What is the Future of Democracy? Is it a Realistic Option?

I think the future of our democracy is going to be positive if we all as Americans take a stand again for what we believe in.  Where we all have a common goal like the "Founding Father's" did.  They had a passion that I think we are lacking now.  It is sad to see what has happening to our nation, we have a deficit that is almost unpayable and have our priorities mixed up.  We value money more than anything and have become incredibly materialistic and selfish.  We need to get back to our core values and I think we will be fine.  I think that if enough people believe that, we are gong to be just fine.  We just need to make some drastic changes.  We can do it!  I believe in all of us!

What is the Process to Develop an Economic Policy that Provides Services and Sustainability?

This is a tough question and I think that opinion varies quite a bit on this topic. The process to develop an economic policy that provides services and sustainability I think is one that has more of the people's influence rather than the government controlling everything. The government should have some control I think because they should make sure that the policy is being followed, but its tough to say how it should be done.  
This is what I used to think, however, after reading the chapter in The Politics of Power by Katznelson, Kesselman and Draper entitled Economic Policy, I feel differently.  I think that the government should control more of our economy than I once thought and I found that our economy is not really controlled very much by our government, it is one of the most loosely controlled as a matter of fact.  In this chapter, the authors state, "...[F]requent complaints about "big government",the size of the public sector in the United States is actually quite small when viewed comparatively...For example the tax burden on American citizens is actually quite light compared to other advanced industrial countries.  No advanced industrialized country collects a lower proportion of its GDP in the form of taxes than the United States"(Katznelson, Kesselman, Draper, 298).  I always felt like our government was so over involved in everything and that is just not the case.  Really, the government should be more involved in some aspects and even though we as an American society are used to the way things have been, we should be taxed more and have more regulation.  It's hard to say.  After reading this chapter, I also realized what went into making an economic policy.  Taxes are considered, fiscal policy is considered, many things...also, the budget is something that is hard to figure out.  For example right now, our government was about to shut down because they could not agree on the budget and how money should be spent.  It is tough to decide on an economic policy let alone develop one that provides services and sustainability.  In the conclusion of this chapter, the authors state, "Economic policy sets the balance between markets and government.  What is so remarkable about this in the United States is the degree to which markets are granted wide latitude at the expense of government to determine who gets what and how much"(Katznelson, Kesselman, Draper, 317).  So I am not sure how to answer the question.  I think that the government just needs to have more involvement and that the government needs regulate our economy in a better way  We need to cut spending on welfare I think and help more at home than abroad, probably tax us more, even though we don't want that...it is hard to please us all. 

How Does a Government Facilitate Comprehensive Care for its Constituents Without Sacraficing Equity?

I think this question can be debatable.  Everyone has an opinion about welfare and how we should help and what role the government should have.  I think that the government is on track.  We already tax every one in America, no matter your economic status.  Anyone who makes money is taxed on that money, or should be anyway, and the government uses tax money to pay for the programs.  That is the most fair way to do it.  At one point Clinton wanted to do away with welfare because it cost so much money, but that obviously did not happen.  Instead he signed the "Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996.  This legislation created a new welfare program.  Temporary Assistance to Needy Families, to help impoverished children and their families.  TANF replaced the old welfare program, Aid to Families with Dependent Children, and marked a radical shift in welfare policy....The new law set a limit of two years on welfare, after which recipients must work, and set a lifetime limit of five years during which recipients may receive welfare" (Katznelson, Kellelman, Draper, 267-268).  I think that this is very fair.  What I also like about this law is that the government gives each state a lump sum of money to use and when it is gone, it is gone.  Therefore, we are not overspending on welfare.  The only thing I don't agree with is that sometimes it seems that we spend more money on other countries, helping their sick, poor, homeless, etc citizens, and not as much on our own.  I think that for the most part though, the way that our government has things set now, are fair and don't need a lot of re-working.

How Should a Nation-State Develop its Foreign Policy in Accordance to its Values and in Connection to the Development of its Domestic Policy?

