The role of a political opposition is to criticize the policies of those in power.
Describe a specific situation in which the role of a political opposition might be something other than to criticize the policies of those in power. Discuss what you think determines when the role of a political opposition should be to criticize the policies of those in power and when it should not.
___
Last month, the Egyptian people protested in masses against the 30-year rule of Hosni Mubarak. They successfully ran him out of office and are currently creating a more democratic system that would make room for political parties and other marginalized groups of the past. In authoritarian governments, such as that of Mubarak, political opposition does not really exist and the people suffer as a result. While part of a political opposition's role is to criticize the policies of those in power, it also has the broader effect of keeping the political atmosphere dynamic and evolving according to the needs of the people.
Indeed, the political opposition seeks to gain office through criticizing the policies of those in power. The opposition offers an alternative to the people when the policies of the status quo is not working for them. For example, in the United States, the Tea Party wing of the Republican party gained a rather large following through their opposition of current administration policies. They are largely united and defined by what they're against, such as government regulations and taxes on the higher class. Given the downturn of the economy and accompanying high unemployment rate, the Tea Party has gained a lot of ground and support from Americans. While their extreme positions may seem odious to some on the left, they play an important role in maintaining an open dialogue about current policies and ways to improve the dire economic situation.
Political opposition is also healthy for reasons similar to why competition is beneficial for the marketplace. In general, competition allows businesses to come up with a better product that addresses the needs of the people. With a monopoly, businesses do not have the incentive to produce quality products at a reasonable price. The need to surpass the competition allows businesses to nurture creativity and savvy thinking that will result in higher profits. Political opposition also provides incentives for current leaders to please the people and be accountable for their actions. The need to stay in power by being re-elected for another term allows politicians to keep their ideas fresh and value the thoughts of their constituents.
Our system has established several mechanism for making sure politicians best serve their communities. One is the ability for different political parties to compete during elections. In reality, however, only two parties (Democrat and Republican) remain relevant to the system. The government also has established term limits, so that fresh faces can offer new ideas and perspectives every so often. The problem with a 30-year Mubarak-like rule is that politicians become complacent with time when they feel that their term is guaranteed for many years to come.
Indeed, political opposition plays the important role of questioning current policies and offering alternative ways to address society's problems. However, political opposition plays a more broad role in the grander scheme of things. That is, it keeps current politicians on their toes and more likely to address problems of society. It also allows fresh ideas to circulate in the political atmosphere and prevent the complacency often seen in countries permitting authoritarian rule.
Wednesday, May 11, 2011
Tuesday, May 10, 2011
Role of Technology as improving Human Life
The role of technology should be to improve human life, but not to affect human values.
Discuss what you think determines whether or not technology should affect human values.
___
The development of technology reflects a dynamic world with endless possibilities. Throughout time, humans have used their accumulated body of knowledge to create certain tools and develop skills to serve different purposes in society. As time moves on, the outpour of technology has become more sophisticated in its functions and purposes. While technology has the promise of improving human life, it also carries possibilities of abuse in the hands of the wrong people. It also may affect human values in adverse ways such that people lose part of their humanity and connection to nature.
Oftentimes, technology is used to improve human life and make arduous tasks more feasible. In the case of the United States and other economic powers, technology has allowed society to evolve from a subsistence lifestyle to one that allows people to specialize in a skill and outsource other tasks. This ability to specialize has, in turn, led to more accumulated and complex knowledge in certain subject matters and increased innovation. Furthermore, the advancement in technologies especially-- in the last quarter century--has led to increased communication among human beings without the past limitations of distance and borders. The internet has, in a sense, made our world smaller since people from opposite sides of the globe may communicate and conduct negotiations in real time with a click of a button.
With almost all good things in the world, there exists downsides. While technology can be used to improve human life, there may be adverse consequences. For example, technology can be implemented as a tool for control. Weapons, for instance, are used to kill or threaten people and nations. People also lose a certain amount of privacy with increased use of the internet. Companies, for example, can target customers by purchasing private information and web preferences from data mining companies. The negative possibilities of advancements of technologies are endless and also have been the topic of dystopian classics of literature, such as Brave New World and 1984.
