reaction to the crisis. Only the media and its images of people in dire situations forced action. The victims of Hurricane Katrina--largely poor and black-- did not constitute a population that had political clout and some have noted that this reality influenced the type of federal response to the disaster.

The ongoing economic crisis of the nation has also highlighted the politicians' overwhelming wish to maintain power. Given the growing deficit, Congress has been forced to make huge cuts to spending and also find ways to generate new revenue. The Democrat and Republican platforms on how to solve the deficit problem reveal how political pandering to constituents has been prioritized over working together to reach sustainable solutions. While the Democrats prioritize entitlements and extending unemployment benefits, the Republicans insist on maintaining tax cuts for the rich. These platforms do not show per se that Democrats empathize with the plight of the poor and that Republican think that only the rich should be taken into account. They do reveal, however, that both parties push policies that help them gain votes and maintain support from their likely constituencies.

At times, a politician's true beliefs might not be displayed during the beginning of national crisis. This was especially seen in the couple of weeks following 9/11. The overwhelming shock experienced by the nation as a whole unified citizens and it seemed as if everyone put aside their politics and differences. Americans saw themselves as being attacked by a common enemy and realized that they needed to support all of the administration's efforts to protect them from future terrorist acts. Politicians also reflected this national unity and seemed averse to political squabbles during such a sensitive moment. Once the dust settled, however, politicians returned to their partisan bickering and politics as usual.

In general, national crises reveal where politicians' priorities lie--that is, the intense need to be re-elected. These crises often involve taking action in a quick manner by deciding who receives help and resources. It would be ideal for our nation's leaders to make decisions based on what is best for the nation as a whole. However, their political survival entails pleasing constituents and formulating arguments in a way that "appears" to be in the best interest for the nation.

Monday, September 5, 2011

A Political Endorsement can be as Harmful as it is Helpful

Receiving a political endorsement can be as harmful as it is helpful.
Describe a specific situation in which receiving a political endorsement might not be harmful. Discuss what you think determines when political endorsements are harmful and when they are helpful.
___


The process of getting elected into office involves a coordinated effort by a campaign staff. They help the candidate make strategic decisions, including what platforms to focus on and which populations to target. The staff also arranges publicity for the candidate and focuses on making his image palatable to voters. Part of managing the publicity efforts include deciding what to do about endorsements for the candidate. Some endorsements may benefit a campaign by adding credibility to the candidate. However, others may be harmful by linking negative aspects of the endorser to the candidate himself.

Certain endorsements can prove to be a boon to a campaign--especially if they are made by powerful individuals and institutions. When people have confidence in a respected endorser, they will trust its political judgment. These types of endorsements are especially beneficial to candidates who are relatively unknown to voters and do not leave a long paper trail. The same situation can be applied to competing in the job market. When an employer receives hundreds of applications, he will pay particular attention to recommendations made by co-workers and friends. The average Joe with a referral will usually have a leg up over the Harvard graduate without personal support.

Endorsements do not only add credibility to the candidate--they also open doors to other donors, email lists, etc. For instance, when an organization like the New York Times endorses a candidate, its thousands of faithful subscribers may be greatly influenced and vote accordingly. Among these readers include rich people who may be also compelled to donate and influence other organizations to dedicate resources to the campaign.

Endorsements, however, can also prove to be harmful. Voters have the tendency to link any negative aspect of an endorser to a candidate himself. Sometimes candidates cannot control who endorses them and the campaign staff will try to veer attention away from an unwelcome endorsement. For example, when Gary Hart wrote an opinion endorsing Barack Obama in 2008, the latter's campaign staff did not bring attention to it. Although Gary Hart was a rather successful Senator and even a frontrunner in the Democratic presidential primaries of the 1980s, his image became marred by a sex scandal. Obama's campaign could not afford to be linked to another Democrat not espousing "family values." Furthermore, a campaign staff will also not publicize endorsements from individuals or entities who have expressed controversial views and statements.

It is, indeed, a strategic choice for a campaign staff to publicize or downplay political endorsements. Voters tend to associate a candidate with the views and record of the endorsers. Even when a campaign chooses to highlight a recommendation, they still run the risk of the endorser saying something in the future that may jeopardize a candidate's chance for winning. Nevertheless, a campaign staff may find that the benefits of having the recommendation outweigh the possibility of missteps made by the endorser.

Sunday, September 4, 2011

We Learn more by our Mistakes than by our Successes

We are educated more by our mistakes than by our successes.
Describe a specific situation in which someone might be educated more by success than by mistakes. Discuss what you think determines whether or not one learns more from mistakes than from successes.
___

Many of us are taught not to be afraid of making mistakes in life. It is said that through those mistakes, we grow as people and learn how to improve the situation. In contrast, we can learn from our successes but we usually will continue in the same direction to maintain the positive situation. However, only certain type of personalities will be educated more by mistakes than successes. That is, those who are resilient and not easily defeated during difficult times will more often eventually profit from making mistakes.

We can learn more from our mistakes because we are forced to reassess the situation and make changes to turn the situation around. For instance, if a student receives a bad grade on a test, he may be determined to strive for higher scores in the future. When he thinks about future implications of a poor transcript and re-evaluates his priorities, he will make changes in his life to make way for better scores. These changes may include modifying study habits, quitting his part-time job, etc. When a person is determined to reach a goal after making a mistake, he often learns something useful in the process. On the other hand, being successful shows that one is already doing the "right thing" and does not need to change. More determined personalities, however, will be able to continue making changes (even after experiencing success) in order to keep up with an evolving environment and avoid stagnation.

