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. 
 

How do Individuals and Groups of People Influence the Political Process?

I would have and have said that individuals and groups of people have a great deal of influence in the political process.  After reading chapter 5, "Political Participation: Parties, Elections, and Movements", in the book, The Politics of Power, the authors write about how the Parties came about and how the elections work.  Also, they write about the amount of money that goes into the elections and how really, it is the people who contribute money to campaigns and candidates that really have the say.  The authors write, "[C]andidates are more responsive to wealthy donors and current voters than they are to non-voters.  They receive a better return on their scarce resources by investing in voters who tend to have strong partisan feelings and are likely to vote than those who are not.  I do understand why this would happen.  It would be a "waste" of "their" time to spend time and focus on low income and non voters. They do not have anything to contribute, as far as the politicians are concerned.  So unfortunate that, that is the way the world works.  I think that it is also interesting and sad that greed can get you so much in America.
After reading this chapter it was clear that we have a say if we have money and can buy our way in. 

In What Ways Does Public Opinion Influence the Formation of a Democratic Society?

I believe that public opinion influences the formation of a democratic society almost completely.  We vote, we can talk to our state representatives if we do not agree with what they are doing, have protests, strikes, all kinds of things to influence what the government is doing.  It takes the people to make the democratic society and the book, The Politics of Power by authors, Katznelson, Kesselman, and Draper express that in chapter 4 of their book.  In this chapter they discuss the many ways that the public influences the formation of a democratic society. When speaking about polls, the authors state, "[A] great deal of evidence shows that the views Americans hold about particular sets of issues come in coherent bundles.  Issues about which individuals have preferences-taxes, social welfare, fiscal policy, and the environment-tend to line up together as choices about weather the federal government should do more, or less"(Katzneslon, Kesselman, Draper, 81).  They talk about the polls that are done and how most Americans make informed choices, about how race and religion play a factor, about capitalism, and about the differing views of liberals and conservatives.  When the authors write about the differing vies of liberals and conservatives, they write, "Americans may know a little or a lot about any particular area, but they tend to have clear and coherent thoughts about the scope of what the national government should be doing.  This, of course, is the question that most divides Republicans and conservatives, who tend to favor less activity, from Democrats and liberals, who tend to favor more...When asked directly to choose ideological labels or the general question of whether government should do more of less, more Americans describe themselves as conservatives than as liberals, and a majority consistently say that government is too large, too intrusive, or spends too much.  Yet when Americans are asked specific questions about spending to achieve particular policy goals-environmental beauty, better nutrition for poor children, improved schooling, and the like-some six out of then consistently favor liberal positions"(Katzneslon, Kesselman, Draper, 81-82).   We are a county that is divided on beliefs, but at the end of the day we are all Americans and want our democracy to work.  We just need to stay informed and continue to speak our minds about the issues that are important to us and make sure we stay true to ourselves.  Throughout reading the chapter in the book and pondering on my own thoughts, it has been made clear to me that public opinion is very influential. 

How do government and the private sector intersect? How should they?

