Chapter 14

The Supreme Court is the most demographically varied presently than it has ever been in our history. Three women, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor, make up the largest group of women to be on the Supreme court at the same time. Every one of the justices have attended either Yale or Harvard to get their degrees. One of the justices, Clarence Thomas had one of the most interesting confirmation hearings. As the child of a politically minded father, I remember watching his confirmation hearings, where he was accused of sexual harassment by Anita Hill. Since his confirmation, he has consistently been the most conservative justice on the court. His views are considered textualist, which means that he has a view that the Constitution is to be considered not for its intent, but rather by the words it specifically says. This is kind of ironic, in that Clarence Thomas is a black man, whose value, according to the original, unchanged Constitution, was only 3/5 of that of a white man, and he would have no power in society under the original document. But I digress. He has mostly written in dissent on cases wherein the federal government’s power is expanded, and has supported federalist notions of state’s rights. I am not fond of the “state’s right” argument, as it has a clear flaw. If a state is a better judge of the will of the people, as goes the argument, than the federal government, due to it’s size, then why stop at the arbitrary point of state? Why aren’t counties more representative of that which is best for the people? Why aren’t cities even more so? Ultimately, why isn’t the individual best suited to determine what works best for his or herself? While I agree with the last notion, that the individual trumps all, I acknowledge that society can’t function that way. As such, we must have a government removed from the people, to protect the individual from the mass of people.

Judicial Review is an important and necessary element of government. As stated in the previous paragraph, sometimes it is necessary for an independent body to review things in hopes of best representing the individual. Often, the mass of people become shortsighted, incapable of seeing when they are imposing their own values onto others. This is why it is necessary for judicial review of legislation which originates with the purpose of doing harm to a certain group’s interests, particularly when those people are in the minority.Today, critics refer to judicial review as “legislating from the bench”, but it is a necessary restriction on over active legislatures and people.

The Constitution has to be viewed as a living document in my opinion. The document was written at a time when black people were slaves, women were property, and technology was significantly less advanced. Considering this, how could the framers have understood where our society would go? Our moral standards evolve over time,and thus, so should our understanding of the role of the Constitution. If the strict view of the Constitution were to hold, many of the advances characteristic of western development would have never came about.

I commented on Dara Cates, Meagan Zientara and Jeremy Weaver

Chapter 13

The Food and Drug Administration is a valuable and indispensable agency that protects the health and safety of the American citizens. Prior to the creation of the FDA, there were few regulations regarding what types of drugs companies could market, the efficacy of said drugs, and what food companies could put into the food. Now there are regulations regarding such things. In the past, meat companies would routinely grind up whatever animals, including rats,into the meat, and there were no regulations. Today, this type of behavior is restricted, and the safety of the American people has been protected from companies wanting to cut corners to make a fast buck.

The agency that could be terminated (and needs to be), with the least impact would be the Department of Homeland Security. Arising from a need to harmonize communication between the intelligence agencies, the Department of Homeland Security only adds another level of bureaucracy to the process. The intelligence agencies aren’t inherently incapable of working together, and an extra department only seems superfluous. What could have been accomplished through legislation, namely the ability to share information between agencies, instead became a beast of a department.

Honestly, no other agencies are needed. One of the impediments to smooth governmental operation is the extremely dense bureaucracy. I don’t think that adding new agencies is always the answer, when sometimes it would be simpler and more efficient to accomplish something within a more streamlined government.

I commented on Dara Cates, Nick Buttram and Jordan Chambers

Chapter 12

The qualities essential for a great president are, in essence, the same thing that makes for greatness in any person. One of the qualities is the ability to make decisions that are unpopular, doing that which is right despite popular opinion. Many think that making people happy is the way a president shows greatness, but often times, the people are wrong, and thus it takes going against the populous to do something great. Another quality that is important, and one that is lacking in any modern politicians, is a genuine desire to do what is right for the country, as opposed to doing what is right for your party, your donors, or yourself. I would say that the terms that come to mind when I think of a great president, I think of words like “independence”, “honesty”, “bravery”, “fortitude” and “compassion”.

