Political Influentials vs General Electorate

"Many voters, in addition, feel remote from the centers of political decision and experience an acute sense of political futility. They know the political world only as a bewildering labyrinth of procedures and unceasing

turmoil  Influentials in which it is difficult to distinguish the just from the wicked, the deserving from the un-deserving. The political questions about which they are asked to have opinions are complex and thorny; every solution is imperfect and exacts its price; measures that benefit some groups invariably aggrieve others. The principles which govern the political process seem vague, recondite and impossible to relate to actual events. All this obviously deters voters from developing ideologically, from acquiring insights into the subtleties of the democratic process, and from achieving consensus even on fundamentals values."

 

 

I believe this statement is accurate because it seems that politicians want the people to show a disinterest in politics, to be as far a way as possible in the political world so they can be the only players in the game. To do so, they only expose the corruptive facade of politics, therefore people will start to react in a negative manner as far as politics are concerns. And I believe this will only make politicians more powerful because they will be the one leading the people, acquiring more power in the process, and they will have the authority to decide what it is best and what is not. The majority of them only defends their political interests and only care about whether they will be re-elected to a next term. They only reach out to their citizens during election period when they need their vote. And the political game starts all over again. I believe education plays an important role here, voters who attended college or have high education level tend to be more analytic, more open-minded about politics, and usually not always, can distinguish between a candidate that care about the public interest vs the one who has a hidden agenda with his own interest.

OBAMA 2009 INAUGURAL SPEECH

"Our founding fathers faced with perils that we can scarcely imagine, drafted a charter to assure the rule of law and the rights of man, a charter expanded by the blood of generations.
Those ideals still light the world, and we will not give them up for expedience's sake.
And so, to all other peoples and governments who are watching today, from the grandest capitals to the small village where my father was born: know that America is a friend of each nation and every man, woman and child who seeks a future of peace and dignity, and we are ready to lead once more."

  This inaugural speech of Obama in 2009, delivered when the country was facing a challenging state of the economy since the great depression (1930), gave the American people hope, a new era that will bring back America to what it used to be: a land of opportunity. President Obama is referring to the founding farther and reminding the audience the struggle of the past, which was overcome therefore America will get back on its feet no matter how big the challenge might be.

 

I found this inaugural speech insightful in my opinion. President Obama’s usage of “we”, “us” and “our” throughout his speech showed that the task we were facing will be overcome together as one nation. This particular paragraph highlight that America is still a country where dreams and expectations can become a reality. His election is an unquestionable proof. Hope was a major aspect in the Obama’s election. With his humble origin, the American people were optimist believing he might be one the one that can turn the nation into the right direction. Moreover, being the first African American in office made this moment more historical.  He is reinforcing the creed of America where equality, justice and freedom is bestowed to everyone no matter who you are and where you come from.

The meaning of July Fourth for the Negro

"I am not included within the pale of glorious anniversary! Your high independence only reveals the immeasurable distance between us. The blessings in which you, this day, rejoice, are not enjoyed in common. ÑThe rich inheritance of justice, liberty, prosperity and independence, bequeathed by your fathers, is shared by you, not by me. The sunlight that brought light and healing to you, has brought stripes and death to me. This Fourth July is yours, not mine. You may rejoice, I must mourn."

This speech of Douglass “The meaning of July Fourth for the Negro” was delivered when America was in the middle of the civil war, therefore the contest was relevant.  The speech underscores the injustice of the celebration of the Fourth of July for the “Negro”.  This commemoration was solely for the white man, not a celebration of all mankind.  Furthermore he declared “This Fourth of July is yours, not mine.” He is pointing of out since African Americans were subjugated, they were not citizen of the United States, therefore they do not feel that compassion, that belonging as far the July fourth celebration is concerned.

I believe that Douglass as a crucial point here. America is celebrating the Fourth of July, their Independence Day in other words their freedom from the British colonists, whereas other fellow Americans are still facing injustice, deprived of their rights and freedom. Even if our constitution is stating those famous words “All man are created equal.” Somehow African Americans at that time felt that marginalization in their own country.  Douglass, a former slave would understand.

ANOTHER STAB OF THE CONSTITUTION

"In every state, naturalized citizens are allowed to become governor; the rules for the presidency should follow suit."

   In this article Allow Naturalized Citizens to Be President by Akhil Reed Amar, the author strongly believed that naturalized citizen should be allowed to run for office if they so desire. For him, since naturalized citizens can assume the role of Governors in the United States, so why can't naturalized Americans who decided to adopt this country as their own, cannot have the same privilege as "natural-born American" to run for President?