Wow, what a question!  First, what is the private sector?  According to businessdictionary.com, the private sector is defined as, "Part of national economy made up of, and resources owned by, private enterprises. It includes the personal sector (households) and corporate sector (firms), and is responsible for allocating most of the resources within an economy"(businessdictionary.com, 2011).  Based on this definition, I would say that they are very intersected.  The economy generally is self maintaining as a whole, but since we have had the sock market dive, the government has become very hands on when it comes to the economy.  In the book, The Politics of Power, the authors wrote a chapter entitled, "The American State and Corporate Capitalism, in this chapter they write, "Capitalism is often described as a system in which production for private profits is organized and coordinated through markets that are free of political direction.  But the free market has always been a fiction.  Markets cannot exist without a government to maintain order, enforce contracts, create currency, and provide a host of other public goods.  Markets require a protective, facilitating political order in order to function"(Katznelson, Kesselman, Draper, 51).  I think that this quote clearly explains that the private sector and government have and are still very intersected.  The two almost go hand in hand it seems.  It seems that the government really became intersected after the Great Depression and the New Deal with President Roosevelt.   In the book that was mentioned above, the authors write, "FDR was not hostile to capitalism but believed that greater management by the federal government was required to save it"(Katznelson, Kesselman, Draper, 59).  He became more hands on with the economy.  After the Depression, the American economy adopted Keynesianism.  The book states that, "For the next four decades, from the 1930's to the 1970's, both Democratic and Republican administrations followed Keynesian prescriptions of economic management"(Katznelson, Kesselman, Draper, 61).  The U.S. continues to use this principal still today, just more "conservative form". 
I think that the government should be intersected with the private sector to some extent.  I do not feel that government officials should have their hand in every cookie jar so to speak, but some government intersection is appropriate.  I do not believe we should have bailed out the corporations and banks that we did to the degree that we did and that if the government continues to do so and continues to be so hands on and overspending, we as Americans and the generations to come are in big trouble.  Even as the book, mentioned above, states in the "Conclusion" portion of the chapter, "...economic inequalities and difficulties created by the model of extreme market capitalism are generating heavy costs for current and future generations of Americans",( Katznelson,Kesselman, Draper, 61). 

The role that power plays in government, the ecnomy and politics...

If you look the word power up in dictionary, you will find 16 different definitions.  The 5th and 6th definitions, define power as, "A person, group, or nation having great influence or control over others and
[t]he might of a nation, political organization or similar group"(The American Heritage College dictionary, 1072).  Power in my opinion is what most people seek, weather it be in their daily life or in the working world.  The problem with power though is it can lead to greed and treating other very unfairly!  In the book, The Politics of Power, the authors tell a story on page 32 about corporate capitalism that you would hope to be false and the sad reality is, the story is all facts.  A little of what they say is as follows, "Suppose it was learned that a small group had gained control over vast concentrations of economic resources and political power in the United States.  Imagine that in a country with a population of 270 million people, several thousand Americans-unrepresentative, not democratically chosen, not even known to most people-controlled key aspects of American economic life.  This small group determined what the level of investment would be, where investment would occur, what would be produced, and how production would be organized." The authors go on to state, "[T]hey based their decisions not on what the country needed but on what would be most profitable for them.  This small group used its vast wealth to buy private islands in the Caribbean,drive luxury cars, and live in stately homes in various cities and fashionable vacation spots.  At the same time, tens of millions of other Americans could not afford to obtain medical care, pay the rent, care for their kids, or put food on the table (Katznelson, Kesselman, Draper, 32).  This is not right and it is true!!!  Now I am not in favor of a socialist government, however there is something wrong with this picture!  Power comes into play in ever aspect of the world today. 
Power plays such a huge role in the government, the economy and politics today.  I was shocked to read how much power does actually play a role.  It seems that power is almost like a disease that has infected all three.  I am most shocked about how much power plays in our economy.  Again in the book, The Power of Politics, the authors write that, "The total corporate revenues of this group [Fortune 500] of giant corporations were $6.3 trillion in 1999, accounting for over half the gross domestic product (GDP) of the entire American economy and employing about one-seventh of the American workforce" (Katznelson, Kesselman, Draper, 33).  The corporations make or break our economy.  We have so much invested in them and don't have much of a say as to how they manage and run their businesses.  In the book the authors say that most of these companies have stocks, most of the CEO and executives own stock, so they are shareholders of the company and the boards are run by the shareholders, so basically the company insiders run the company and have the say so, there are not really any outsiders who have the authority to make any decisions.  We as Americans are left to see what this small group decides to do with their companies and reap what they sow,so to speak. Something that I thought was interesting in the book was on page 37 when the authors are writing about corporate executives, they write, "Many corporate executives come from upper-class families, attend the most selective colleges, are graduates of either business or law school or both, and are generally white and male, although there has been a small increase in minority members and women within the top ranks of the business elite"(Katznelson, Kesselman, Draper).  In my opinion the bottom line is, if you have a lot of money and a good name, you have power.  You have the power to give money to politicians that can get you more power, the politicians are apart of the government and in turn you fund the government and get that power.  It seems like it is a vicious cycle.  It starts with the corporate executives though.  The Fortune 500 runs the American economy, politics and in turn government in my opinion. 

