The Editors for Democracy Journal: Rethinking Taxes: Proud to Pay

The Editors for Democracy Journal: Rethinking Taxes: Proud to Pay

What is the future of democracy? Is it a realistic option?

The future of democracy depends on how much say the people actually have in the present when compared to the past.  Is it more, less, or equal now as when democracy first came to be?  I believe the best way to answer what the future of democracy is would be to analyze the past of democracy and how it evolved.  As there aren’t any particular points suggesting exactly how democracy began, it would be safe to assume that human rights were a big part of it.  Next, the law and how we all must follow said laws, education and wealth no doubt were contributors as well.   Another important part of democracy people vote on higher representatives to run our country. These representatives hopefully listen to wants and needs of the people so they can take action and make things happen.  The problem here comes from the area of education.  Often times people are uneducated and led to biased representatives with multiple ads and campaigns telling the people that the other is wrong and not to vote on them.  So instead of concentrating on what good they can all do by coming together, they are so consumed with money and power that average person is going off of the brief blurbs thrown around on television, newspapers, magazine articles, etc.  It almost seems like the saying the “rich getting richer the poor getting poorer” isn’t too farfetched of a statement.  Where I am coming from with this in regards to my answer to the critical question, if we keep up like this, then how can our future of democracy, whatever it may be, seem realistic? It can’t.  Anymore it is about money and power and the point of why democracy exists or the morals behind it, have been forgotten. 

Bureau of Public Affairs. (2011). Democracy. Retrieved 4 22, 2011, from US Department of State: http://www.state.gov/g/drl/democ/

Katznelson, Ira, Mark Kesselman, and Alan Draper. The Politics of Power 5^th ed. Louiseville: Transcontinental Printing, 2006.

What is the process to develop an economic policy that provides services and sustainability?

When I think process, I think of a series of steps or an outline to be followed.  That would create the process in developing an economic policy. Now in order to be positive that it provides services and sustainability, this process would need to be elaborated on and almost use a scientific method to test strong and weak areas.  From researching this week, it seemed that explain that process in a step by step development would be a good way of answering the critical question this week.

First, look at history.  What steps were used or thought of before that either helped or created more problems.  This would show what services and sustainability was used before and help relate to the current time. Next, with the current state as it is, what is there to work with in creating some successful strategy?  The current services could be working, but if some weren’t, what is there now that serves as a type of collateral.  Another important step, community involvement, what do the people have to say?  Authority would do well to listen to what followers had to say and actually take action to make sure their voices were heard. In the current policy, what level should be considered?  In other words, this can include matters from a state to national or even international level.  Benefits gained are important to be considered to develop an economic policy as well as taking into account a strategic vision.  What can we make of ourselves and what possibilities lay in the future? Although, it’s equally important to determine from that optimism, are these future ideals realistic? The action plan then comes into play.  From the questions asked and the answers given, leaders can move forward with a plan in providing those services and sustainability.  Once started, they can later review to check the progress of how things are going. 

I found a site that put together ten steps in an economic development progress.  It really helped to clarify meaning to this week’s critical question for me.  

Bibliography

State of Queensland . (2008, July 2). Ten step economic development process. Retrieved 4 16, 2011, from Department of Employment, Economic Development, and Innovation: http://www.regions.qld.gov.au/dsdweb/v4/apps/web/content.cfm?id=8159

We have failed to listen to America. And we have failed to reflect the w...

How does a government facilitate comprehensive care for its constituents without sacrificing equity?

In all honestly, the government cannot care for its constituents without sacrificing equity. When we think of the care offered by the government for health care, living expenses, and other aids for low income assistance, the money has to come from somewhere to help furnish those in need. Especially with this economy in its current state, more and more families need financial help. As nice as it is to know we have a system in place to help get those in need back on their feet, that’s just it, it really should be monitored to ensure it does just that, get them back on their feet. The problem with this comprehensive care, too often it can be taken advantage of it. If a family continues having children and as a result gains more cash assistance, food stamps, etc. and even more if they don’t work, why would they want to start now? Help should be there in the beginning, but then be revisited later to ensure these families in need are finding a way out and on their own without that government aid.

