As we contemplate the current status of politics in America, it is important to recall beyond the basis of what has established our country, but to consider the patterns that have created government as we know it. As a democratic republic, we elect whomever we would like to represent our values, our priorities, and our self-interests. However, elected representatives must establish themselves in three pillars to be well known and liked enough to be nominated as a representative. C. Wright Mills describes this concept in The Power Elite as he suggests that "Within American society, major national power now resides in the economic, the political, and the military domains. [...] These decentralized areas are increasingly shaped by the big three (economic, political, and military)."
C. Wright Mills is discusses the intricate communications and enforcement that is caused by leaders intertwined in each of the "big three" categories. He suggests that those with public power, whether it be as small as a leader of a school district or as large as the president, have a foot in economics, politics, and the military. Consider political campaigns for example, according to Aliyah Frumin at MSNBC, it costs on average $10.5 Million to become a senator. Therefore suggesting that unless you have wealth or have connections to money, you are significantly limited to public power. Additionally, in order to gain the trust of voters, your resume must be outstanding. President Obama was a graduate of an Ivy League institution, managed a business sector where he was successful, and later became a Senator. Leaders in America today have background successfully managing money (and often times a lot of it), creating valuable connections with other leaders, and even sometimes military experience.
Although C. Wright Mills describes this concept of the "big three" and its importance to who we elect as executives of our country, in this particular article, he lacks an opinion over its effectiveness. Early in the piece he states that "These hierarchies of state and corporation constitute the means of power [...] (They are) command posts of modern society which offer us the sociological key to an understanding of the role of the higher circles in America." Rather than discussing what the consequences of this are, he circles around the idea, causing readers to constitute their own opinion. In this article, he could have discussed why individuals influenced by all of the "big three" businesses - such as some medical or agricultural leaders - make political and legal decisions which affect the businesses they run versus decisions based on society's needs.
As an evaluator, I question why C. Wright Mills avoided writing about specific people. His general topics and ideas show that his writing was focused for a large audience and it was written in a way that does not erode one's ideology or directly suggest how one should believe. Because of this, I believe his purpose of this article, was to encourage readers to question the "rightness" of American government and more specifically, leaders who have evolved from the "big three".
The Power Elite made me question who we elect as leaders and our ideology behind what makes a “good” leader. Why are voters so influenced by our nominees participation in economics, military, and political regime?
Written Analysis #2
In today’s political climate, controversy exists over appropriate distribution of power and the boundaries between state and national government, much as it was during pre-Constitutional America. James Madison addresses the concerns of America’s leaders by appealing to individuals who had not explicitly supported the Constitution throughout The Federalist papers. This thorough propaganda pamphlet contained detailed explanations and reasonings like the federalism debate which guided policies in the Constitution, and more importantly why people should support it. In Federalist 39, Madison explains why the Constitution created a government that was neither federal or national, but was “rather a composition of both” by showing which sectors of government are federalist, and which are national.
Madison’s main argument is that the difference between national and federal governments is that a national government is considered the central ruling body, whereas a federal government has a central body but also consists of lower units. More explicitly, he shares that each state would be wholesomely powerful in a federal system because they would be “essential to every alteration that would be binding on all.” Meaning that a federal government relies upon support from individual states, much as the Senate operates. This similarity is clear because representation is required first from the people as they elect their representatives, and secondly in the passing of policy as states - represented by their elected official- support particular legislation. Next, he suggests that in order for a government to be wholly national, the power would be held by the majority citizens as the House of Representatives operates. This clarity emphasizes that regardless of an individual's opinion of federal versus national government, both compose the government created by the Constitution. Although this was written to explain that both a federal and national government exist, Madison’s opinion was complicated and seemingly artificial because it equalized the systems with the intent to draw support from the general public. As a result of Madison’s vague, voter-pleasing argument, the boundary of state and national power is fuzzy and has led to disputes throughout history over who has the authority in certain instances.
The justification that both a federal and national government exists in America, leads to an underlying discussion about which type of government truly exists in America, especially in today's society. The debate of power is especially prevalent in cases regarding medical marijuana, as it is illegal in federal policy, but legal to most states. The majority of states support its legalization and have acted on it; however, regardless of state support, it is still illegal to the national government. This controversy between whether America has a federalist or a national government is elevated from Madison’s unclear and vague description of what our government is. This constitutes term misuse and even further, the interchangeable use of the terms federal and national. If there are two distinct types of government that operate independently from one another, how can we call our government a national government one day, and a federal government the next? Madison’s writing enforced the ideologies that both parties had to satisfy their wishes, but did and has continued to create a disclarity behind a founding principle in America and a true definition of what to consider and call our government and the laws that it enforces - even though his argument was that both types do exist.