Wow!  What a question!  For me I had to first say, "OK, what is a nation-state, what is a foreign policy and what is a domestic policy"?  A nation-state is just a country, USA, Canada, England, etc., a foreign policy is how you engage with other nation-states and a domestic policy is how you engage in your own nation-state.  With that being said, it is clear to me that a foreign policy and domestic policy are very interconnected.  They both effect the other a great deal.  When engaging in a foreign policy, the values, goals, benefits, must be in accordance with the values, etc. as yours.  A nation-state would want to know, is this good for us economically, politically, military wise; how is this going to effect us.  "Ever since the establishment of the United States in the 18th century, American political leaders have consciously crafted domestic and foreign policies to achieve and maintain a favorable position in the global political economy.  In other words, American economic, military, and political dominance has not just happened; it has been made to happen" (Katznelson, Kesselman, Draper, 241).  Foreign policy and domestic policy is not set in concrete, they can change the policy if a circumstance arises and "after World War II, the United States adopted a far more activist foreign policy, a response to the decline of the major European powers, the challenge to the United States posed by the Soviet Union-a political and ideological rival-and the fear of American officials that global instability might produce a resumption of the destructive 1930s economic depression" (Katznelson, Kesselman, Draper, 243).  As America became a more powerful nation, and we started to expand, we had to take into consideration more about how our policies and how we and others would be affected.  According to the authors of The Politics of Power, "American expansion abroad has taken two major forms: economic penetration by multinational corporations into Europe and the developing world, and political and military influence exercised by the American government.  The two are distinct, yet intertwined, and each has contributed to advancing the other" (Katznelson, Kesselman, Draper, 246).  This again is just a reference to how intertwined they are.
In all, foreign policy and domestic policy are very interconnected and a nation-states values depend heavily on one another. 

What Role do Judges and the Judicial System Play in Supporting Freedom?

I think that this is a good question.  Judges and the Judicial System play a big role in supporting freedom I think.  They are the backbone for supporting our freedoms as Americans.  This branch of government in my opinion hold more power than we give them credit for.  They are the ones who abide by and enforce the laws of America.  They are also the most fair I would say.  They do not run for office so it isn't as quite of a political act, per say as the other branches.  They are not making promises to someone or campaigning to get into office.  As I stated before, I think this is the most fair of all the branches, for example in the book, The Politics of Power, the authors state,  "While the justice system may protect inequalities, a formal framework of rights and procedures also creates tangible resources that ordinary people can draw upon to make claims upon the rich and the powerful.  It also sets limits on what the rich and the powerful may do.  They cannot simply assert their naked power but must abide by the limits of the law.  The law may suit them, but they are its willing or unwilling prisoners as well.  Even presidents can be penalized for violating the law, as when President Richard Nixon was induced to resign in the aftermath of Watergate" (Katznelson, Kesselman, Draper, 206).  To me it is refreshing that people with power and money cannot just pay their way to get what they want.  The law is the law and I think that is great.  So all in all, I think that the judges and the judicial system play a huge role in supporting freedom.
 

How Does the U.S. Congress, as it Exists in its Current Structure, Support and or Limit Authentic Representation?

