The GOP After Specter

The GOP After Specter talks about how the GOP is starting to worry about the health of their party. Republicans are deeply concerned about this switch because the Democrats pretty much now have a filibuster-proof majority.

Module 13: Party Switheroo

When Senator Arlen Specter announced he would be “switching” parties last week, a lot of us probably weren’t too interested. This announcement, however, has rocked the political boat in Washington, DC. In a recent statement, Specter announced, "I now find my political philosophy more in line with Democrats than Republicans." Some wonder if this was true, or whether his whole switcheroo was some sort of political strategy for his own benefit. I think this recent party switch says that politicians are only in it to win it. Specter became a Democrat because he believed that he could not win the upcoming primary in his own party, as a Republican. Specter says he spent all his life as a Republican and in the end, the Republicans abandoned him. Is this really what happened? On the one hand, the GOP has fell under harsh criticism lately for their breakdown, so perhaps Specter really did feel that the GOP had “abandoned him.” On the other, I think this is a classic example of a politician only looking out for himself. He wanted to switch parties so he could remain in office. He knew he couldn’t win against his competitor, Pat Toomey in the upcoming 2010 election so he pulled this stunt purely for personal reasons. I am sure a lot of Pennsylvanians are angry that their Senator has turned out to be a turncoat on them. No one likes a politician who switches sides (like McCain – we all know that his Democrat¬-ish ideologies on some issues turned a lot of people off). Basically, this switch says to me that the party system in the United States caters to the politician, and not the people. With Specter on the “other side” now, the GOP is going to find it almost impossible to get their way in Congress. Their margins were already pretty thin, and now with Specter becoming a Democrat, they’ve lost even more. Fiorina argues that Americans are not polarized, but politicians sometimes are. Congress is more polarized that the average American citizen and I think we see this here with Specter. He has stated over and over the he feels the Republican party does not align with his ideologies anymore and that he’s more attracted to the Democrats. The bottom line is, according to Fiorina, politicians are seeking votes and Congress especially shows clear indications of increased polarization in recent decades. I think Specter’s switch makes sense because, in politics, it’s all about approval ratings. Specter even said, "The most important number was the approval rating - it dropped from the 60s to 31." I think a lot of politicians are concerned about this these days. Many are not concerned about the constituents they represent, rather they are more concerned about their own personal image in ratings. It’s clear Specter only pulled this move so he could have a chance at winning in 2010.

Candidates Saying More About Less

This article gives a brief quote from Larry Bartels. He's quoted as saying,"Sometimes, voters only have a sketchy idea of where the candidate they support stands on many issues, especially secondary ones." The article, although a bit dated, talks about how Bush and Kerry in 2004 began to talk about "less important" issues during the campaign.

Module 12: Bartels v. Frank - Who's Right?

After reading these two articles, in my opinion, Bartels seems to be right. Frank’s article asserts that the Republican Party has created a “dominant political coalition” by attracting the lower-income working-class citizens of America on the basis of cultural issues (such as guns, abortion, gay rights). There are several reasons why this may not be the case. Frank seems to oversimplify his logic. This so-called trend we see in the Republican Party is almost entirely constituted in the South. The South is an area where support for the RP was overly inflated by segregation era feelings. It’s not this way throughout the entire country. Because there is only a high concentration of “dominant political coalition” primarily in the South, Frank is incorrect in assuming the entire country still acts and feel this way. Think of places like New York City, Los Angeles, Milwaukee, Detroit, Chicago, etc. – highly Democratic areas of the country. You compare this to the South and you usually see something a bit different. The South is a highly concentrated area of citizens who hold very, very strong beliefs on issues such as guns, abortion and gay rights –which make you believe that social issues are the most important political influence in this region, but this may not be the case because it’s oversimplified – it’s not like this everywhere, therefore you cannot generalize.

Bartels also argues that there is no proof that, “culture outweighs economics as a matter of public concern” when it comes to looking at working-class Americans. Bartel uses data from National Election Study (NES) surveys to test Frank's thesis and he finds that, “abortion, gun control, school vouchers, gay marriage, the death penalty, immigration, and gender roles – suggests a total impact that is only about two-thirds as large as the total impact of the economic issues included in the analysis.” It can therefore be concluded that working-class citizens haven’t moved right and that "moral values" are not pushing them to vote Republican like Frank suggests. Bartels cannot find any evidence that economic issues are no longer an issue among Americans. It’s quite clear from Bartels’ research that social issues (including abortion, gun laws, gay rights, etc.) are less strongly related to party identification and presidential votes than economic issues. Moreover, while social issue preferences have become more strongly related to presidential votes among middle- and high-income whites, there is no evidence of a corresponding trend among low-income working class, which is what these articles focus on.