The negative impacts of technology are not only a result of by those seeking personal gain and power. Technology also has certain unintentional consequences; in particular, it can adversely affect human values. For instance, it may cause people to lose their connection with humanity and nature. While the internet can connect people from long distances, it also has led some to prefer "virtual" contact over actual human contact. Some have lost the ability to read and connect with others on a personal level due to the inordinate time spent in front of a computer. Furthermore, advancements in technology has led some to lose their human instincts and ability to do certain tasks for themselves. They over rely on technologies to perform all tasks and they then develop a sense of lethargy. The simple pleasure, for instance, of taking a walk outside to go to the store or to do chores has become--for some-- an act of drudgery and waste of time. Using cars to travel short distances has become the norm and people, as a result, now lead sedentary lifestyles.
The advancements in technology throughout time has showcased the possibilities of human ingenuity. It has allowed societies to develop in dynamic ways, as well as ease the lives of future generations. While technology can be used to improve human life, there are always possibilities of abuse. People can use this accumulated knowledge to gain power and compromise the health and safety of others. Technology also carries the danger of dehumanizing people and isolating them from real human connections and nature. Therefore, it is vital for societies to maintain an open dialogue about the benefits AND the downsides of technology. Unfettered use of technology, indeed, can cause havoc in society such as those predicted in the dystopian classics of literature.
Discuss what you think determines whether or not technology should affect human values.
___
The development of technology reflects a dynamic world with endless possibilities. Throughout time, humans have used their accumulated body of knowledge to create certain tools and develop skills to serve different purposes in society. As time moves on, the outpour of technology has become more sophisticated in its functions and purposes. While technology has the promise of improving human life, it also carries possibilities of abuse in the hands of the wrong people. It also may affect human values in adverse ways such that people lose part of their humanity and connection to nature.
Oftentimes, technology is used to improve human life and make arduous tasks more feasible. In the case of the United States and other economic powers, technology has allowed society to evolve from a subsistence lifestyle to one that allows people to specialize in a skill and outsource other tasks. This ability to specialize has, in turn, led to more accumulated and complex knowledge in certain subject matters and increased innovation. Furthermore, the advancement in technologies especially-- in the last quarter century--has led to increased communication among human beings without the past limitations of distance and borders. The internet has, in a sense, made our world smaller since people from opposite sides of the globe may communicate and conduct negotiations in real time with a click of a button.
With almost all good things in the world, there exists downsides. While technology can be used to improve human life, there may be adverse consequences. For example, technology can be implemented as a tool for control. Weapons, for instance, are used to kill or threaten people and nations. People also lose a certain amount of privacy with increased use of the internet. Companies, for example, can target customers by purchasing private information and web preferences from data mining companies. The negative possibilities of advancements of technologies are endless and also have been the topic of dystopian classics of literature, such as Brave New World and 1984.
The negative impacts of technology are not only a result of by those seeking personal gain and power. Technology also has certain unintentional consequences; in particular, it can adversely affect human values. For instance, it may cause people to lose their connection with humanity and nature. While the internet can connect people from long distances, it also has led some to prefer "virtual" contact over actual human contact. Some have lost the ability to read and connect with others on a personal level due to the inordinate time spent in front of a computer. Furthermore, advancements in technology has led some to lose their human instincts and ability to do certain tasks for themselves. They over rely on technologies to perform all tasks and they then develop a sense of lethargy. The simple pleasure, for instance, of taking a walk outside to go to the store or to do chores has become--for some-- an act of drudgery and waste of time. Using cars to travel short distances has become the norm and people, as a result, now lead sedentary lifestyles.
The advancements in technology throughout time has showcased the possibilities of human ingenuity. It has allowed societies to develop in dynamic ways, as well as ease the lives of future generations. While technology can be used to improve human life, there are always possibilities of abuse. People can use this accumulated knowledge to gain power and compromise the health and safety of others. Technology also carries the danger of dehumanizing people and isolating them from real human connections and nature. Therefore, it is vital for societies to maintain an open dialogue about the benefits AND the downsides of technology. Unfettered use of technology, indeed, can cause havoc in society such as those predicted in the dystopian classics of literature.
