Chapter 12

1. What makes a great President (not which Presidents have been great) . . . what qualities are essential to greatness?  Why?

I think satisfying the public is what makes a President great. The qualities essential to greatness are accountability, willingness to take risks, willingness to listen, and assertiveness. Accountability is important because a President needs to be responsible for his actions and recognize that. Willingness to take risks is important because I think that's the best way to make changes. Willingness to listen is essential because that's how ideas and issues can be discussed. Assertiveness is important because it's necessary to make changes.

2. Other than Abraham Lincoln and George Washington, which two Presidents have been the greatest and why?

My first choice is John F. Kennedy because he was one of the most popular presidents to have ever taken office. He appealed to all classes and unified the American public. My next choice is Franklin D. Roosevelt. He brought the country through the depression and implemented the New Deal, which brought jobs to Americans. He helped them get back on their feet without giving them handouts.

3. Research a President that you're previously unfamiliar with - list at least three things you learned.  Was this President effective?  Why or why not?

A President I previously didn't know much about was Andrew Jackson. I learned that he was a little bit crazy. He liked to duel and lived with a bullet lodged in his body for the rest of his life after allowing himself to be shot at first in a duel. He also threw crazy parties in the White House. He once got so drunk at one of these parties that brought a horse inside and threatened to shoot anyone who removed it and then didn't remember it in the morning. Jackson was also the first president an assassination attempt was made upon. Both of the assailants' guns misfired though, and Jackson then proceeded to beat him up with the hickory cane he carried around. That's how he got the nickname Old Hickory.

Chapter 11

1. Who are your Senators and your Congressman?
Our two Senators are Bob Corker and Lamar Alexander. Tennessee has 9 congressmen: Phil Roe, John j, Duncan, Chuck Fleischmann, Scott DesJarlais, Jim Cooper, Diane Black, Marsha Blackburn, Stephen Fincher, and Steve Cohen.The congressman for my district is Chuck Fleischmann.

2. Reserach the areas they champion and find one you support.  What is it and why do you also support it?
 I support Chuck Fleischmann's stance on the economy. Obviously, the economy isn't great right now. Most people have turned to the government to correct the problem, but Fleischmann believes that this is the wrong approach. He thinks that there should be less government involvement and more emphasis placed on helping and supporting entrepreneurs and small business owners. I also think the government is not able to pull the economy out of the rut it is in on its own. We need to start doing something to help ourselves. 


3. Find an issue one of your Senators or Congressman champions that you disagree with.  Why do you disagree?
I found that Bob Corker "supports the sanctity of marriage." I'm very pro gay marriage. I find that kind of conservative, closed-minded kind of thinking really off-putting. No one has the right to tell anyone they can't legally commit themselves to another person. The government has no place in our personal lives. I have not found one satisfactory reason to prevent two people from marrying. Gay or straight, it's not anyone's business. Least of all the government.

Chapter 10

1. Read Bush v. Gore in the text.  Do you agree with the majority or the dissenting opinion?  Why?

I can't really say which I agree with because I don't understand the case at all. We know that George W. Bush lost the popular vote. In the 2000 presidential election, Florida had twenty-five electoral votes. How hard can it really be to re-count twenty-five votes? Or were they counting the votes to elect the representatives in the electoral college? This entire case makes absolutely no sense to me, and I can't really seem to find anything that clarifies what went on for me.

2. Is the ability to fundraise too important in elections?  In other words, are good candidates prevented from running because they cannot raise the needed funds?  Can/should something be done to correct this if it is a problem?

I don't think it is too important. If candidates are truly good and have good ideas then I believe they will get enough financial support to be able to run. Marketing yourself is part of being a politician too, and if you can't do that or get support from someone who can do it for you then you probably shouldn't be the president. 

3. Why is there such voter apathy - in other words, why is there often such low voter turnout for elections?  Is there a way to rectify this problem?

I think there is such a low turnout for elections because politics just aren't very entertaining. The majority of people aren't going to be willing to sit through a thirty minute speech full of flowery words they only half understand. This is why I think there are so many negative ads today. A lot of people are more interested in the gossip about candidates than their policies. There isn't really much else you can do spice up politics. It's just a boring subject.  

Chapter 9

1. Which political party do you most identify with?  Why?  Are there things in the party platform with which you disagree?

I identify most with the Republican party simply because I'm naturally inclined to be suspicious of all authority. I don't really have faith in the government to better our lives because it seems with every step forward we take in one area we take another step back somewhere else. I feel that it's up to me to improve my own situation on my own merit. I do disagree with their views on some issues though, usually on social issues such as gay rights. I feel that sometimes republicans try to restrict a person's right to choose how they want to live and can be a little closed-minded.

2. Does America need political parties?  The founders originally hoped that American politics would operate without need of parties?  Would that work today?  Why?

I think that America does need political parties. They're useful in bringing together people with similar beliefs into one group and getting their voices heard. The US is populated by millions of people and millions of individual voices are a lot weaker than a group banded together to speak out about certain issues. With some many people living in America today, I just don't think politics could operate without some kind of organization. There's no way the founders could have foreseen the size the country would grow to or the issue politics would come to include.