Social issues are important, but not the most important influence when looking at working-class Americans. When looking at the 2008 election, we see that, while social issues like abortion and gay rights were talked about a little bit, the main focus of this election was economics. Perhaps comparing the 2008 election to these articles is unfair. We were after all in the midst of a economic “crisis” as this election as taking place, so no doubt more focus was put on economic over social issues. That gives an unfair advantage to Bartels. I think during 2008 there was still an overall concerns for gay rights, abortion, and guns, but it was highly overshadowed by economic concerns so it’s not fair to say that economic issues really do in fact always trumpet social concerns.

McCain Strategist Warns GOP Risks Becoming 'Religious Party'

The article I'm posting for this week is: McCain Strategist Warns GOP Risks Becoming 'Religious Party'.

This article discusses that fact that the Republican Party is becoming too divided with the rest of the country when it comes to gay rights. The Republicans are at risk for becoming too religion oriented and this is going to be their eventual downfall.

Module 11: My Political Party

This week we are asked to write about what a new political party would look like if either one of the other collapsed. Although this is highly unlikely, especially in our live time, this may be tricky. If the Republican Party fell, a similar party to the Republicans would probably rise, and vice versa. I don't think either party has a chance of dying right now. Sure, the Republicans have lost alot of power, but that's the natural cycle of politics. Look what happened when FDR took office. The Republicans pretty much got kicked to the side for many years, but did rise again.

If the Republican Party fell, I think a new ultra-conservative party would emerge. There are too many Americans in this country who disagree with the Democrats and if the Republican Party did die, I think something even stronger than the Republican Party would emerge.

Who are the new leaders? They are the strongest conservatives in the nation. Somewhat to the likes of Rush Limbaugh, but a politician. They leaders will stand for strict enforcement of the Constitution and preserving this nation to what it once was. This new party will care a great deal about traditional values. They will support a strong military and won't back down when the country's security is at stake. The will not tax us all into an ice age - and speaking of ice ages, there will be no more talk of global warming. This new party will be smart enough not to fall for anyones schemes when it comes to this global warming hoax. They will not tolerate the Democrats coming up with all this crazy ideas for us to "save the planet." If Americans want to use plastic bags at the grocery store, they will be allowed to. No more wasteful spending. This new party will veto every bill they come across that wastes the tax payers' money. This new party will reaffirm states' rights and the rights of individual Americans. No more telling us what we can and cannot do. They will appeal to all groups of people because the will cut taxes, but also keep them at a sustainable rate. Who doesn't want a little bit more of their hard-earned money back? Groups that may appeal to this new party would be anyone who pays taxes. Taxpayers are the backbone of this country and they don't get enough praise. Less government intervention will make the country more productive and useful. National defense will be one of their main priorities. We cannot allow other country's to see our weaknesses. We must remain strong and the only way to do that is to focus more attention on military. Harassment of soldiers will not be tolerated. Pork-filled stimulus bills will not be tolerated.

There is a strong base in this country for this type of party. Yes, it does resemble the Republican Party, but it will be even stronger and more conservative. There will become a point when Americans are sick and tired of the government trying to run their lives and take all their money - and when that day happens this new party will emerge.

Rush Limbaugh's Party of Failure

Here is an article to take a look at. I'm sure some of you have heard about Rush Limbaugh's comment that he wants Obama to fail. What do you think about this?

Module 9: Rep. Party

A little worry goes a long way. Why are so many people worried about the demised of the Republican Party? - I'm certainly not worried. Sure, the Republicans have had their share of losses in 2006 and 2008, but we've also seen this in the past as well. Each party seems to dominate for a few years, then that gets old, so the voters "switch" back to the other side. I don't think the GOP is facing a realistic risk of becoming a party unable to compete for the presidency - they just need a good candidate. And that clearly wasn't the case in 2008. John McCain wasn't exactly an "ideal Republican." Alot of people settled on him because he was the best there was, even though he wasn't the best. But you get the idea. I think alot about what happened in 2008 has to do with the media and how much they played up Obama to be the savior we all needed. They bashed Bush and the Republican Party and many voters fell into this trap. That doesn't mean the GOP is dying. We all know a majority of the country were sick and tired of Bush and just wanted "change." Obama promised that change so many people who may ordinarily would vote for a republican voted for Obama. Again, they were lured in by the mystique Obama brought. Again, we see that all the time. For long periods of time one party will "rule", then the other one takes over. Here is an article that discusses the fact that the GOP is not dying, rather they just need a little reform to gain a stronghold again. Some of the reforms the article talks about is how states need regain their rights. Yes, we are the UNITED STATES, but each state should have power of what goes on in their own region, as long as federal power remains supreme. Another interesting point this article brings up is that in order for the GOP to regain power, perhaps they should reconsider their stance on gay rights. As the article puts it, "They’re here, they can vote, so get over it." After all, aren't the Republicans all for allowing less government intrusion (yet they want a govt. ban on gay marriage?) in our daily lives? The overall point of this article is that the GOP needs to change their ways, and quick. The Democrats have a good change of staying in power unless some reform measures are taken. I do agree with this to some degree. The GOP shouldn't have to change it's entire platform, but perhaps they could change their ways in order to regain some support that's went over to the other side. As our text mentions, a strategic party should allocate resources where its efforts could make the difference between winning and losing. If the GOP changed their tune on gay rights, that's a part of the population that could be swung over.