I would say that two of the greatest presidents we have had are two forward looking men from the same family, Teddy Roosevelt and Franklin Roosevelt. Teddy Roosevelt used the power of his office to break up corporations that posed a threat to the market due to their monopolistic nature, and using anti-trust laws broke these corporations into smaller, disentangled entities. He also put an end to medical quackery with the Pure Food and Drug Act, which ensured that all products reaching the populous met a certain standard. Franklin Roosevelt took many actions in his presidency, which came after the collapse of the global market that was the Great Depression. He had to go to extraordinary lengths to try and stabilize an economy in free fall, and had to make sure the most vulnerable of our citizens survived. After the presidency of Herbert Hoover, where Hoover sat back and watched as the market failed to correct itself, Roosevelt took the necessary actions to rebuild a devastated country.

Considering I am a history enthusiast, I cannot say that I am unfamiliar with any president per se. However, one of the presidents with which I wasn’t overly familiar with until recently was Grover Cleveland. He was, what would amount today as, a libertarian (of course that is historically what is known as classical liberalism). He eschewed government involvement in the marketplace, preferred a gold standard, and believed in a non interventionist foreign policy. While I, to, believe in non intervention, I was struck by how, when faced with the Panic of 1893, he stood by and did nothing to help those who suffered from the economic collapse. In another baffling act, he signed the Dawes Act, which took lands held in trust for Native Americans and gave them out to individuals, resulting in land speculators buying the land from poor Indians for next to nothing, doing away with even more of their lands. For these reasons, I think he was far from a great president.

I commented on Meagan Zientara, Jordan Chambers and Nick Buttram

Chapter 11

The Senators that represent Tennessee are Lamar Alexander (R) and Bob Corker (R). The Representatives for Tennessee are Stephen Fincher (R), Marsha Blackburn (R), Steve Cohen (D), Scott DesJarlais (R), Diane Black (R), Chuck Fleischmann (R), Jim Cooper (D), Phil Roe (R), and Jimmy Duncan (R). Two senators, as according to the Constitution, and nine representatives based on proportional representation.

One of our representatives, Stephen Fincher, supports making the IRS report to any citizen in writing any time their tax information was accessed by anyone for any purpose. The notification would have to include the who, what, when, where and why of their files. I think this is actually a great idea. The IRS, having police powers not specifically delegated to them through law, can be used as directed oppression at those with whom a politician disagrees with. The IRS has, at many points in time, been used in a manner so as to try to silence political opponents. This has happened at the hands of politicians from both parties, and it is despicable and underhanded. I am always for more transparency in government, and this would just increase said transparency.

Another of our representatives, Marsha Blackburn, is an advocate for the telecom companies, and an opponent to the Net Neutrality movement, which recently won a major battle when the FCC ruled that ISP’s are considered a utility. Marsha Blackburn has expressed her concern that government regulation would be detrimental to the Internet, showing that she herself is ignorant as to what the issue of Net Neutrality represents. She has used fear mongering to try to convince her constituents that Net Neutrality amounted to a government takeover of the internet (ironic, because it was developed by the government agency DARPA). The telecom companies wish to have the ability to have different access based on how much you pay. This would result in a startup website being unable to compete due to the crushing weight of the big boys, creating the opposite of a free market, something that Blackburn disingenuously says she supports.