Friday, May 6, 2011
Most Positive Outcomes in Politics are the Result of Skillful Planning
Most positive outcomes in politics are the result of skillful planning.
Describe a specific political situation in which a positive outcome might not be the result of skillful planning. Discuss what you think determines whether or not skillful planning in politics will result in positive outcomes.
___
Politics--the process by which groups of people make collective decisions--encompasses all areas of life. It is most associated with the running of government institutions, states and nations. Politics also can be found within the workplace, home and even on the playground of an elementary school. All forms of politics involve plays of power and directing one's influence to reach a positive outcome. Whether an outcome is considered "positive" depends on the point of view of the politician. In this case, it would be plan that plays out as expected and to the advantage of those behind the plan. Indeed, positive outcomes usually result from skillful planning. In some cases, however, positive outcomes may be due to other factors, such as luck and being in the right place at the right time.
In government politics, skillful planning oftentimes results in better outcomes. The killing of Bin Laden by US forces is a recent illustration of how skillful planning helped prop up the Obama administration. While the military and CIA personnel carried out the mission, it was ultimately Obama's choice to go forward with the plan. He realized that an unsuccessful outcome of this mission would be disastrous for the US image and for his re-election chances. However, with adroit and careful planning, the US successfully carried out the mission.
Perhaps the Obama administration, along with military and CIA forces, took lessons from botched missions of the past. Most notably, President Carter's Operation Eagle Claw---the attempt to rescue US hostages in Tehran--proved valuable to the current administration's execution of joint missions. Carter's failed attempt resulted from inadequate preparation. This includes, among others, limited rehearsals of the mission, training not being conducted in a joint manner, and inadequate contingency plans. The leaders of the Bin Laden assassination team most likely drew from mistakes of earlier administrations and operations.
No doubt, positive outcomes in politics can also be due to an array of factors other than skillful planning. One is sheer luck or the chance of being in the right place at the right time. Another factor could be just the need of a successful outcome in order to evade undesirable consequences. April's last-minute bipartisan agreement to the budget is an example of this. Congress needed to come up with an agreement by a certain due date in order to bypass a government shutdown. Given the already low poll ratings of the legislature and disastrous consequences of a shutdown, both aisles of the political lines were forced to come up with an agreement. The budget plan itself may not have been deemed "successful" by both parties but avoiding a government shut down proved to be a positive outcome for the legislature as a whole.
Skillful planning, indeed, is a crucial element for increasing chances of a positive outcome in politics. One cannot control luck and being in the right place at the right time. However, one can prepare ahead of time to address all angles and contingencies of a plan.
Describe a specific political situation in which a positive outcome might not be the result of skillful planning. Discuss what you think determines whether or not skillful planning in politics will result in positive outcomes.
___
Politics--the process by which groups of people make collective decisions--encompasses all areas of life. It is most associated with the running of government institutions, states and nations. Politics also can be found within the workplace, home and even on the playground of an elementary school. All forms of politics involve plays of power and directing one's influence to reach a positive outcome. Whether an outcome is considered "positive" depends on the point of view of the politician. In this case, it would be plan that plays out as expected and to the advantage of those behind the plan. Indeed, positive outcomes usually result from skillful planning. In some cases, however, positive outcomes may be due to other factors, such as luck and being in the right place at the right time.
In government politics, skillful planning oftentimes results in better outcomes. The killing of Bin Laden by US forces is a recent illustration of how skillful planning helped prop up the Obama administration. While the military and CIA personnel carried out the mission, it was ultimately Obama's choice to go forward with the plan. He realized that an unsuccessful outcome of this mission would be disastrous for the US image and for his re-election chances. However, with adroit and careful planning, the US successfully carried out the mission.