This brings me to a classmate’s blog I just read. It seems as though the middle-class citizens are not meeting any criteria for help and are considered to have too high of income. Again, because the government is sacrificing equity, they seem to be setting a limit on those who will actually receive help and if you are already in that category, feel free to stay as long as you like. I am a firm believer we need to help our fellow Americans, but why should it be okay for some to take advantage of the system? Isn’t that only hurting the population as a whole? I guess I have seen both sides in my life time, those who use it because they needed it and found a way to grow and make it on their own, and those who have been on it since I can remember just because it’s the easy way to do it.

Think Again....

During my research to the critical question of the week, I found a web page titled, Foreign Policy.  Interestingly enough, I stumbled upon this article when I just had a conversation with another student that no country wants another to be or seem higher up the ladder than them.  Here was a quote found in the article:

"Have we ever been satisfied as Americans being average in anything? Is that our aspiration? Our goal should be absolutely to lead the world in education."  By Education Secretary Arne Duncan. 

The link to the article is just below this post.

Think Again: Education - By Ben Wildavsky | Foreign Policy

Think Again: Education - By Ben Wildavsky Foreign Policy

How should a nation-state develop its foreign policy in accordance to its values and in connection to the development of its domestic policy?

In regards to this week’s question, I suppose it truly depends on how a nation-state develops its foreign policy.  I have always felt that in order to make things happen, working together is the best way.  When we consider our earth, it belongs to everyone in every country.  That means that what we do with money, time, choices, etc. will somehow have an impact on what happens to the earth and living creatures around it.  For the obvious, we shouldn’t fight and create war, that will only do damage.  American’s shouldn’t take advantage of other countries imports and yearning to make money despite, and vice versa.  Other countries should not take advantage of America.  Yes, this sounds like it would only be in a perfect world, but my question is why can’t we make it a perfect world? 

Either way, Ginny had pointed out something that I completely agreed with, and that is for us to be able to help anyone else, we need to help ourselves first.  That goes into each of us as individuals.  Let’s set examples for youth and those with weaker minds.  I am sure there is a great deal of people around the world who feel this way. 

What role do judges and the judical system play in supporting freedom?

The role played by judges and the judicial system while supporting freedom basically depends on the situation at hand.  From my understanding of the material this week, they play by the law, which follows politics.  So while they have the decision on what happens in any given situation, it is usually in accordance with the law.  Basically, the judicial system is in place to make sure someone is there to state the final judgments even though they are already written.  However, certain judges will be chosen based on their status, republican president choosing republican judiciary or in President Clinton’s case, opening up the status to women and other members of race.  Perhaps if certain judges with their beliefs are in office, they will have more say of particular freedoms than the next. 

How does the US Congress, as it exists in its current structure, support and/or limit authentic representation?

When the question asks how does congress limit or support authentic representation, I guess one would first have to answer, what does authentic have to do with things when the government is involved?  In other words, shouldn’t it be restated, “accurate” representation?  Like I saw from most of the classes’ discussion, it all boils down to power and money.  The famous saying on how the government is out to “make the rich richer and the poor poorer” comes into play.  I can’t tell you how many times I have heard this saying.  I remember my father saying those words when I was five and we are talking decades upon decades ago!!  Seriously though, in a way our book implies congress to be a double edge sword. They are responsive to “less privileged groups” in order to truly reflect on the public’s opinion, but how can that part of the public be so openly viewed when the wealthier of the two are certainly more likely to get out and vote or even donate money?  “Congress tends to hear the upper-class members of the chorus better because their money, their votes, and their organization amplify their accented voices.” (Katznelson, Kesselman, & Draper) The author is completely right with this statement, but like I always find myself asking, we all know that to be the case, and have obviously felt that way for generations past, what can the public do now to help make the lower and middle class more open and driven to be heard?  Ultimately, I feel Congress limits authentic representation because of the rich vs. poor ways we all seem to hold in our heads. 