I commented on Megan Zientara, Nick Buttram and Amber McKillip

Chapter 10

The decision in Bush v. Gore could not have been more of a travesty than it was. Before I go further, let me say that most of my voting life I have voted for independent candidates, and thus, in 2000, I supported neither candidate involved in the suit. With that being said, it was clearly a partisan fight between both parties. The final vote that halted the recount was 5-4, straight down party lines. The Gore camp wanted the uncounted votes in four districts (heavily Democratic) recounted, and the Bush camp didn’t want a recount (because they only could come up worse). Neither side sought to make sure every vote was counted by recounting the rejected ballots across the state of Florida. Of course the rejected ballots weren’t the only issues in Florida, as that year every American became aware of the flawed butterfly ballot, and the random purging of voters based on their felony record (which many purged voters did not have). 2000 probably destroyed my faith in the electoral process in this country. Of course good candidates fail to surface because of the campaign finance issue. Money is politics, and our elections are bought and sold long before the votes are counted. We only get to hear about or vote for candidates that have been funded by corporations, wealthy investors and special interests. This money doesn’t back candidates who are “the best”, but those who are the most sympathetic to the donors. If campaigns are paid for by donations from the extremely wealthy, why would the candidates be interested in making sure the interests of the average American are represented? If Americans actually want a government that is representative of their interests, then all elections should be publicly funded. This, to my estimation, is the only way to ensure the average voter’s interests are represented. I think voter apathy is high because of the aforementioned problems. Voters, too, see little difference in the two political parties. Despite all of the vitriol, no matter which side wins, the country will be governed in a center-right manner. For those of you who may think this is ridiculous: https://www.politicalcompass.org/uselection2012 This is the Political compass test, where the traditional left/right paradigm is replaced with a two axis grid, where the horizontal represents left/right economics, and the vertical represents authoritarian/libertarian ideas on social issues. I advise people to take this test by clicking the “take the test” tab in the upper left corner. Most people, when taking this test, find themselves underrepresented by the two party political system. When confronted with voting for “the lesser of two evils”, some, including myself, might ask “why vote for an evil at all?”

I commented on Adrian Arthurs, Data Cates and Jordan Chambers.

Chapter 9

I do not overly identify with one specific party over the other. This is, in part, due to the fact that I am not a “joiner”, the type of person who feels comfortable with letting others’ opinions represent, or take place of, my own. Another factor is that I have little appreciation for the types of people who spout political talking points as if they were gospel truths. I am very critical of the two party system. I find it to be a cancer that is destroying the health of this nation. All of this is not to say that I do not have stances on issues. I have some beliefs that align more closely with the Republican party (particularly gun rights), but more that align with the Democratic party (economic issues, civil rights). I am one of those people who are not represented well by the two party system, and perhaps would align more closely with a third party.

To postulate on an America without political parties is akin to arguing whether Spiderman could beat Batman in a fight. It is an unnecessary exercise in fantasy. I think we do not need political parties, anymore than one “needs” a terminal illness. Political parties serve to act as a system of control, kept in place by special interests and wealthy donors, actively working against the best interests of the country. This isn’t to say that nothing of value is done through the political party system, but the detriment overshadows any benefit. The problem with a non party system is that funding for national campaigns, and to a lesser extent state races, are expensive, and public funding of races would be necessary to supplement the funding brought by the party system. This is unlikely, seeing as how many Americans are opposed to doing anything for the good of society if it requires sacrifice.

I have a mixture of three parties, some of which would seem incongruous to some people. I used to identify as a Libertarian, and went through all of the literature “necessary” to libertarians (Mises, Rothbard, Hayek, Rand), and immersed myself fully. Only after examination of the economic policies did I find that the separation between reality and the ideal economic model of the Libertarians is too vast to ignore. I do, however, still have a lot of libertarian leanings, such as a belief in the repeal of drug laws and non interventionist foreign policy. The Green party represents what I believe is needed economically, with a focus on eliminating the juggernaut-like effect of money on the oppression of others. I have little desire to create a “fair” system, as I believe fairness is in the realm of fantasy where Spiderman and Batman roam, but I do think the power of the wealthiest needs to be diminished, and as such, I think some redistribution of wealth is necessary. The Socialist party’s stance on reform of the prison-industrial complex and the elimination of corporate welfare aligns with my beliefs. Plus, if you join the Socialist party, I think they give you a free Che Guevara shirt upon entrance.

I commented on Dara Cates, Adrian Arthurs and Nick Buttram

Chapter 8

As an education major, one of the groups that appeal to me is the NEA, or National Education Association. This group seeks to have an effect on public policy regarding education in America. With the state of education in this country being abysmal, I think their mission is important to the future success of the nation. Along with their political action, they also serve as a tool for educators to learn from. Some of the issues they are behind is reducing the cost of college education, increasing funding for education, protecting teachers, and pushing for standards in education. I think these things are of utmost importance. In 2014, the debt that students have taken on to further their education has topped 1 trillion dollars, more than any other country in the world. This crippling debt has mounted without yielding much benefit, despite the fact that many western European countries have begun thinking of college education as universally needed, and have made it accessible to everyone in the same way K-12 is in the USA.