Basically, I believe that the GOP could use some reform in order to gain a strong hold again, but they are not going anywhere. Who else would take over? With all the talk about the economic crisis, I think most people are a little more concerned about our economic health rather than the issues between the parties at the moment.

Opinion: No Electoral Mandate for Barack Obama?

This article, entitled "Opinion: No Electoral Mandate for Barack Obama?" talks about how the 2008 election was an obvious win for the Democrats, but doesn't necessarily mean it was an electoral mandate. In any case, it was more of a mandate for "hope" and "change" than it was for Barack Obama himself.

Module 8: Electoral Mandate

An electoral mandate in government, and more specifically that of the president, is the idea that voters strongly support the president's character and policies and believe that he got selected because there was a mandate from the electorate to put his policies through. Perhaps this even means he's the "chosen one." It sure does appear to me that Obama had a clear electoral mandate. After years or Bush bashing, the Democrats were aching to get one of their own in office. We all know the media has an unbelievable bias to the left, therefore the media's coverage of how terrible the Bush administration was and how they loved Obama oh-so-much was quite obvious during election time and is still quite obvious today. I believe because of this, the media has played a large role in the electoral mandate of Obama. They've played him up to be this great "messiah" who came to save Americans from Bush - that much is obvious. If they media didn't love Obama as much as they do, do you honestly think he would have done so well? I think not. The timing was right for Obama to take office. Many Americans were tired of Bush's policies on war and the economy and just wanted a face take on it all. Obama being the first African American nominee also played a role in this electoral mandate. Lots of people wanted to be part of this historic moment and may have voted with their hearts rather than with their minds. A majority of the country supported his ideas and his policies and selected him for the job. This is a prime example of an electoral mandate. The voters proved he had a mandate, or else McCain would have won. Not so sadly, that mandate has faded. Obama's approval ratings have plummeted below 50%. Many Americans are unhappy with his performance so far as president and are disappointed that they aren't getting what they voted for (told you so...?!). But hey, it's still early on in the running, let's see what this guy can do. I suppose it's too early to tell if his mandate is running on empty since he just got into office two months ago, but again, his approval ratings are on the downturn and it's been 2 months... a sign of worse to come? Shouldn't a president's approval rating stay high or even steady throughout his first year in office? Perhaps he really didn't have that mandate I thought it did, or else he'd be a little bit more popular with the crowd....

Exit Polls: Women push Clinton to New Hampshire win

This article briefly discusses the role of exit polls in the 2008 election. Here we see exit polls are used to determine who supports whom and who has the edge against the other candidates. Although exit polls are useful, they are not always correct...

Exit Polls

An exit poll is used a political science tool to gain insight into how an election may turn out. We use exit polls to collect demographic data about voters and to find out why they voted as they did. As we all know, voting is an anonymous activity, so we cannot use a person’s vote on the ballot to determine the things we would like to study – thus we rely on these exit polls to ask voters who they actually voted for to perhaps gain some insight into trends and popular appeal. Exit polls, with all good intent, do have their problems.

Exit polls are often used to predict a winner before a winner is actually announced. This can create major problems. When a winner is predicted before the polls close, this may skew election turnout. For instance, say you live in California. On election day, you see that the exit polls are predicting the winner of a presidential election because of the votes cast on the east coast. Since California and the east coast of America have such a significant time zone change, you may think that because the polls on the east costs already closed and the “winner” was already announced that there is no incentive for you in California to vote, even though you may have hours left to do so. If every voter though this way, there would be no reason for persons on the west coast to vote because the east coast already determined the winner. When the media presents the exit polls as such we can see the problem clearly.

Exit polls during the 1980 and 2000 election clearly show the issues that can arise. During the 1980 presidential election, NBC declared Ronald Regan the winner early on in the night. Since NBC used their data from the east coast where it was 8:15 pm, persons on the west coast, where it was only 5:15 pm, showed up in much smaller numbers that was expected because NBC had already declared Regan the perceived winner. Obviously this prediction was correct, but this strategy is, as I see it, somewhat democratic. NBC has every right to use exit polls, but the way they present their findings seems shaky at best. I thought exit polls were used to scientifically measure demographics and voting trends – not ruin elections. NBC and others new stations should use caution when presenting their exit polling results because there will be millions of Americans who have not yet had the opportunity to vote, who deserve to have a say. In the end, it’s up to the individual voter to determine where they think their vote will count or not, but when the media plays such a large role in elections as they do nowadays, it makes it more difficult for voters to feel that their vote does truly count. If you were told that the election was already pretty much won by Obama – would you still vote for McCain?