However, while money has shown to play a large part in congress and its limits on “authentic” representation, in a way it has supported that representation.  If we think back to the past of why and how we came to be today, we remember that both people of color and women were restricted from playing any part in politics.  In the end African Americans were allowed to join the services and eventually vote.  Women also fought to be allowed that privilege as well.  In a sense, this is where the house or  any other party helped to support its representation.  However, while members of congress showed a support, it was never meant just for African Americans or woman and in fact for public as a whole.   Unfortunately, this leads to another area of debate because special districts might see this black majority support and then that would limit any time of “authentic” representation one would hope congress supported.   

Bibliography

Canon, D. T. (1999). Race, Redistricting, and Representation: . Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

Katznelson, I., Kesselman, M., & Draper, A. (2006). The Politics of Power. Belmont: Thomson Wadsworth.

Democracy as an Ethical Ideal

The below video is a bit long, but does hit on a few interesting points that I tried to reflect on in my blog post.  We need to consider what an "ideal democracy".  Really, it is based off a series of ethics, otherwise our democracy doesn't do anyone much good.

Democracy as an Ethical Ideal

In what ways does the US presidency support and limit the formation of an ideal democracy?

The US presidency supports and limits the formation of an ideal democracy in a variety of ways.  Ultimately, the President himself has a certain extent of power over decisions and political parties.  He determines a set panel of politicians in office at a certain time or certain situation and can generally use the public’s opinion to get the people what they want.  However, in difficult times and circumstances where the President comes into office when things have already been run to poor extreme, it takes time and much trial and error to find the right answer.  This leads to a series of characteristics through the presidency by the people.

First of all, we are entitled to an informed understanding.  In other words, we have the right to research and develop a clear understanding of what the government, president, etc. has to offer that will create a good situation.  From that informed understanding, effective participation is present.  The people in a democracy will definitely want their views to be known.  A majority of people will hold firm belief that a certain person or state of power will allow us the capabilities of rising up and pushing through tough times, an example recession.  Because of equality in voting, the people in the democracy can make those views be known.  Through the presidency, control is obvious.  A main leader needs to be chosen that will guarantee a balanced and organized environment of leaders who will go off the public opinion to fight and create new systems that will aid the American people. 

However, as a majority will win, for example democratic or republican, the party with the most votes will pass laws and take action benefiting the one party.  Again, it is up to the American people to choose the person who not only appears on one side or the other, but shows that no matter what, they fight for the entire population rather than just interested in one sided laws, examples: gay marriage and/or abortion laws.  Especially when more important areas like recession need concentration.  Ultimately, an ideal democracy seems perfect, but until the people can work together and therefore make life easier on higher ups with authority, our democracy will never be so “ideal”. 

MediaShift Idea Lab . What Would the Ideal Democracy-Enabling Tool Look Like? | PBS

MediaShift Idea Lab . What Would the Ideal Democracy-Enabling Tool Look Like? PBS

Wisconsin Governor Layoffs Looming, Lawmakers in Gridlock - ABC News

Wisconsin Governor Layoffs Looming, Lawmakers in Gridlock - ABC News

How do individuals and groups of people influence the political process?

People and groups influence the political process because of their rights to vote.  In connection with last week’s discussion, public opinion leads to ideals and optimistic situations that people want to see happen.  Because of this desire or drive to gain advantage in a process, people are likely to vote on the party they feel will accomplish this advantage for them.  Unfortunately, and as our text further elaborated on, people are not taking advantage of our voting privilege as often as they used to.  They either feel their vote will not count towards the election process, or could simply lack the knowledge that older generations had.  A large portion of uninterested voters could stem from the fact that politicians may seem conceded in a sense and really no better than his/her opponent.  It makes it hard to decide on a leader when you fail to see their leadership qualities.  Either that or a person may feel that despite the side of one party, neither offer a just resolution.  Where either situation may exist, the fact still remains that a big part of who places in office is up to the people.  We have that influence in politics so no matter how we feel about a particular individual, it would make sense to decide and cast our vote.  Importantly, if we aren’t too sure who we are voting are, we can always gather facts and use various resources then take a few minutes and view both sides.  In the end, the turnout could be just what the county needs.