One group that I associate positively with is the Secular Coalition of America. This group, made up of various religious and non-religious people, are an advocacy group that act on behalf of those that think that religion and government should be independent from one another. Some of the issues they address are discrimination that is religiously motivated. Few people realize the number of people yearly who are discriminated against because they profess no religious belief, or a religious belief that differs from the norm. On top of discrimination based on the beliefs of those affected, they also address the undue influence of religion on public policy making. The debate over the use of stem cells to cure diseases, women’s issues, marriage rights, and the use of taxpayer money to further religion, are just a few of the issues they seek to influence.

I believe interest groups serve an important purpose in this country, but in some ways they have too much influence. The Citizens United decision was one of the worst missteps in the history of democracy. The notion that spending unlimited amounts of money to secure political victory for politicians that are friendly amounts to free speech is one of the most laughably transparent power grabs in history. The traditional model of many people gathering together to support issues and influence the political discussion is turned on its head, and with this decision, a handful of billionaires can now purchase politicians, giving the billionaires a status greater than that of the average citizen. I would imagine most people could see how this would be detrimental to democracy.

I commented on Meagan Zientara, Adrian Arthurs and Nick Buttram

Chapter 7

Objectivity in reporting has become increasingly hard to find as of late. Most Americans get their news from a source that only provides for confirmation bias, or the idea that people seek out news outlets that confirm their preconceived notions of things. Because of this, Fox News and MSNBC have become nearly unwatchable, with the prior being a mouthpiece for the Republican party, and the latter being one for the Democratic party. The viewer is to blame for this phenomenon, as it is they who are refusing to demand reliable, objective news sources, and instead desire to be told what to think on every issue under the sun. This has led to a polarization and nastiness unprecedented in our history. What should be simple disagreements over policy are turned into the “Obama is a commie” or “Bush was a Nazi” rhetoric that is neither true nor helpful to solving any problems that we face. For me, I seek out multiple different sources for a story, in hopes that I can discern enough information about a subject that I can decide for myself what it is I think on the subject. I trust none of the major media outlets to provide anything other than a soapbox for politicians to bash each other over the head with slanderous accusations and baseless personal attacks. No thank you.

Talk radio has no effect on my own personal opinions on political issues. I have views that run the gambit from what some would call very liberal to very conservative (a person that believes in the right of people to marry whom they choose and the right of people to bear arms? You simply can’t believe in both, according to the talking heads). The sheer nastiness of talk radio, with its sensationalism and bitterness, serves no purpose other than to enrage people about issues that aren’t worthy of becoming enraged over. People simply want to be mad about something, and people like Rush Limbaugh provide an outlet for their frustration.

Media objectivity is, and should be, important to everyone. The idea that people would allow others to determine how they should feel about any given issue is ridiculous. An informed populace is of utmost importance to the idea of self governance, and as such, if you are willing to give up your opinion to those who would form it for you, you are not worthy of self governance. Objectivity is the only way in which we can ensure that people aren’t being manipulated by the powers that be. A few corporations own most of the media outlets, and they have an interest in politics in that they can get what they want concerning the government more easily if you allow yourself to be swayed to buy what they are selling. Remaining objective, reserving opinion until all the facts are in, this is key to being an informed citizen. If the media don’t allow for this, because of their own political interests, then it slowly destroys the basis of self governance.

I commented on Meagan Zientara, Adrian Arthurs and Nick Buttram

Chapter 6

While it may be necessary to understand what direction the public is heading on a specific issue or series of issues, polling can be detrimental to public opinion. This is particularly true when, through the phrasing of a question, the media tries to sway polling data. The act of asking a question to elicit a response can be manipulated by simply changing the phrasing. An example: When asking the question “should corporations have regulations in place to prevent contamination of water?”, the majority of the public would answer “yes”, but the same question, asked a different way can elicit a much different response. When the same question is asked “should a property owner be able to do with their property as they see fit?”, public opinion will swing to the other direction. Why is this? Because in the first question, the situation is presented as a protection of people, while the second question is phrased to make it sound as if it is a violation of property rights. Another way to mislead the public is for media outlets to conduct polling of their viewers. If you are a democrat, you are more likely to watch MSNBC, and if you are republican, you are more likely to watch Fox. When these outlets conduct polls, they tend to reinforce the beliefs of the viewers instead of reflecting the truth of public opinion. This is referred to as confirmation bias, the tendency to search out news that reinforces, instead of challenging, ones beliefs.