Moving forward, Madison’s descriptions and attempts to clarify the two governments made it obvious why this article needed to be published. The evidence of the compromise created during the composition of the Constitution was clear after reading it; a national government existed, as did a federal one. Madison presented this idea to encourage others to support the Constitution, and although this was obvious, he utilized his own opinion and made clear what he believed to be just. The Federalist No. 39 instills a sense of satisfaction and trust within both citizens and states - and probably encouraged others to support the Constitution’s ratification because of Madison’s attempt to equalize the amount of federal and national government created by the document.
This made me consider: why do we use both the terms national and federal interchangeably when describing things in society today, like laws?
Written Analysis #3
The judicial branch of the American government declares the constitutionality of legislative enactments and executive implementations. Despite their general oversight of government action and intervention and their extenuating commitment to public policy, Alexander Hamilton expressed that the Judiciary branch is the least powerful branch of our government in Federalist No. 78. This statement has encouraged others, like Richard Fallon, to question this reality and the sole intentions of the Supreme Court.. In The Dynamic Constitution, Fallon discusses a few main arguments which include the disputable interpretation of the Constitution, the power that resides in the Court’s ability to select the cases they hear, and each justice’s interest in representing their political party.
Fallon presented the understanding of the Constitution by suggesting that rather than interpreting the definition or specific intentions of every word in the document, it is important to reconsider the Court’s rulings as implementations of the Constitution. This general definition suggests that both originalists, who vote based on their interpretation of the original Constitution (one without consideration of moral rights or practicality in ‘today’s’ society), and those who believe in alternative methods of interpretation by observing the moral rights and underlying messages the Constitution suggests, are evaluating policy to benefit society. This statement creates controversy in the power of the Supreme Court. On one hand, it resembles the intention and importance of the Constitution, and on the other it has the potential to exponentially stray from its intended meaning. To create a ‘medium’ between these two understandings, the Court has a policy called common law which creates an order to how a judge should interpret policy. This includes beginning with the Constitution, giving weight to prior cases, and considering the practicality and desirability of the policy in modern law. Although this seems great and has probably benefited constitutional law today, there is no way to enforce this policy. By this I mean that there is no way to accurately determine if a justice actually followed this procedure before their vote.
Implementation of the Court’s interpretation of a statute has the power to radically change policy that extends outside of the specific case they have chosen to hear. Fallon suggests that the Court has the power to impact social policy and political agenda “by expanding constitutional rights or powers in some areas or pruning them in others” based solely on the cases they hear. Although it’s self-explanatory that they select cases that are controversial, their power to select cases leads to the consideration of their own personal agenda and more specifically their individual political plight. The importance of a judge to vote based on their personal political ideology (and that of their nominator), is reflected through their consistency to vote this way. Our hope as American citizens, or at least mine is that those who establish the constitutionality of our policy adjudicate policy for the sole intention of bettering society and reflecting the ideals of our country. The power of our country's most controversial policies are in the hands of individuals who have self-interests that can impact their vote.
The Supreme Court is limited in their power to create policy, but the Court has the power to create social and political change. In The Dynamic Constitution, Richard Fallon exemplifies this by deciphering the multilateral policies that facilitate the meaning of the Constitution and the Courts attempt to create a single method to understanding the document, the Court’s power to impact specific policies and not others, and the importance to vote a certain a way to impact their personal affairs. We have accepted the methodology of the Supreme Court, but are the intentions of the justices to impact policy, or are they self-motivated?
Written Analysis #4
The explosion of technology is radically changing the way that information is distributed and consumed across America. The result of these modifications have allowed a faster spread of information and an ease of access to it, but it has adapted the way conversations can be held and styles of entertainment. Because of technological advancements, more of society is aware of the status of our country, including political ideology, but it is at the discretion of media producers like TV show hosts, news-magazine editors, and search-engine generators. In How the Mass Media Divides Us, Diana Mutz discusses the impact that new media has on the political opinions in America and how media has changed and developed the way political discussions are had, and it’s not necessarily for the better.
First off, media allows us access to the whereabouts, opinions, and happenings of most of society and politics in our country, and it has always existed, just through different modes and accessibility. We have transitioned from an era of the political pamphlets to radio broadcasts and from black-and-white television broadcasts to massive amounts of information at your fingertips via the Internet. These transitions have broadened the amount of information available, but have also created a bias generated from the companies that produce them. Often times, you can flip through the news broadcasts in the morning and hear two seemingly identical reports with varied information - how can the same story have so much variance? Most news stations, reporters, and companies are biased towards a particular political party. Hence some reflect on the consequences that may relate towards certain political agenda topics more than others.