3. Please research lesser known political parties - which one do you most identify with?  Why?

Of the political parties I researches, I found that I agreed most with the libertarians. The libertarian platform is about individual liberties and rights. They feel that none of these things should be sacrificed for "the greater good." I feel that people have the right to make their own choices and that is our basic right as humans. The 2010 libertarian platform states, "...we defend each person's right to engage in any activity that is peaceful and honest, and welcome the diversity that freedom brings. The world we seek to build is one where individuals are free to follow their own dreams in their own ways, without interference from government or any authoritarian power." I agree whole-heartedly.

Chapter 7

1. Does objectivity still exist in the media's coverage of politics?  Of the major news outlets (CNN, FoxNews, MSNBC, NPR, NBC, etc.), which are the most objective and which seem to have the most bias?

I'm really unsure if objectivity still exists in the media's coverage of politics. I don't think any channels are openly biased, but I definitely think their reports tend to lean to the right or left. Even though I don't regularly watch the news, what little I've seen leads me to believe that CNN and MSNBC are more liberal news channels and FoxNews is a conservative news channel. I feel that other news channels that are somewhat smaller and less regularly watched are more inclined to be objective. News channels know who their audiences are and I think they tend to color their reports after what their audience would like most to hear.


2. How does talk radio (Rush Limbaugh, Air America, etc.) affect your view of politics?  Why?

I never listen to the radio at all, so talk radio has absolutely no affect on my political views at all. I don't know anyone else who listens to talk radio either. I suppose I'm just too young, and missed the radio frenzy. But I don't think even my grandparents listen to talk radio. So I'm not sure how talk radio really affects anyone's beliefs. I do hear jokes and things from both the left and right about Rush Limbaugh and other political talk radio hosts, so if anything I'd say people listen to talk radio to reaffirm beliefs they already hold rather than to learn more about politics.


3. Is media objectivity important?  Why or why not?

Media objectivity is definitely important. The job of the media is to inform the public on current events and issues, not decide what we believe. When the media presents a report that leans to either the right or left, I feel it is attempting to sway the public in that direction and that's not what they exist to do. Sometimes I feel that the media takes its power and position in society a little to far in that respect. They should only report objective news, rather than trying to sway people toward different beliefs.

Chapter 6

Is American news media too dependent upon polls?  Is it appropriate for news agencies to create polls and then report on them?  Why or why not?

I think the American news media may be a little too dependent on polls. While polls are a great way to let the public know how current situations stand, I think the focus should be less on poll results and more on simply reporting the news. I would rather watch the news and learn about the economic and social issues that are currently pressing, not hear about how the president or other public figure is up or down in the polls.  If we don't know anything about our present problems and how they're being handled we can't make very educated votes anyway. On the other hand, I feel that it's okay for news agencies to create and report on their own polls because it's a good way to get people involved and let their opinions be known; polls just shouldn't be the main focus.

2. How important is political party identification to you (e.g. as a Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, etc.)?  Was it more or less important to your parents & grandparents?  Does it seem more or less important to your friends?  Why or why not?

Political party identification is not very important to me at all. I have never really been interested in politics and when someone says they're conservative or liberal the only things that come to mind to me are balding men in bad suits and hipster teenagers, respectively. I realize that's silly, but I'd rather just hear what someones view is without giving it a political label. Party identification seems more important to my parents, because it seems to set the climate of the conversation whenever the news is brought up. If they are speaking with another conservative, they become president bashing comrades. If they're are speaking to a liberal, the conversation becomes very stilted and awkward as my parents are not the arguing type. As for my friends, I have no idea what any of their political views are. It just never comes up. What that says about the lot of us, I'm not sure.

3. Do you feel that your opinion of politics is more influenced by economic issues or by social issues?  Why?

What little opinion I have about politics is mostly fueled by social issues. I'm ten times more likely to take up arms for my gay friends than to join the current protests about "evil" corporations and the economy. I work retail so I hear complaints about the economy daily, but I tend to ignore it. No one is saying anything other than the same tired old things they've been saying since 2008. I'm much more interested in the fact that my conservative minded workplace is trying to make my coworker take out his earrings. I suppose I'm more passionate about people than finances.  People are more exciting to watch and learn about than the economy yo-yo.

Chapter 5

 1. The issue of race - does the government do too little or too much to reduce the instances of racial discrimination?  Why or how so?

When it comes to race, I think the government hasn't really done either too much or too little, they've simply done all they can do. The government didn't cause racial discrimination, so there is only so much they can do to fix it. Society itself is the problem, and we must find a solution ourselves. Racial discrimination will never go away entirely, but we should all work together to try to phase it out and do all that we can to promote equality.

2. The issues of gender and sexual orientation-

When it comes to gender and sexual orientation, I feel that there is more that could be done by the government to reduce discrimination. In these areas, I feel like the government itself discriminates and it sets a bad example for the rest of us. For example, whenever you see a woman in politics it's usually a plain, boring lady that everyone pretends to listen to but turns around and makes fun of directly after; i.e. Sarah Palin or Hilary Clinton. The government discriminates against gays and lesbians simply by denying them the right to marry. What reason could they possibly have for denying any two individuals the right to legally announce their love?

