In his Federalist 10, James Madison summarized his concept that factions, today's interest groups, were a necessary piece of democratic government. If all interests were represented, he argued, all people would be represented and compromise would be the ultimate result. This theory, commonly known as pluralism, is regarded as the argument for interest groups. It is theoretically true; it is realistically false.
The first problem that one might see with pluralism in today's politics is the pronounced and definite upper-class bias that interest groups have. It is the wealthy and middle-class people that have the time, energy, and resources to lobby government, not the poor and needy (who need the lobbying more than anyone else). This uneven distribution of funds distinctly correlates to an uneven distribution of interest groups. Pluralism relies on evenly distributed interest group representation; it falls apart when an upper-class bias is put into the equation.
Another downfall of the pluralist theory is the unbalanced influence among varying sectors of the population, when categorized by employment or education. Though frequently walking hand in hand with an upper class bias, business interests groups far outweigh their proportional representation. Business groups work in the economy that the government controls, to some extent, and so heavily invest themselves in interest groups. Professional groups and labor groups also play heavily in the interest group arena, also outpacing their proportional representation.
Pluralism is idealistic, it is optimistic, and it should theoretically work. Perhaps there is some way to make it work, though I fear that any such means to do so would be in severe violation of the constitution. It is clear that interest groups are a problem(?) in government today. Their influence is far too great, the limitations on their ability to influence far too lenient. The Constitution may stand in the way of limiting these interest groups, but the Constitution didn't allow for them anyway...the Constitution allowed for people to directly influence their representatives throught the processes of voting and petition. Perhaps we could simply declare interest groups unconstitutional? But, then again, that is about as unrealistic as pluralism.
Wednesday, February 17, 2010
Thursday, February 4, 2010
State of the Union Response
This past week, President Barack Obama completed his constitutional obligation to, "from time to time, give information to Congress" in his State of the Union address. Before delving into the actual content of the speech, I need to note that Barack Obama is perhaps the best speaker that I have ever seen; his eloquence, tone, body language, and presence all contribute to a rousing speech every time he takes the mic. Now, the content.
The president' s comments on education were encouraging to me. His student loan proposals, that they would eventually be dropped after a period of 20 years at latest, was phenomenal news to a student going to college in a year and a half. His new initiative, to provide incentive for good schools and good teachers, is a step in the right direction.
The proposal of a budget and pay freeze for the federal government, with a few exceptions, was equally encouraging. If the rest of the nation has to tighten its belt, the government should as well.
The president's message of transparency in government was sound and well founded. The proposal to include all earmarks in one accessible location is a necessary step; whether it is used by the public or not is irrelevant, it needs to be available.
Perhaps my favorite part of the speech was the President's message on bipartisanship. His message that "if the Republican leadership is going to insist that sixty votes in the Senate are required to do any business at all in this town, then the responsibility to govern is now yours as well." He sent his message, that the Republicans cannot just "say no" anymore, in a clear and "friendly" manner. His message of bipartisanship was truly genuine, I felt; hopefully it is accepted.
Those were, for me, the highlights of the speech. I applaud the job creation plan that he proposed, building a new infrastructure, I applaud the small-business help plan that was proposed, and I applaud his defense of the health care reform proposal. We can only hope that Congress heeds the President's call and does their best to make this country a better place to live.
The president' s comments on education were encouraging to me. His student loan proposals, that they would eventually be dropped after a period of 20 years at latest, was phenomenal news to a student going to college in a year and a half. His new initiative, to provide incentive for good schools and good teachers, is a step in the right direction.
The proposal of a budget and pay freeze for the federal government, with a few exceptions, was equally encouraging. If the rest of the nation has to tighten its belt, the government should as well.
The president's message of transparency in government was sound and well founded. The proposal to include all earmarks in one accessible location is a necessary step; whether it is used by the public or not is irrelevant, it needs to be available.
Perhaps my favorite part of the speech was the President's message on bipartisanship. His message that "if the Republican leadership is going to insist that sixty votes in the Senate are required to do any business at all in this town, then the responsibility to govern is now yours as well." He sent his message, that the Republicans cannot just "say no" anymore, in a clear and "friendly" manner. His message of bipartisanship was truly genuine, I felt; hopefully it is accepted.
Those were, for me, the highlights of the speech. I applaud the job creation plan that he proposed, building a new infrastructure, I applaud the small-business help plan that was proposed, and I applaud his defense of the health care reform proposal. We can only hope that Congress heeds the President's call and does their best to make this country a better place to live.
Sunday, December 13, 2009
Commercial Blog
In APUSG, we recently made campaign commercials to support our mock elections which are coming up shortly. Mr. Adamak asked us to choose a commercial other than our own and analyze it based on a set of criteria. I chose to analyze the commercial for the conservative "Rossi/Kelley" campaign.