Experiencing mistakes and being able to overcome them also makes one more confident to face future obstacles. Those who experience only a success in a consistent basis may be easy thrown off when their luck changes. They may become devastated by even slight failures. In effect, their change in morale and new defeatist attitude lead them on a path to more failures in life. On the other hand, those who can look failure straight in the eye will not feel overwhelmed and take positive steps to overcome a bad situation.

Granted, there are situations when the mistakes made are so profound that one cannot turn a situation around. For instance, this might occur in a case where an oil company makes the mistake of not taking precautions to mitigate disaster and resulting fatalities. The executives' concern for saving money then results in the loss of human life and permanent environmental degradation. As a result, the public loses confidence in the business due to the bad publicity surrounding the executives' greed and poor judgment. In scenarios resulting in such devastating consequences, it is difficult for someone to learn from their mistakes since there seems to really be no way out.

Indeed, certain types of people are unable to learn from mistakes due to, perhaps, arrogance or weak will. Mistakes for these people are not seen as opportunities to grow. Rather, they are ignored by hard-headed people that refuse to make changes in life or viewed as permanent obstacles by those who are easily defeated. Mistakes can teach lessons to those willing to receive them; however, it is essential that one who learns from failure be mindful of their future actions so not commit the same mistakes again.

Friday, September 2, 2011

Is a Politician's Public Image more Important than his Ideas?

A politician's public image is more important than his or her ideas.
Describe a specific situation in which a politician's ideas might be more important than his or her public image. Discuss what you think determines when a politician's public image might be more important than his or her ideas and when it might not.
___

When politicians are voted into office, they are expected to move forward an agenda benefiting their constituency. They make numerous promises on the campaign trail and promote a type of government working for the best interests of the people. A politician's ideas continue to be important once sitting in office but his public image often becomes the most crucial factor in being re-elected. However, ideas become more important than public image in the case that a politician wants to create radical change and introduce news ways of thinking in the public consciousness.

Politicians are most effective in office (as opposed to out of office) with their considerable amount of power. To stay in office, they must maintain an image palatable to average Americans. This is generally seen as a traditional family man with who believes in God. For example, candidates tarred by a sex scandal or rumored to not hold Judeo-Christian beliefs will have a difficult time voted into office. As a result, many politicians need to pay extra attention to how they present themselves in public. Their ability to work effectively with opposing parties or propose creative ways for resolving problems often do not carry as much weight as the image of politicians' "moral" standing within the community.

Of course, ideas play some importance in one's electability and a politician's government philosophies get scrutinized by the press and academics. However, most Americans do not really care too much for the implications of ideas. They are satisfied making judgments based on 30-second sound bites. Rather, they want someone in office who they could see themselves having a beer with. For example, several presidents in the last few decades have been chosen not for their ideas and brain power but for their likeability among a common crowd. Presidents Ronald Reagan and G.W. Bush have been judged by most to be intellectually inferior to their election opponents; however, they ended up victorious due their palatable public image.

Most politicians go into politics with the intention of staying in power --i.e., being re-elected. In this case, image becomes paramount. However, there are others who enter politics mostly to promote their ideals. Third-party presidential candidates are examples of politicians who perhaps care more about their message than their image and electability. These candidates tend to be a bit radical and espouse ideas not in line with most American people. However, their ideas enter the public consciousness and in some cases can affect status quo down the line. Ross Perot is an example of a third-party presidential candidate whose ideas surrounding small government became influential with Tea Party politicians leading the polls today.


Indeed, whether a politician's image is more important than his ideas depend on the goals of the politician. If the politician wishes to maintain power, he must be cognizant of the image he displays in public and make himself likeable to regular Americans. Ideas become more important than image in the case where a politician hopes to make profound change in government. While he may not be successful in running for office, his ideas receive an amount of publicity that may create changes in the status quo.

Thursday, September 1, 2011

Laws as an Effective Means of Achieving Social Change

Laws are not an effective means of achieving social change.
Describe a specific situation in which a law might be an effective means of achieving social change. Discuss what you think determines whether or not laws can effectively bring about social change.
___

Advocacy groups employ different ways to achieve their desired social change. They mobilize affected parties and the public at large by bringing wide publicity to the issue. They consult academics and experts to study and analyze their issue as a way to strengthen their case. They also lobby congress to suggest new laws or amend existing ones. While establishing a certain law may provide a backbone for social change, the law--as it exists alone--does not transform society in a way desired by proponents. Rather, advocacy groups must continue seeing that the law is regularly enforced and actively used to support actions of social change.

Existing alone, laws do not provide an effective means of achieving social change. Some laws are merely symbolic and do not really carry any legal weight. They exist in the books but people cannot really sue under them. For example, the Bill of Rights would be ineffective if people could not refer to their freedoms in a court of law to support claims for an injunction or damages. Indeed, the 5th and 14th amendments allow people to use the courts as a way to enforce their rights. Without its legal weight, the Bill of Rights could not effectively protect citizens. Key social movements of history, including the prohibition of slavery and greater speech protections for protestors, would probably not have as much effect today if it were not for citizens' abilities to use the Bill of Rights in court.

Laws per se do not provide an effective means of achieving social change. However, they can make some difference in the path toward change. For example, case law may be useful in supporting a lawsuit that seeks social change. Lawyers refer to case precedent---or cases adjudicated in the past--in analyzing issues. When a judge in the appropriate jurisdiction rules favorably on a case, lawyers can use this precedent as foundation for their arguments. The accumulation of case law, indeed, can lead to significant rulings that provoke social change.


In order for laws to be an effective means of achieving change, they must be regularly enforced and recognized by the legal community. Some laws are merely symbolic and really have no effect in the world. Others carry legal weight and can be used to protect one's self from violations. Indeed, there should exist a community or powerful organization advocating for the social change that helps ensure laws are respected by police and courts.