Perhaps the Obama administration, along with military and CIA forces, took lessons from botched missions of the past. Most notably, President Carter's Operation Eagle Claw---the attempt to rescue US hostages in Tehran--proved valuable to the current administration's execution of joint missions. Carter's failed attempt resulted from inadequate preparation. This includes, among others, limited rehearsals of the mission, training not being conducted in a joint manner, and inadequate contingency plans. The leaders of the Bin Laden assassination team most likely drew from mistakes of earlier administrations and operations.
No doubt, positive outcomes in politics can also be due to an array of factors other than skillful planning. One is sheer luck or the chance of being in the right place at the right time. Another factor could be just the need of a successful outcome in order to evade undesirable consequences. April's last-minute bipartisan agreement to the budget is an example of this. Congress needed to come up with an agreement by a certain due date in order to bypass a government shutdown. Given the already low poll ratings of the legislature and disastrous consequences of a shutdown, both aisles of the political lines were forced to come up with an agreement. The budget plan itself may not have been deemed "successful" by both parties but avoiding a government shut down proved to be a positive outcome for the legislature as a whole.
Skillful planning, indeed, is a crucial element for increasing chances of a positive outcome in politics. One cannot control luck and being in the right place at the right time. However, one can prepare ahead of time to address all angles and contingencies of a plan.
Thursday, May 5, 2011
Does "Democracy" necessarily imply the suppression of Individual Interest for the good of Society as a Whole?
Democracy necessarily implies the suppression of some individual interests for the good of society as a whole.
Describe a specific situation in which a democratic government might place individual interests ahead of the good of the whole society. Discuss what you think determines when the good of society should take precedence over the interests of individuals.
___
The term "democracy" has been defined in myriad ways. Some refer to democracy in a morally pregnant sense--for example, equating it with freedom---a nation that respects the ability of individuals to make choices for themselves. Others refer to it from a strictly technical standpoint in which the nation's decision-making is determined by the majority and where there exists free and fair elections. Using the latter definition, democracy may be conceived as a system that restricts freedom---particularly individual and minority rights.
Democracy is essentially a collectivist system where decisions are made by the majority. In particular, the people choose their leaders in government by a majority vote and therefore, the needs and wishes of the majority are represented in policy and decision making. In this strict definition of a democracy, the power is held by the group--not by individuals; the wishes of the minority are not taken into account, and collective rights take precedence over individual rights.
In the US, however, the founding forefathers created various mechanisms that give a voice to individual and minority rights. The existence of the Bill of Rights is just one example in which the government protects individual and minority rights. This document lists several vague, amorphous rights including, among others, the freedom of speech, religion, assembly, etc. The Bill of Rights, in particular, allows citizens to sue the government for infringement of freedoms. Judges (many of whom are not voted by the people) have the ability to "legislate from the bench" by creating public policy. Judicial creation of public policy is essentially anti-democratic in that the legislature has no say in those decisions. In turn, the majority of the people do not give their consent to the judicial decisions. Through judges and the Bill of Rights, however, minorities and individuals can seek protection from discrimination.
In general, the good of society should take precedence over individual interest. This is especially the case when the interests of the individual (if taken into account) would have adverse affects on the rest of the population. Even sections of the Bill of Rights have been interpreted in a way that do not allow for unlimited individual rights. Certain freedoms, for instance, are qualified by judges so that the recognition of individual and minority rights does not threaten the life, liberty and property of others . One example includes the limitations of freedom of speech where one may not be protected for expressing hateful speech.
Democratic governments are made for the people and by the people---that is, they allow the people (as a group) to decide the trajectory of public policy by voting representatives via majority rule. The United States, however, established various mechanism, such as the Bill of Rights, to provide a check on the majority. Indeed, the recognition of individual rights helps ensure that minorities are protected from the "tyranny" of the majority.
Describe a specific situation in which a democratic government might place individual interests ahead of the good of the whole society. Discuss what you think determines when the good of society should take precedence over the interests of individuals.
___
The term "democracy" has been defined in myriad ways. Some refer to democracy in a morally pregnant sense--for example, equating it with freedom---a nation that respects the ability of individuals to make choices for themselves. Others refer to it from a strictly technical standpoint in which the nation's decision-making is determined by the majority and where there exists free and fair elections. Using the latter definition, democracy may be conceived as a system that restricts freedom---particularly individual and minority rights.