Public Opinion in Our Democracy (Highlights) 1950

Greek Socialists Hold Narrow Lead In Public Opinion Polls

Greek Socialists Hold Narrow Lead In Public Opinion Polls

In what ways does public opinion influence the formation of a democracy?

The idea of public opinion basically became what it is upon the start of our democracy.  Any type of government policy or action set in place hasn’t been done so by the power of one man or rules set from years ago, most of what happens is based on the opinions of the general public.  An example, take election time.  What are we voting on? We are voting on people that we, the public, have put in office as well as laws and other situations where the people have spoken their mind in hopes to see change.  It is simple to understand that the public needs and/or wants to take part in government activities.  The public has opinions and would like to see their ideas or be able to express them and see results.  Since the public is a majority, they have the ability to make things happen in large numbers by outvoting the smaller number.  Also, because the public is entitled to their own opinion, whether it be on an individual basis or in a group, the fact that their decisions influence how democracy is formed, ideally help to prevent coercion from more powerful government entities.  In other words, the government is created from people as a group rather than the already named higher authorities. However, since the public does have influence, their opinions are obviously for self-interest or benefit.  Where this is the case, if a majority, or mass media become involved with particular information, what does this do to the rest of the population?  It could take one person to bring up a random off the wall policy, then sugar coat to encourage the opinion to lean towards their views.  Perhaps this is why it’s important, that no matter how you feel about your own opinion or vote counting in anything, you do it anyway.  Stand up for what you believe and make sure you take a little time to know what you are getting into. 

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

I had a difficult time with this question.  I guess I don’t fully understand what a public sector or private sector truly consists of.  Ultimately, the money we make goes to the government right?  Whether it is taxes from income, property tax or even sales tax, the government gets a good portion of what we earn in wages.  Interestingly enough, in a way we are in charge of our government.  Through our voting privileges, we can elect who is in office at a particular time.  So while the government seems to hold a certain amount of control over the private sector, does the intersection take place by setting them in a higher pay scale?  Is there an interaction that government workers will make more because private sector employees in privately owned business make less?  Or is it just coincidence?  Maybe the two should interact in a more productive way.  If the government can regulate certain aspects in the private sector, then why don’t they do so in a way that will earn the private sector more money?  If this is the case, both sides can economically be satisfied.   Also, if the government is relying on private sectors’ tax money, then shouldn’t it be less given the fact that they are already in a safer more controlled environment?  I feel as though jobs on the government side seem more secure as where the unemployment rates in the private sector seem to fluctuate substantially over certain periods of time.

Again, I wasn’t 100% clear on the question being asked, but from my take, we were supposed to give our reasoning as to how it should intersect, which means aside from the way it currently does. 

How Powerful Is This House of Representatives?

What role does power play in government, economy, and politics?

I would like to say power plays a motivational role in government, the economy and

politics.  If it wasn't for the idea of power, which by definition could mean "ability to

act or produce an effect" or political control or influence", the systems of the

government, economy, politics, etc. would run off individual units rather than one

established group, or authority.  For example, the group that holds power is group one

where the group that follows is group two.  Group one can accomplish more by

providing initiative for others to act.  Others as in, indecisive or softer temperamental

minded people who are considered followers.  This would be group two.  Group two

is a large population ready to rely on a leader with confidence and the clarity to any

system.  Group one could very well open a door or suggest an idea, or provide an

answer that group 2 may not have thought upon nor done so on their own as individual

units. 