To be honest, I did not really know how to answer this question.  I do not really know very much about the Congress, other than there are two different houses, the Senate and the House of Representatives. I know that we elect them and they are supposed to represent each state. I thought that they gave an authentic representation, but after reading more about it, I think they more so limit authentic representation. 
In The Politics of Power, the authors pretty much spell it out for you in the first two pages of chapter 7 of their book.  In the beginning of the chapter, they talk about Woodrow Wilson and how he felt about congress, he believed, "that unquestionably, the predominant and controlling force, the center and source of all motive and regulative power, is Congress." "Rather than applaud this situation, Wilson was suspicious of congressional power" the authors write. They go on to say, "Congress, he concluded, was too unwieldy, too unpredictable, and too interested in patronage and spending to produce good government" (Katznelson, Kesselman, Draper, 169).  Further down the page, the authors go on to say, "Americans consistently express less confidence in Congress than in either the presidency or the Supreme Court.  While confidence in all political institutions has declined, non is as low in public esteem as Congress."  The authors then quote Political scientists John Hibbing and Elizabeth Theiss-Morse who argue, "that the public's contempt for Congress is not a reaction to the policies it adopts but to the procedures Congress uses to arrive at them.  Congress is perceived as inefficient, loaded with staffers, committees and perquisites that suit the selfish needs of members of Congress but do little to meet the needs of the country" (Katznelson, Kesselman, Draper, 169).   Further they state that, "The public lacks respect for Congress because it is perceived as captured by special interests who contribute to congressional campaigns, employ lobbyists to influence legislation, and enjoy special access to its members" (Katznelson, Kellelman, Draper, 169-170).  It is interesting to find out how much Congress is untrusted and how many people are involved in helping Congress out.  It seems that Congress is not really as interested in helping out the country as they are in getting what they need and want. 
The authors go on to say however that, "On the one hand, Congress is the most open and accessible of the three branches of the federal government.  As a result, it reflects and represents public opinion well.  Members of Congress have to be alert to shifts in the public mood because their jobs depend on it.  This means that Congress is often responsive to pressures from less privileged groups because, according to Elizabeth Sanders, its members are "bound to local constituencies," making them "exquisitely sensitive to the economic pain and moral outrage of their electorates", (Katznelson, Kellelman, Draper, 170).  So to me this makes me feel like even though they want to be selfish and have definitely said one thing to get elected to office and then do something completely different, if they don't to some extent listen to the public their job and power are on the line.  The downfall to the Congress being so easily accessible though is that the wealthy can get to them easier and pay them to get their points across.  Now to me this is not too bad because I do feel that if they are supporting them, then they should get something out of it as well.  The authors write, "On the other hand, Congress's openness also makes it easier for the most privileged to exert influence within it.  They are best positioned to take advantage of Congress's accessibility.  The wealthy are more likely to vote, contact their senator or representative, donate money, and belong to interest groups" (Katznelson, Kellelman, Draper, 170).  To me it seems fine that the Congress does represent the wealthy to some extent, they are very involved in politics, weather it be for selfish reasons or not, the wealthy help support the government. 
So all in all, for the most part it seems to me that the Congress limits the authentic representation based on its current structure.
    

In What Ways Does the U.S. Presidency Support and Limit the Formation of an Ideal Democracy?

This is a tough question.  I know that we have to have a president in order to be a democracy, however he can both support and limit the formation of an ideal democracy.  After reading chapter six, "The Presidency: Imperial or Imperiled? in the book The Politics of Power, that I have mentioned throughout my blog, made me realize that he can limit it more than support it.   When a new president is elected to office, he can change what the previous president worked hard on, and it seemed that the president puts his interests and personality in the White House and wants what he wants.  I think it also seemed that even though he is supposed to be the voice of the people because he is elected by the country, he doesn't always do that and can change is goals once he is elected.  I also found it interesting that presidents have "rewards they can dispense in order to obtain compliance with their policies.  For example, they have patronage, including judgeships and ambassadorships, and benefits, such as invitations to the White House, with which to repay loyal supporters and persuade holdouts who may need more convincing.  They can strike bargains by offering inducements to members of Congress in return for votes" (Katznelson, Kesselman, Draper, 146).
I know that we could not have a democracy without a president and I think that he can support it, but I think that money and power has become so important to them.  I think that at one time they supported an ideal democracy when our "Founding Father's"  first wanted to have a president and a democracy rather than a monarchy.  I like how at the end of the chapter the authors write, "Presidents are at the center of government and attempt-not always successfully-to motor and direct it as well.  Presidents attempt to provide initiative and coherence to the federal government as it pursues and protects the interests of corporate capitalism abroad, defines and promotes capital's interests at home, and engages in social control to cope with the dislocations that its policies int he first two arena produce"(Katznelson, Kesselman, Draper, 167).
The bottom line, is that the president tries to do the best he can in my opinion and has a hard job, probably the hardest job ever.  Not everyone is going to be satisfied and never will be.  I think in the president wants to support the formation of an ideal democracy, but in doing so limits it.