Democracy is essentially a collectivist system where decisions are made by the majority. In particular, the people choose their leaders in government by a majority vote and therefore, the needs and wishes of the majority are represented in policy and decision making. In this strict definition of a democracy, the power is held by the group--not by individuals; the wishes of the minority are not taken into account, and collective rights take precedence over individual rights.
In the US, however, the founding forefathers created various mechanisms that give a voice to individual and minority rights. The existence of the Bill of Rights is just one example in which the government protects individual and minority rights. This document lists several vague, amorphous rights including, among others, the freedom of speech, religion, assembly, etc. The Bill of Rights, in particular, allows citizens to sue the government for infringement of freedoms. Judges (many of whom are not voted by the people) have the ability to "legislate from the bench" by creating public policy. Judicial creation of public policy is essentially anti-democratic in that the legislature has no say in those decisions. In turn, the majority of the people do not give their consent to the judicial decisions. Through judges and the Bill of Rights, however, minorities and individuals can seek protection from discrimination.
In general, the good of society should take precedence over individual interest. This is especially the case when the interests of the individual (if taken into account) would have adverse affects on the rest of the population. Even sections of the Bill of Rights have been interpreted in a way that do not allow for unlimited individual rights. Certain freedoms, for instance, are qualified by judges so that the recognition of individual and minority rights does not threaten the life, liberty and property of others . One example includes the limitations of freedom of speech where one may not be protected for expressing hateful speech.
Democratic governments are made for the people and by the people---that is, they allow the people (as a group) to decide the trajectory of public policy by voting representatives via majority rule. The United States, however, established various mechanism, such as the Bill of Rights, to provide a check on the majority. Indeed, the recognition of individual rights helps ensure that minorities are protected from the "tyranny" of the majority.
Wednesday, May 4, 2011
Should Policy Address Concerns of the Future?
Government policy should be directed at addressing the needs of the present.
Describe a specific situation in which government policy might be directed at addressing concerns of the future rather than the needs of the presents. Discuss what you think determines when government policy should be directed at addressing present needs and when it should be directed addressing future concerns.
___
Good politicians exhibit foresight and an ability to view policy implications in a broad light. They are able to use their intellect and wisdom to not only address present needs but also anticipate future problems and concerns. When politicians face a limited time in office, sometimes it is difficult to contemplate about how their decisions will affect the future. They aim to please constituents in the short-term and this often results in negative implications in the long run. Ideally, politicians should be able to address the needs of the present but also keep an eye on future concerns. In times of emergency, though, politicians should and really can only focus on present concerns.
In a world of scarce resources and time, politicians should have the ability to prioritize needs. That is, they cannot provide every service to their constituents and instead, focus resources on items of priority. For example, the main purpose of government is to provide a sense of order in society. This means ensuring the security of the nation and the basic needs of people. When people, for instance, are starving in large numbers, the government should not spending on projects focused on the future (e.g., promoting arts to preserve the nation's cultural integrity). Other examples of national emergencies where politicians could only possibly focus on present needs may include attacks on the nation (war) and huge national disasters.
Once a country is not facing a crisis or national emergency, politicians should ideally make sure their policies take into account future implications. Good politicians not only think about their time in office but also about the greater good of the country and a better future for all. Their decisions at the present moment regarding the environment could make a difference in the quality of life of those not yet born. Their power to grant or take away funding for certain unsustainable services (i.e., entitlements) could affect the United States' long-term economic standing in the world. In short, many of the policy decisions made by politicians today will affect the trajectory of our nation for the next decades or even centuries to come.
Taking into account the future while addressing present needs, indeed, has many advantages. The nation could, for example, save money and resources in anticipating future needs. It could also avert disasters related to climate change and extreme population growth. True leadership means not only addressing needs of current voters but also thinking about the future of the country and empathizing with people of the future. Unfortunately, many politicians exhibit a tunnel-vision perspective by only foreseeing the policy's implications on their political future.