Opportunities and Challenges of a democracy...

The fact that all Americans, age 18 and older, have a say in what happens with our government is both, in my opinion, an opportunity and a challenge.  It is an opportunity because you can make your points of view known and have a voice in what may be happening in our government at a particular time.  In America, I think it is wonderful that we have town meetings and can get together as a society and speak about the issues at hand with our state representatives there.  I think it is such an opportunity to have a voice when it comes to election time and with the state amendments, weather they pass or not; we as Americans are very fortunate to have that right.  As the book, The Politics of Power states "When we judge American democracy, we have to start with the rights, institutions, and procedures that enable individuals and groups to make their views known and fairly select their leaders and public officials.  These include civil liberties and civil rights, including freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, freedom of the press, and the absence of discriminatory barriers to participation.  Without such procedural guarantees, it is extraordinarily difficult for people to formulate and express their interests"(Katznelson, Kesselman, Draper, 11).  Where this may be true, I think that some of our civil rights contribute to the challenges of our democracy.  Having a freedom of speech is wonderful and I think we are of course all entitled to our feelings and have a right to voice them on the one hand, I think there is a time and place to do so.  I think when it becomes a challenge is when you have protesters, protesting at inappropriate times, i.e. a military funeral service.  Similarly, the press should have the right to report on whatever they feel is important to report on, i.e. the Arizona tragedy, if they get their facts straight and are not using blood libel like the article in the Wall Street Journal entitled, The Arizona Tragedy, and the Politics of Blood Libel by Glenn Harlan Reynolds wrote about.  In his article he writes about other times when blood libel was used, one in particular was the Time Square Bomber when he writes, "Likewise, last May New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg and CBS anchor Katie Couric speculated, without any evidence, that the Times Square bomber might be a tea partier upset with the ObamaCare bill" (Reynolds, 2011).  If the mayor of New York or Katie Couric did not have evidence that the bomber was apart of the tea party or that, that was why he was wanting to bomb Time Square, they should not have reported that, doing so in my opinion is just stirring up trouble and hate for that particular party. 
Another challenge that the democracy has is being true to the civil rights and liberties that it set up in the beginning.  Again in the book Politics of Power, the authors argue that, "It [democracy] must be evaluated based on how they actually work; that is, by substantive as well as procedural democracy" (Katznelson, Kesselman, Draper, 8).  I think this is so true, democracy must be evaluated as a whole and if the democracy is not being true to the civil liberties and rights of Americans, then the democracy is not working.  Another challenge that our democracy faces is the inequalities in class and race.  Still today we have such problems with this and we must do something to change this.  In the book Politics of Power, the authors write about the inequalities with the Titanic ship and the way the poor were treated and the inequalities they still face.  In the book the authors state, "The substance of democracy, moreover, is also deeply affected when the democratic features of American government are combined with deep inequalities, and when the unequal distribution of wealth and prospects between first-class passengers and those in steerage affects their ability to influence public policy" (Katznelson, Kesselman, Draper, 8-9).  In this quote the authors are witing about the Titanic.  In contrast, America in my opinion, offers a wealth of opportunity to make your life better and become who you want to be and offers many resources to do so. 
Democracy is tough and there are many opportunities and challenges that we as Americans face.  We all just need to keep doing what we can to make sure that we, as a nation, maintain our democracy. 

Hello!

Hello all!
I am exceited to get this blog going and get some input!  Can't wait to see what the semester holds.  I am hoping to stay true to the name of my blog, which is to Research the topics, give my Opinion of course, get a Synthesis of the topic and Engage you.  Hope I can do it!