This entire commercial centered on humor and mudslinging. While Peter insists that he didn't do anything, that I did most of the talking, the goal of the commercial was not political persuasion, it was attack. The commercial was extremely funny in its use of short video clips of me, all taken out of context, and used its mudslinging in a humorous way. The commercial could also be classified as a contrast ad, contrasting clips of me that cast me in a negative light with stoic images of Peter cast against the lake.
The humor of this piece is its sole benefactor, luckily for its creator, it has plenty. Despite its humor, the expression of political views was seriously lacking, with the only political discussion being the "platform based on principles such as perseverance and self-reliance." Are you kidding me? That sounds like nothing, it says nothing. My commercial may not have been the most political, but it certainly addressed more than 'perseverance'.
I give this commercial a five out of ten. Although it was highly funny, it seriously lacked in the addressing of serious issues or anything, for that matter; it would have been much better suited as a "Roast of Michael Olson" than as a political commercial. Plus the fact that I find it irritating that video of myself taken from a video that I graciously donated time outside of school to help Peter with ended up being used against me for political gains. While this commercial would not sway me for its lack of anything political, I fear its humor may woo a large percentage of the voting populace.
This entire commercial centered on humor and mudslinging. While Peter insists that he didn't do anything, that I did most of the talking, the goal of the commercial was not political persuasion, it was attack. The commercial was extremely funny in its use of short video clips of me, all taken out of context, and used its mudslinging in a humorous way. The commercial could also be classified as a contrast ad, contrasting clips of me that cast me in a negative light with stoic images of Peter cast against the lake.
The humor of this piece is its sole benefactor, luckily for its creator, it has plenty. Despite its humor, the expression of political views was seriously lacking, with the only political discussion being the "platform based on principles such as perseverance and self-reliance." Are you kidding me? That sounds like nothing, it says nothing. My commercial may not have been the most political, but it certainly addressed more than 'perseverance'.
I give this commercial a five out of ten. Although it was highly funny, it seriously lacked in the addressing of serious issues or anything, for that matter; it would have been much better suited as a "Roast of Michael Olson" than as a political commercial. Plus the fact that I find it irritating that video of myself taken from a video that I graciously donated time outside of school to help Peter with ended up being used against me for political gains. While this commercial would not sway me for its lack of anything political, I fear its humor may woo a large percentage of the voting populace.
Monday, December 7, 2009
Reflections on Health Care
Today in APUSG, my teacher, Mr. Adamak, went on a thought-provoking rant. It was on the topic of health care, for the most part, and dealt with the wrongness of those who profiteer off of the sick and ill in this country.
This was met with disgust by a number of members of the class, who felt that it was necessary to make money, mostly in the name of capitalism. "Doctors need to make money, too!" was just one of the protests later held. This is beside the point. The point isn't that doctors and all variety of health care workers not make as much money as they do now, the problem is at the top of these organizations, where helping people has been shoved aside as a priority and the making of a profit the first. The number one goal of health care today is not to make people feel better or help them stay healthy, it is to make as much money as possible on those who are ill and dying.
Another outcry said that "Don't restaurants have a right to make money because people are hungry?" Once again, yes they do, but health care and restaurants are significantly different. Eating at a restaurant is a luxury; people who can't afford to do it simply don't, and there are alternatives, the grocery store, for one. People do not choose to get hurt. Would those who compare health care to restaurants have these injured and uninsured people put a homemade splint or cast on. People do not choose to get hurt, it is simply a fact of life that must be dealt with, and for someone to not be able to afford a fact of life is simply wrong.
What really (pardon the expression) grinds my gears though, is the people who would refuse health care reform because they want to keep their doctor, or because the money could be put to better use overseas. How could a good-hearted human being stand in the way of helping thousands upon thousands of people avoid debt, get insured, and stay healthy simply because they like their doctor. It is simply disgusting that a human being could allow his fellow man to suffer simply because he/she doesn't want to switch doctors. Not to mention the fact that the overwhelming majority of people won't have to switch doctors if this much needed health care reform is passed.
One of my classmates went so far as to say that "happiness isn't a right, the pursuing it is" in regards to health care. This may be true in a literal fashion, but if we start to consider healthy a synonym with happy, it no longer applies. To say that people do not have a right to health care in our civilized society is simply and plainly barbaric. I wish upon all people who stand in the way of insuring the thousands of people that so desperately need it that someday, if just for a day, they can experience the hardship of being injured or ill and not knowing how to pay for it. I thorougly believe that if they, no, if everyone, experienced this, there would be nothing standing in the way of health care reform.