Describe a specific situation in which government policy might be directed at addressing concerns of the future rather than the needs of the presents. Discuss what you think determines when government policy should be directed at addressing present needs and when it should be directed addressing future concerns.
___
Good politicians exhibit foresight and an ability to view policy implications in a broad light. They are able to use their intellect and wisdom to not only address present needs but also anticipate future problems and concerns. When politicians face a limited time in office, sometimes it is difficult to contemplate about how their decisions will affect the future. They aim to please constituents in the short-term and this often results in negative implications in the long run. Ideally, politicians should be able to address the needs of the present but also keep an eye on future concerns. In times of emergency, though, politicians should and really can only focus on present concerns.
In a world of scarce resources and time, politicians should have the ability to prioritize needs. That is, they cannot provide every service to their constituents and instead, focus resources on items of priority. For example, the main purpose of government is to provide a sense of order in society. This means ensuring the security of the nation and the basic needs of people. When people, for instance, are starving in large numbers, the government should not spending on projects focused on the future (e.g., promoting arts to preserve the nation's cultural integrity). Other examples of national emergencies where politicians could only possibly focus on present needs may include attacks on the nation (war) and huge national disasters.
Once a country is not facing a crisis or national emergency, politicians should ideally make sure their policies take into account future implications. Good politicians not only think about their time in office but also about the greater good of the country and a better future for all. Their decisions at the present moment regarding the environment could make a difference in the quality of life of those not yet born. Their power to grant or take away funding for certain unsustainable services (i.e., entitlements) could affect the United States' long-term economic standing in the world. In short, many of the policy decisions made by politicians today will affect the trajectory of our nation for the next decades or even centuries to come.
Taking into account the future while addressing present needs, indeed, has many advantages. The nation could, for example, save money and resources in anticipating future needs. It could also avert disasters related to climate change and extreme population growth. True leadership means not only addressing needs of current voters but also thinking about the future of the country and empathizing with people of the future. Unfortunately, many politicians exhibit a tunnel-vision perspective by only foreseeing the policy's implications on their political future.
Tuesday, May 3, 2011
Alliances between nations are more often a matter of economics than of shared ideologies
Alliances between nations are more often a matter of economics than of shared ideologies.
Describe a specific situation in which an alliance between nations might be a matter of shared ideology. Discuss what you think determines when alliances between nations are a matter of economics and when they are a matter of shared ideologies
___
Especially in world of increasing globalization, nations need to align themselves with other nations to prosper or maintain their economic standing. Nations need allies for other reasons, as well, such as ensuring the security of their people, protecting themselves from terrorist threats, and working out issues without borders like climate change. Most often, nations align themselves with each other as a matter of economics. While sharing ideologies and values can be important, they are not necessary to establishing relations. For instance, the most important bilateral relationship of this age---the United States and China--exemplifies how nations can form partnerships (mostly economically-based) despite ideological differences.
The United States had spent most of the last half of the 20th century fending off the threat of Communism. Maintaining a "cold" war with the leading Communist nation, the USSR, the US people viewed the Soviet ideology as incompatible with democracy and a peril to American life. The USSR's disintegration in the late 1980s also resulted in Americans' perception of Communism as an essentially non-threatening ideology. Since the 1990s, US relations with a prospering Communist China has grown tremendously. While the US does not share ideologies with China, they do share the mutual interest of economic growth and stability. This has resulted in a major trade relationship and hundreds of US-based multinational companies prospering in mainland China. Furthermore, the US has also relied on China as its biggest foreign creditor. Indeed, both nations have propped each other up due to mutual self-interest in the economic sphere.
While China essentially has a capitalistic market system, it still is a single-party, authoritarian communist government. This runs contrary to the US system of democracy which values free elections and representation by the people and for the people. China is also infamous for its human rights abuses---imprisoning political activists and censoring the internet to a full extent. Some United States politicians have spoken out on the human rights abuses in China but cannot do too much to remedy the situation because of the high financial stakes and relations between the two nations.
