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.
Monday, September 26, 2011
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)