Ideology often drives political party identification. This is of no importance to myself (my political views are in some ways moderate, and others extreme), but it was very important to my parents generation. My father is a die hard republican, voting mostly on the issue of gun control. I find party identification is becoming less and less important with each successive generation. This could be resultant from the two party system, and its inability to truly represent an individual’s political beliefs. My personal beliefs are economically moderate but socially liberal. Having, at one point, subscribing to a libertarian philosophy, I came to understand the potentially repressive economic policies of conservative thought (I could go into great detail, but will instead spare the reader), and thus became more moderate in regards to economics. Socially I, unrestrained by convention, believe in freedom of the individual to live their life as they see fit, as long as they aren’t hurting others. As such, I find few politicians with which I agree, and have no party to turn to as representative of my thoughts.

Politics is influenced alternatively by economics and social issues. In times of relative economic stability, social issues tend to drive politics, whereas economics becomes important when the economy is struggling. This doesn’t hold true in all instances, as recently certain social issues have become pressing issues, despite the economic collapse of 2008. The more one is religious, or the more one is impacted by a certain social issue, the more influential it will be on their voting patterns. In the 1970’s , after the Supreme court decided in Roe v. Wade that abortion should be legal, an energized religious right, powered by Jerry Falwell’s “Moral Majority”, began to take hold of the republican party. This social conservatism has remained to this day, and has altered the republican party since.

I commented on Dara Cates, Nick Buttram, and Meagan Zientara

Chapter 5

The government, in protecting the rights of minorities, has often done too little to ensure their equal treatment under the law. In regards to race, we still see systemic problems that hinder equality. Blacks are statistically more likely to be convicted of crimes, and when charged with identical crimes, blacks are considerably more likely to garner a longer sentence. While many advances toward equality have been made, the last frontier, the justice system, still needs to be evaluated to make society more equal. Many people are unaware of these disparities. one such disparity is in regards to drug sentencing. After the crack epidemic of the 1980’s, laws popped up making the possession and distribution of crack a more serious criminal act than that of cocaine. However, cocaine is the active drug in crack. This disparity reflects the problem in the justice system, wherein a largely “affluent white” drug like cocaine gets one a less harsh sentence than a “poor black” drug like crack, despite the fact that they are essentially the same thing. Though this disparity was corrected recently, with federal sentencing changed to reflect the similarity of the drugs, it illustrates that, even in recent history, black people have had struggles to overcome.

In recent years, the issue of income inequality, specifically the issue of women’s wages being less than men’s, has been a topic of discussion. The statistics haven’t changed much over the last few decades, with women earning around 77 cents to every dollar earned by a man. This is clearly within the realm of things that the government can regulate, as it is well within their powers after the Equal Pay Act of 1963. In 2014, President Obama signed the Lilly Ledbetter Equal Pay Act, which enabled workers to file claims against employers for an extended period of time, when they feel that they are victims of pay discrimination. I feel that if you are doing the same job, you should be compensated the same, despite yourgender. The government should have already secured this.

Gay marriage has been an issue that has only grown over the last decade or so. While strides have been made to provide equality to the LGBT community, like the striking down of sodomy laws, the overturn of “don’t ask, don’t tell”, and so on, the issue of same sex marriage continues to be unresolved in this country. The Supreme Court has taken the issue up, striking down part of the provisions of the Defense of Marriage Act, but have yet to rule on the constitutional issue of marriage in one state being recognized in another. Federal courts have, time after time, stricken state laws and state constitutional bans down on the basis that they are discriminatory. The Supreme Court is set to hear cases arguing that the Full Faith and Credit Clause means that if a couple is married in one state, another state must recognize it. I feel it is only time before same sex marriage is recognized nationally, with most Americans in favor of it, especially younger Americans. The government has been too slow on this issue, but it seems that public opinion may force the issue.

I commented on Dara Cates, Nick Buttram and Kassandra Morgan