The only thing preventing health care reform is greed at all levels, the desire for money and a maintainance of the status quo, and it is truly sad. I do not have the answers, but the simple fact is that we need to look for them. We know the problems, now we have to find a way to bypass the greed that is preventing the solutions. I apoligize for my rambling, thanks for reading.
Mike Olson
This was met with disgust by a number of members of the class, who felt that it was necessary to make money, mostly in the name of capitalism. "Doctors need to make money, too!" was just one of the protests later held. This is beside the point. The point isn't that doctors and all variety of health care workers not make as much money as they do now, the problem is at the top of these organizations, where helping people has been shoved aside as a priority and the making of a profit the first. The number one goal of health care today is not to make people feel better or help them stay healthy, it is to make as much money as possible on those who are ill and dying.
Another outcry said that "Don't restaurants have a right to make money because people are hungry?" Once again, yes they do, but health care and restaurants are significantly different. Eating at a restaurant is a luxury; people who can't afford to do it simply don't, and there are alternatives, the grocery store, for one. People do not choose to get hurt. Would those who compare health care to restaurants have these injured and uninsured people put a homemade splint or cast on. People do not choose to get hurt, it is simply a fact of life that must be dealt with, and for someone to not be able to afford a fact of life is simply wrong.
What really (pardon the expression) grinds my gears though, is the people who would refuse health care reform because they want to keep their doctor, or because the money could be put to better use overseas. How could a good-hearted human being stand in the way of helping thousands upon thousands of people avoid debt, get insured, and stay healthy simply because they like their doctor. It is simply disgusting that a human being could allow his fellow man to suffer simply because he/she doesn't want to switch doctors. Not to mention the fact that the overwhelming majority of people won't have to switch doctors if this much needed health care reform is passed.
One of my classmates went so far as to say that "happiness isn't a right, the pursuing it is" in regards to health care. This may be true in a literal fashion, but if we start to consider healthy a synonym with happy, it no longer applies. To say that people do not have a right to health care in our civilized society is simply and plainly barbaric. I wish upon all people who stand in the way of insuring the thousands of people that so desperately need it that someday, if just for a day, they can experience the hardship of being injured or ill and not knowing how to pay for it. I thorougly believe that if they, no, if everyone, experienced this, there would be nothing standing in the way of health care reform.
The only thing preventing health care reform is greed at all levels, the desire for money and a maintainance of the status quo, and it is truly sad. I do not have the answers, but the simple fact is that we need to look for them. We know the problems, now we have to find a way to bypass the greed that is preventing the solutions. I apoligize for my rambling, thanks for reading.
Mike Olson
Tuesday, October 6, 2009
In Brief: Paper Sources and Article Read
This week I read the article on Medical Marijuana use.
My sources for my position paper are as follows:
1. http://www.infoplease.com/spot/civilunions1.html
2. http://www.wral.com/news/local/story/5229045/
3. http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=e7wRAAAAIBAJ&sjid=O-0DAAAAIBAJ&pg=2906,3197079&dq=domestic-partnerships+hawaii
These are, with the exception of the first, individual state articles dealing with the specific cases in states. Because gay marriage is a largely state issue, I propose to choose three or more states with contrasting stands on gay marriage, and analyze their differences based on a number of factors. I will also look at the federal level of the issue, and how the national government has sought to control gay marriage in the states. I feel that by organizing the paper in this way I will be able to properly demonstrate the different viewpoints on the topic in our country. I will then propose my ideal scenario, and back this viewpoint up with various statistics and emotional appeals.
My sources for my position paper are as follows:
1. http://www.infoplease.com/spot/civilunions1.html
2. http://www.wral.com/news/local/story/5229045/
3. http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=e7wRAAAAIBAJ&sjid=O-0DAAAAIBAJ&pg=2906,3197079&dq=domestic-partnerships+hawaii
These are, with the exception of the first, individual state articles dealing with the specific cases in states. Because gay marriage is a largely state issue, I propose to choose three or more states with contrasting stands on gay marriage, and analyze their differences based on a number of factors. I will also look at the federal level of the issue, and how the national government has sought to control gay marriage in the states. I feel that by organizing the paper in this way I will be able to properly demonstrate the different viewpoints on the topic in our country. I will then propose my ideal scenario, and back this viewpoint up with various statistics and emotional appeals.
Wednesday, September 30, 2009
Position Paper Topic: Same Sex Marriage
This week, we were asked to write a blog introducing our "Position Paper" topic. The paper, due in nearly a month, is an open ended assignment in which the writer, members of the AP Government class, present a current, relevant topic on which to offer their "position", related both to their political party and the committee(s) that they belong to. For my paper, I have chosen to take on the touchy topic of same-sex marriage.