Chapter 3

1. Is a strong national government necessary or should the state governments have an equal share of power?  Why?

I think a strong national government is necessary to keep the country unified. If all the state governments had an equal share of power with a weak or nonexistent national government, I think the nation as a whole would be much weaker. Each individual state would be more likely to simply look out for its own interests and there would be more conflicts between them. A strong national government could act as a mediator and final decision maker. The state governments, however, do need to be strong enough to challenge the national government in order for it not to assume full and absolute control.

2. National power increased during the Great Depression but then power began to shift back to the states (somewhat) during the Reagan administration?  Why did that happen and is that shift appropriate?

The shift from national power to state power happened because Reagan, as a Republican, believed that power should reside more with the states than the national government. During the Great Depression, the people needed a strong national government because no one knew what to do. During Reagan's administration there was more stability and the strength of the national government was no longer needed. The states would be more effective in handling their finances according to their needs than the national government. I think it was a good move because it took a bit of burden off the national government, and gave the states more independence.

3. Education stirs much discussion relating to the issue of federalism.  Should the national government regulate education or is it a matter best left to state and local governments?  Why?

I think education is better left to state and local governments because state and local governments are better connected to the needs of its citizens. The national government should set some kind of standard, of course, but it should be up to the state and local governments to decide how to reach that standard. If the national government was to regulate education, I feel like it would struggle more than if the power was with the state. There is no way the national government could manage all of the different needs of fifty different states on its own. And with so many states to manage, it would take longer for each state to get the help it needs. Education is better left to the states themselves. 

Chapter 2

The Articles of Confederation and the Constitution

The shift from the Articles of Confederation to a Constitution was extremely important because it established a United States rather than the united States. That lower case 'u' was a huge detriment to our progress as a nation. Until the Constitution was ratified, the US was more like several small countries that had allied themselves together. Under the Articles of Confederation, an individual state operated mostly independently which could have been a tremendous problem for a brand new country. States would have been too busy with issues amongst themselves to even worry about foreign problems, which would have left us very vulnerable to outside pressure. The Constitution brought stability to the US as a new country, and the nation looked stronger when it presented a united front. Bonding together as one country was also beneficial to each state as the Revolution had left lingering problems, such as a large debt that wasn't getting paid. Coming together and forming blanket rules and procedures for each State brought solutions to these problems that wouldn't have gotten solved with each squabbling over their own individual rules. A United States was a much better choice for out brand new nation than a united States.

The Bill of Rights

The Bill of Rights is critical to the American people because it is what protects the individual, rather than just the nation as a whole. While most rules are established for the good of everyone, these ten rules are what allow us to be actual individuals, separate from one another. Without the Bill of Rights the American people would be like a colony of insects, always doing what is best for the hive rather than thinking of ourselves. That's not inherently bad, but I think that what allows the country to thrive and flourish rather than just maintaining a stable existence is the individuality of our nation's people.

The Death Penalty

I don't think that capital punishment is unconstitutional at all. The 8th Amendment prohibits "cruel and unusual" punishments, but putting people to death for certain crimes has been the norm for thousands of years. That being said, taking a person's life is not something that should be treated lightly. There should be absolute proof and no doubt whatsoever of a person's guilt if they are going to be sentenced to death. I feel that the 5th and 14th Amendments are there protect citizens from being unjustly put to death, and that the 8th Amendment ensures that it will be handled in as civilized a manner as possible. To me, the Constitution does not prohibit the death penalty, it just keeps us from becoming barbarians. Maybe its writers intended for it to be ambiguous just so we wouldn't end a person's life on an emotional whim.

Chapter 1

1. Do you think Americans take the idea of democracy for granted?

I think Americans often do take democracy for granted. I work at a department store and one of people's favorite things to complain about is the government and how it only wants their money. We have more rights and freedoms here than a lot of other countries yet these people want to rant for ten minutes about their increased electric bill because of the "government monopoly" on everything. So, change it. Democracy is supposed to be about the people and their needs. We have a government ruled "by the people, for the people."  And if we believe our government to be corrupt, we have a duty to "overthrow it," not necessarily by physical force but by allowing our voices and beliefs to be heard. If we truly disagree with something, we have the luxury of being able to change it, but there is a large percentage of people who don't even bother to vote.

2. Why is separation of powers so crucial?

Separation of powers is so important because it keeps our democracy intact. By employing a system of checks and balances, the powers among the three branches are kept equal. No one branch has more power than another, and each branch does a different job. This is crucial because it means that no one branch can stand on its own. Each is dependent upon the others. 

3.Political ideology: Which am I and why?

I really have no idea where I fall on a political scale. Whenever I watch the news or a political debate, I usually just walk away feeling confused. If I had to choose, I guess I would go with Moderate. Both the left and right wings have their good ideas and bad ideas. I fully support gay marriage, but not affirmative action. I believe in the right to bear arms, but I think we should be looking for alternate sources of energy. Neither liberals or conservatives are completely right or completely wrong. I'm hoping that this class will teach me more about politics and help me choose a political belief.