Relating to political opinions and briefly exploring their consequences is further exemplified when discussing “shout-show” television like The O’Reilly Factor. Mutz discusses this thoroughly in How the Mass Media Divides Us and relates it to extreme party polarization - these shows spur heated debates that generally results in yelling or arguing based on the idea that the agent is right, and everyone else's beliefs are wrong. The participants are provoked by the hosts to yell and argue simply by asking baited questions and promote incivility by their responses. This incivility draws viewers to the show and impacts their construction of political opinion. To solidify this, Mutz writes “The more dramatic, uncivil exchanges encouraged a more black-and-white view of the world: their candidate was not just the best; the alternative was downright evil.”
The change in media schemes has played a role in the transformation of America into an extremely partisan government and has possibly contributed to conflict between the political parties. Of course, this may not be the intention of media, to divide citizens against each other, but it certainly is occurring today, and it can be reversed if the media wants to risk losing viewers from their popular “shout-shows”. Mutz discusses this viability when she suggests “Political television has the potential to improve as wall as to exacerbate the divide among partisans of opposing views; it simply depends on how those differences of opinion are aired.” Television shows that display incivility through shouting, are more popular because of entertainment that is created by the participants, but results in a growing disparity between parties and the identification of citizens. Showing political opinions in a civil manner may be more mundane and less entertaining, but it encourages understanding and discussion between parties.
Mass media is important to the development of political understanding and the responses of government to society, but it can deter from its responsibilities easily. A political show that is presented uncivilly is more entertaining but is more costly to the division of individuals in America than a civil show produced to encourage understanding and discussion. How can we use mass media to create a society that is aware of the consequences and benefits of political agenda without dividing citizens even further?
Written Analysis #5
Poverty in America is a seemingly invisible issue that hides behind major corporations, the idea of America, and the ideologies of prosperity and work ethic that reign in the country. According to the US Census Bureau, over 11% of Americans live in poverty - yet we divert our attention to growing our economy versus fixing the social structures that create the disparities and inequalities that are prevalent. Michael Harrington, in The Other America discusses the invisibility regarding poverty in America. He is specifically addressing the separation of poor America from rich America. Harrington argues that poor Americans are underrepresented in policy and government, segregated through location, and do not match “the affluent society” that is perceived in America making them appear to be invisible.
Even though in general, the poorest Americans have higher standards of living than the poorest citizens in developing nations, it would be cruel to demean the disparities that impoverished individuals and families in America live through; yet, in America, we do it. Harrington suggests that “The millions who are poor in the United States tend to become increasingly invisible… It takes an effort of the will and intellect to even see them.” It’s easy to avoid the poorest individuals by moving our priorities into different political baskets like expanding the economy rather than addressing the harsh reality that some of our policies are not allowing each citizen to achieve success in society.
Suburbanized America which sprung during the New Deal brought forth other issues, like redlining, into society as we know it. The New Deal encouraged individuals to purchase homes outside of the city with low-interest rates, but this wasn’t available in locations where Black individuals resided, these areas were considered to be ‘redlined’. This is still impacting the geographic locations of slums today and distribution of wealth in America. Harrington addresses the lack of awareness for middle-class families in suburban areas who approach or drive past a slum, but never need to confront the reality of being impoverished. He states “In short, the very development of the American city has removed poverty from the living, emotional experience of millions upon millions of middle-class Americans. Living out in the suburbs, it is easy to assume that ours is, indeed, an affluent society.” This change in styles of living separates the poor from the rich and allows the rich to avoid the uncertainty and realities that resonate with impoverished families. Issues like urban renewal or welfare which surround the poorest Americans, are related to the invisibility and lack of awareness derived through location of residence. This problem is escalated because like Harrington suggests, the wealthier individuals choose to avoid the poorer communities.
As the majority of Americans choose to ignore or not recognize the poor minority, there are fewer reasons for politicians to defend the interests of the lower class. Harrington goes as far as to say “As a group, they [the poor] are atomized. They have no face; they have no voice.” By eliminating the interactions between the poorest class and the middle-class, the slums are no longer “centers of powerful political organizations” and they are “no longer visible to the middle-class”. Despite his argument about the poor’s lack of voice, the concept of intersectionality contradicts this. Overrepresented minorities who are poor, have social movements that give them a voice in other perspectives. For example, a black female who is poor has outlets for a political voice for social movements like her race and gender in addition to being poor.
Poverty in America is difficult to talk about because of our invisibility to its reality, because it has been created through policy by segregating rich and poor based on location, and because it represents a minority which decreases public official interest. Michael Harrington presents these topics in a mainstream way - inviting the reader to consider his opinions and others findings in order to establish their own opinion and hopefully support change. What can be done to systematically rearrange policy to support impoverished individuals?
No comments:
Post a Comment