Same-sex marriage is, as of now, a topic of contention left solely up to the states. It is in the state legislatures, state referendum votes, and state supreme courts that final decisions on the topic of same-sex marriage lie. The federal government's sole involvement in the issue to this point has been to pass an act nullifying the "full faith and credit clause" found in article IV of the Constitution in terms of gay marriage. This article states that states are to give "full faith and credit" to other states, and honor other states decisions on certain matters. Whether it relates to a topic as social as gay marriage is questionable, and the legislation is in many ways considered a clarification, just like this drawn out and unnecessary explanation.
The states are split over the topic of gay marriage, with contentious debates occuring in many state's various branches of government. Some allow gay marriage, some civil unions, and some prohibit any form of legal recognition for gay couples whatsoever. Much of this has to do with political parties. As the names would imply, conservatives would like to keep things the way they are and liberals would like reform.
This is an extremely broad and far-reaching topic, and I look forward to condensing a plethora of information into a concise, opinionated piece of writing. I only hope that the end result accurately represents both my own feelings and those of my political party, and possibly reconciles my ideas to those of people with opposing viewpoints.
Same-sex marriage is, as of now, a topic of contention left solely up to the states. It is in the state legislatures, state referendum votes, and state supreme courts that final decisions on the topic of same-sex marriage lie. The federal government's sole involvement in the issue to this point has been to pass an act nullifying the "full faith and credit clause" found in article IV of the Constitution in terms of gay marriage. This article states that states are to give "full faith and credit" to other states, and honor other states decisions on certain matters. Whether it relates to a topic as social as gay marriage is questionable, and the legislation is in many ways considered a clarification, just like this drawn out and unnecessary explanation.
The states are split over the topic of gay marriage, with contentious debates occuring in many state's various branches of government. Some allow gay marriage, some civil unions, and some prohibit any form of legal recognition for gay couples whatsoever. Much of this has to do with political parties. As the names would imply, conservatives would like to keep things the way they are and liberals would like reform.
This is an extremely broad and far-reaching topic, and I look forward to condensing a plethora of information into a concise, opinionated piece of writing. I only hope that the end result accurately represents both my own feelings and those of my political party, and possibly reconciles my ideas to those of people with opposing viewpoints.
Thursday, September 24, 2009
Flag Burning: A "Hot" Topic
When I was reading my AP U.S. Government Blog the other day, I came upon an article that struck me as interesting. It was on the topic of Constitutional Amendments, and was a NY Times article focusing on a 2006 Senate vote on flag burning. It aimed to make illegal the burning or desecration of the American flag. The motion had already passed in the House multiple times, and needed a two/thirds vote to pass into the next stage of amending the constitution, ratification by state legislatures. The motion failed to pass by one vote.
As I was reading this article, I could only think about my point of view, my ideas about this topic. To make illegal the burning of the flag is to take away a basic right, the freedom of speech. Do I believe that burning the flag is right? No, I don't, and I would never do anything myself to desecrate the everlasting symbol of our country. Unfortunately, all people don't feel the way I do. And that is their right.
The first amendment of the Bill of Rights gives people a right to free speech, and flag-burning is a symbol of this freedom. It is a physical representation of protest against the government, and making any form of governmental protest illegal immediately sends our country down a path towards oppression and dictatorship. It is a small step, true, but a step in that direction nonetheless.
Would I burn a flag? No, I wouldn't. Do I have an inherent dislike of people who do. Yes, I do. Despite my distaste for such blatant anti-patriotism (personally I feel they should get out of our country if they feel that way), that doesn't change the fact that in this country, you have a right to feel the way you feel, and to express that feeling. When we take that right away, the truly "free" United States will cease to exist. Thanks for reading.
-Mike Olson
As I was reading this article, I could only think about my point of view, my ideas about this topic. To make illegal the burning of the flag is to take away a basic right, the freedom of speech. Do I believe that burning the flag is right? No, I don't, and I would never do anything myself to desecrate the everlasting symbol of our country. Unfortunately, all people don't feel the way I do. And that is their right.
The first amendment of the Bill of Rights gives people a right to free speech, and flag-burning is a symbol of this freedom. It is a physical representation of protest against the government, and making any form of governmental protest illegal immediately sends our country down a path towards oppression and dictatorship. It is a small step, true, but a step in that direction nonetheless.
Would I burn a flag? No, I wouldn't. Do I have an inherent dislike of people who do. Yes, I do. Despite my distaste for such blatant anti-patriotism (personally I feel they should get out of our country if they feel that way), that doesn't change the fact that in this country, you have a right to feel the way you feel, and to express that feeling. When we take that right away, the truly "free" United States will cease to exist. Thanks for reading.
-Mike Olson
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)