Most alliances have been based on economic interests but some in history have also been established on common ideology. This was seen in the Japanese-German axis of World War II. The two nations aligned with each other party due to a matter of shared ideology. Both shared common enemies---the US and Soviet Union. Both expressed expansionist goals---German Nazis with the purpose of conquering Europe and Japan taking over Asia. Both also shared a common nationalist and militaristic culture. Granted, Japan allied with Germany partly for the economic reason of hopefully being supplied with gas. However, this relationship was founded on mostly shared ideological goals.
As the world continually becomes more inter-dependent on one another, nations need to establish relationships with other nations to maintain dynamic economies and protect from outer threats. Indeed, it is difficult for nations to take an isolationist position with the goal of maintaining global pre-eminence, economic power and security for the people. While allies might be divided over ideological beliefs, they will be united by the aim to improve itself economically and maintain national strength.
Describe a specific situation in which an alliance between nations might be a matter of shared ideology. Discuss what you think determines when alliances between nations are a matter of economics and when they are a matter of shared ideologies
___
Especially in world of increasing globalization, nations need to align themselves with other nations to prosper or maintain their economic standing. Nations need allies for other reasons, as well, such as ensuring the security of their people, protecting themselves from terrorist threats, and working out issues without borders like climate change. Most often, nations align themselves with each other as a matter of economics. While sharing ideologies and values can be important, they are not necessary to establishing relations. For instance, the most important bilateral relationship of this age---the United States and China--exemplifies how nations can form partnerships (mostly economically-based) despite ideological differences.
The United States had spent most of the last half of the 20th century fending off the threat of Communism. Maintaining a "cold" war with the leading Communist nation, the USSR, the US people viewed the Soviet ideology as incompatible with democracy and a peril to American life. The USSR's disintegration in the late 1980s also resulted in Americans' perception of Communism as an essentially non-threatening ideology. Since the 1990s, US relations with a prospering Communist China has grown tremendously. While the US does not share ideologies with China, they do share the mutual interest of economic growth and stability. This has resulted in a major trade relationship and hundreds of US-based multinational companies prospering in mainland China. Furthermore, the US has also relied on China as its biggest foreign creditor. Indeed, both nations have propped each other up due to mutual self-interest in the economic sphere.
While China essentially has a capitalistic market system, it still is a single-party, authoritarian communist government. This runs contrary to the US system of democracy which values free elections and representation by the people and for the people. China is also infamous for its human rights abuses---imprisoning political activists and censoring the internet to a full extent. Some United States politicians have spoken out on the human rights abuses in China but cannot do too much to remedy the situation because of the high financial stakes and relations between the two nations.
Most alliances have been based on economic interests but some in history have also been established on common ideology. This was seen in the Japanese-German axis of World War II. The two nations aligned with each other party due to a matter of shared ideology. Both shared common enemies---the US and Soviet Union. Both expressed expansionist goals---German Nazis with the purpose of conquering Europe and Japan taking over Asia. Both also shared a common nationalist and militaristic culture. Granted, Japan allied with Germany partly for the economic reason of hopefully being supplied with gas. However, this relationship was founded on mostly shared ideological goals.
As the world continually becomes more inter-dependent on one another, nations need to establish relationships with other nations to maintain dynamic economies and protect from outer threats. Indeed, it is difficult for nations to take an isolationist position with the goal of maintaining global pre-eminence, economic power and security for the people. While allies might be divided over ideological beliefs, they will be united by the aim to improve itself economically and maintain national strength.
Monday, May 2, 2011
Should Politicians concentrate on making Policy rather than attempting to affect People's Beliefs?
Politicians should concentrate on making policy rather than attempt to affect people's beliefs.
Describe a specific situation in which politicians might attempt to affect people's beliefs rather than make policy. Discuss what you think determines when politicians should concentrate on making policy and when they should attempt to affect people's beliefs.