 This quote is by far the most intriguing passage in this article in my opinion. I could not disagree more with Mr. Akhil Reed Amar. I believe that the US is not ready to at this stage for a naturalized citizen President to lead America. Of course, the US is the most democratic country worldwide. However, even democracy has its own limits. Let's backtrack a bit. In 2008, the first African American elected as President of the USA, Barack Obama. Remember, those people referring themselves as "Birthers" who challenged the president to put his birth certificate to the table. The went by far saying that he was born in Kenya and therefore refute his candidacy as President. We both know, he is born in Honolulu, Hawaii to an African immigrant and white woman. This man, even born in the US by an immigrant is being scrutinized by certain people, how far would they go if a naturalized citizen were to become the president of the United States of America? I believe that is a food for thought. Again I am not saying we shall not see a naturalized American as president ever, however we are a long way for it to become a reality.  

THE FEDERALIST No 10

"By a faction, I understand a number of citizens, whether amounting to a majority or a minority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adversed to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community.
There are two methods of curing the mischiefs of faction: the one, by removing its causes; the other, by controlling its effects.
There are again two methods of removing the causes of faction: the one, by destroying the liberty which is essential to its existence; the other, by giving to every citizen the same opinions, the same passions, and the same interests."

In this paragraph, James Madison is indicating that faction can become a threat to a Government or a Nation. Madison defined faction as a group of individuals "who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adversed to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community." He believed that factions can influence the public opinion  which can cause chaos in a Government. There are two different ways to deal with factions, either eliminate the source or controlled the effects.

I found this federalist No. 10 essay challenging and complex. The reason why I choose this section of the essay because it is the only part I sort of comprehend. I can compare the factions as the media if I was to relate what he wrote two centuries ago to nowadays. The media has the ability to influence the general public. So if the Government can control the effect of the media like Madison believe as to be done to deal with the faction, then the Government win.

"We are all foreign-born or the descendants of foreign-born, and if distinctions are to be made between us they should rightly be on some other ground than indigenousness. The early colonists came over with motives no less colonial than the later. They did not come to be assimilated in an American melting-pot. They did not come to adopt the culture of the American Indian. They had not the smallest intention of "giving themselves without reservation" to the new country. They came to get freedom to live as they wanted. They came to escape from the stifling air and chaos of the old world; they came to make their fortune in a new land. They invented no new social framework. Rather they brought over bodily the old ways to which they had been accustomed."

In this paragraph, Bourne is explaining first and foremost that America is a land of immigrant.  As an American, we all have an ancestor who is not American "we are all foreign or the descendants of foreign born." Due to our parents or grandparents' immigration, we end up being Americans by birth. So, these immigrants decide to leave their homeland to seek another place. Some migrate to acquire freedom, others to escape poverty.  In other words, they did not come to America to embrace a new culture or  the American ways. Americans have to accept the wishes of the immigrants rather than trying to assimilate them and convince them to forgo their own culture. 

I found this paragraph important although written close to century ago, this idea of America being considered a "melting pot" is true in a way that anybody can come in this land and live freely, no question ask.  In another perspective, this term is becoming more and more abstract in a sense that one cannot say there is a such a thing we can call a "typical American". We do not enjoy the same thing, same food, what we consider right from wrong, what we considered as taboo...the list go on and on, BECAUSE WE COME FROM DIFFERENT BACKGROUNDS. I think this is what makes America unique, its originality that no other country can compare. Everyday we get to see different backgrounds and cultures, different ways of seeing things. We are more open-minded because of the diversity we encounter every single day. 

People vs Government

"Americans currently give the federal government and their representatives in Congress very negative reviews. Americans are dissatisfied with the way the nation is being governed, have record-low confidence in the legislative branch of government, believe that the government has too much power, and that individuals and businesses should be doing more and government less.

Some of these negative views are related to the dismal ratings of the economy. Americans no doubt find it hard to be positive about their political leadership when they perceive that the fundamentals of the national economy are moving in the wrong direction."  

       

       This passage emphasizes the dissatisfaction of the American people toward our political leaders.  This is mainly due to the country current economic status and some believe that the nation is heading into the wrong track. Moreover, the government is seen as having "too much power"; and it should be the people and the business industry that ought to be more proactive and government follows.       

 I chose this paragraph although the article was written back in 2011, it is still actuality primarily the economy part . Back in 2008, when President Obama was elected, the American people had hoped that the economy will get better. Six years later, some are saying things are better, but others are still skeptical. I think the leaders are more concerns about their political agendas than the American people. When Democrats say on thing, Republicans say the contrary which label the latter as the “party of NO”.

 Leaders from both parties should be united to fix the economy and put people back to work. We are stronger when we are united.