There is another aspect that goes along with power, money.  While those who have

power may motivate others and steer them towards a particular decision, money will

also do the same.  It plays a huge role and leads to the question, "Who owns

America's private government?".  The answer seems almost obvious.  Those with

money and power, make decisions on behalf of others.  When doing so, it tends to

lead towards the resulting profit rather than "greatest good", as mentioned in our text,

The Politics of Power.  Ultimately, everyone wants money and some want it to come

with control, but it seems that in some situations, the rich get richer while the poor r

remain poor and almost go poorer. 


power. 2011. In Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary. Retrieved Feb2, 2011, from

http://www.Merriam-Webster.com/dictionary/power?show=0&t=1296695460

Katznelson, Ira, Mark Kesselman, and Alan Draper. The Politics of Power 5th ed.

Louisville:Transcontinental Printing, 2006. 35-49.

 

What are the opportunities and challenges of a democracy?

Opportunity with democracy:

Democracy allows the people to be in charge of choosing their leaders. The leader chosen will then have power to make decisions on behalf of the people, but while this leader holds a certain amount of power, it is only temporary.  In other words, take for example a “good” leader.  Typically, we the people, would like that leader to stay in office.  However, with the notion this person only has a particular length of time in office, they may be inclined to do more with the time they have rather than prolong a situation.  Also, perhaps this “good” leader is humbled by the idea that one day they will no longer have that leadership role and will appreciate it while it’s in hand.  This time in office could be a way of the elected person to set examples to the people who did and did not chose them as well as following leaders to take that place.  Now if the leader doesn’t end up being “good” and tends to make poor decisions, then the limited time in office is a good thing for the obvious reason. 

Challenges of a democracy:

When we talk about a person with power, do we really stop and think about what got them there in the first place?   Of course the people, but while a majority of numbers elected that particular person, how many hours were spent in the decision process?  Research that had to be done to ensure this was the right choice, organization to campaign and show others why they should choose the same person.  Challenges present themselves during the entire process of election.  Things like the people continuing to participate in voting, making sure it’s a fair process, and making sure voters are allowed privacy by avoiding intimidation or coercion.  During election time the media is hugely involved, tons of groups whether it be democrat or republican are organizing information to support their nominated person, rallies are created, etc.  While all Americans are entitled to their own opinions, certain events or verbiage said during these election processes can create upset from argumentative discussions to severe unprofessionalism, and worse violence. 

Diamond, Larry. “What is Democracy?” Online posting. 21 Jan. 2004 <http://www.stanford.edu/~ldiamond/iraq/WhaIsDemocracy012004.htm>.

Greetings!

Like most of you, I am new to blogging.  It will take me awhile of adding gadgets and pictures, before I am truly happy with the layout of my blog, but for the time being, I am up for the challenge!

Politics is not my easiest subject, but I feel the layout of our class is different enough from the typical "report writing" structure we could have, that this might be what I need to get through and truly understand the material at hand. 

As you may have noticed, my blog is listed under Lennie, but in class discussions you will see me as Elena.  I noticed from earlier blogs that there is another student with the same name so to help avoid confusion, I have added my nickname. 

A little bit about me: I had the hardest time figuring out what I wanted to do after high school.  I decided to take a break and later get a basic degree from the Community College of Denver.  After receiving my Associates in Science, I was still unsure what I wanted to do with my future and therefore took another break!  After working in various job settings, I decided that with my current knowledge and what I wanted to learn more of, led me to the business side of things.  I am finishing up my junior year with Metropolitan State College and am anticipating a graduation of fall 2012 with my degree in Computer Information Systems.  I spent a good portion of 2010 doing freelance work, but am ready to just focus on school and finish before I am over 30! Wink and a smile! J I am married to my dearest elementary, middle school, and high school friend and have a seven year old daughter named Isabelle.  We have two Saint Bernards and one cat and  live in the mountains!