____
Politicians carry out different duties in the government. Those in the legislative branch construct laws and make policy. Others in the executive branch carry out and enforce the laws. Lastly, the judiciary branch judges the constitutionality of the laws. Most of the politicians of the legislative branch are elected by the people (as opposed to being appointed) and are, therefore, accountable to their constituents. These elected officials are tasked with the primary job of making policy but must also answer to their people by addressing their needs and affecting their beliefs, as necessary.
Since politicians, such as those of the Senate and House of Representatives, are elected to their positions, they must be accountable to the people. They act as representatives of their constituents and must be cognizant of their needs. When making policy, politicians take into account what would be in the best interest for their constituents. Sometimes their personal beliefs may be at odds with what the majority of their people want or need. If the politician decides to make a vote contrary to his constituent's wishes, he has the duty to explain his position to the people and attempt to affect their beliefs.
Even if the politician need not make decisions contrary to the people's wishes, he has a responsibility for communicating with them on a regular basis. As a democratic system, the US government has the goal of being transparent and letting the people know what type of decisions are being made---especially those that will directly or indirectly affect the people's lives. Being a representative, a politician should creatively find ways to connect with his people, such as holding town hall meetings and updating his website. This does not mean "affecting their beliefs" per se but giving them material so they can make informed decisions about their daily lives as well as future voting choices.
Sometimes, especially during election season, politicians become so focused on their goals of returning back to office, that they place propaganda above other responsibilities, including making sound policy. Undoubtedly, it is important to affect people's beliefs as a way of informing them about the politician's goals and decisions; however, he ideally should think more about the best interest of the people---not his own interests in being elected. Granted, this is difficult to do as most politicians believe that it is in the best interests of the people for him to get elected.
Indeed, it is essential for politicians to make sound policy and affect their people's beliefs through regular communication. Being elected by the people, politicians are accountable to their constituents and have the duty to keep in contact with them and address their needs. However, they must not divert from their main duty of making policy in the effort of disseminating their propaganda and gaining votes for the next election.
Describe a specific situation in which politicians might attempt to affect people's beliefs rather than make policy. Discuss what you think determines when politicians should concentrate on making policy and when they should attempt to affect people's beliefs.
____
Politicians carry out different duties in the government. Those in the legislative branch construct laws and make policy. Others in the executive branch carry out and enforce the laws. Lastly, the judiciary branch judges the constitutionality of the laws. Most of the politicians of the legislative branch are elected by the people (as opposed to being appointed) and are, therefore, accountable to their constituents. These elected officials are tasked with the primary job of making policy but must also answer to their people by addressing their needs and affecting their beliefs, as necessary.
Since politicians, such as those of the Senate and House of Representatives, are elected to their positions, they must be accountable to the people. They act as representatives of their constituents and must be cognizant of their needs. When making policy, politicians take into account what would be in the best interest for their constituents. Sometimes their personal beliefs may be at odds with what the majority of their people want or need. If the politician decides to make a vote contrary to his constituent's wishes, he has the duty to explain his position to the people and attempt to affect their beliefs.
Even if the politician need not make decisions contrary to the people's wishes, he has a responsibility for communicating with them on a regular basis. As a democratic system, the US government has the goal of being transparent and letting the people know what type of decisions are being made---especially those that will directly or indirectly affect the people's lives. Being a representative, a politician should creatively find ways to connect with his people, such as holding town hall meetings and updating his website. This does not mean "affecting their beliefs" per se but giving them material so they can make informed decisions about their daily lives as well as future voting choices.
Sometimes, especially during election season, politicians become so focused on their goals of returning back to office, that they place propaganda above other responsibilities, including making sound policy. Undoubtedly, it is important to affect people's beliefs as a way of informing them about the politician's goals and decisions; however, he ideally should think more about the best interest of the people---not his own interests in being elected. Granted, this is difficult to do as most politicians believe that it is in the best interests of the people for him to get elected.
Indeed, it is essential for politicians to make sound policy and affect their people's beliefs through regular communication. Being elected by the people, politicians are accountable to their constituents and have the duty to keep in contact with them and address their needs. However, they must not divert from their main duty of making policy in the effort of disseminating their propaganda and gaining votes for the next election.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)