Again, in the 2000 election we saw the same thing happen, but perhaps to an even larger degree. Most media stations called Al Gore the winner of Florida long before the polls were even closed. We all know what happened in Florida and who won it. But this is a classic example, gone wrong, of the media calling a winner early on.

The bottom line is – don’t always trust exit polls. They can be very misleading and sometimes flat out wrong – as we saw in 2000. Exit polls are designed to assist us in determining who votes for whom and why, but lately the media has abused this useful tool. The media is beginning to have too much control over presidential elections in particular. Yes, each voter has the choice to come out and vote or not, but when the media plays at “well, the election is pretty much already wrapped up here” – why should people even bother to vote? It’d be nice for once in awhile for the media to back off a little and stop interfering so much in elections. They really have too much power. As we saw during the 2008 election, they tend to favor one candidate more than the other, and I’m worried that this bias will result in faulty polls to mislead voters to vote for the candidate they endorse.

Huckabee Blasts McCain for Supporting $700B Bailout

Take a look at this article. It talks about how McCain should have given Americans a "true, authentic conservative choice rather than a big government echo with a weak 'me too' way of doing things," concerning the Bailout when during the campaign he rushed back to Congress in an effort to "fix the economy" . Here we see that even members among the same party don't always agree with each other. Republicans are suppose to hate the Bailout - yet McCain, a "Republican" supported it?

Module 5 - Congress

This week, we are taking a closer look at political parties as they relate to Congress. From the reading we've learned many things about this interaction. Most of the reading focuses on the shift in culture in 1994. This shift refers to the massive change in the party culture in D.C. when the GOP took over. During this time, we also saw the parties become more homogeneous, so it was easier to get things done in Congress - definitely not like it is today. Newt Gingrich, the Speaker of the House at that time, is often credited with this shirt to Republican control in Congress. Many people saw Gingrich was so effective as Speaker because he had a special relationship with with Congress members whereas they believed he shared their claims, thus were more likely to agree with him. Another factor that made him quite popular was his "Contract with America" - which played a huge role in government reform in America. Gingrich also treated his fellow members well, listened to their ideas, and genuinely cared what ideas they had, as well as made himself available to them, which also made him quite successful as Speaker. This Republic reign - which lasted quite some time, 1994 - 2006 - definitely shaped they way Congress ran. Then in 2006, things changed. The Democrats suddenly took over Congress as the ruling majority party. We all know why this happened. No one liked Bush's stance on the war and were fed up with him and wanted something different. This is when we often see major changes in Congress - when presidential approval is low. When presidential approval is high, and the president's party is the majority in Congress, we don't see the "switch." I think we can definitely see some stark differences between the Republican reign starting in 1994 and the Democrat reign starting in 2006. In 1994, it appears that, Republicans and Democrats worked together for the most part and got things done more so than they do now. There was definitely some cooperation among the parties back then. Now, we see bitter bickering and no one will back down. Gone are the days when Congress does the right thing for Americans, but now we see them doing what's right for themselves. As we've discussed alot in this class lately, we see this shift to more candidate-centered campaigns, which makes a lot of the decisions that are going in Congress more self-involved rather than group-involved. Generally, the minority party can't get a lot done. I suppose in the "old days" it was alot easier for minority and majority parties to work together, but today, that's almost totally gone. A great example is the stimulus bill then Democrats just passed. The Republicans and Democrats were at war with each other to create a bill that would work - but the Democrats were too stubborn, and a bit suspicious-looking, when they tried to ram this thing through so quickly. We all knew it would pass in the end because Democrats have the majority. So why do the Republicans even try to get things done their way if they know there is a slim chance of that happening? I think the answer is because they want their voices heard, especially when it comes to re-election time. Just because there is a democratic president and a democratic Congress doesn't mean the entire country agrees with their ideas. In fact, alot of the country doesn't agree with them - and that's where the Republicans come in. Even though they have that slim chance of getting things done, they still have the ability to influence Congress and make a stink - and sometimes that's all you need. The 214 Republicans bother to show up because they do have a voice too, be it a small voice right now, but the little stinks they can through might make a difference in legislation passing. Some one has to speak out for the little guy, and right now that's the Republican party. Who knows what kind of mess Obama will be creating during his presidency, so the Republicans are gearing up to clean up that mess when the time comes. Let's see what happens in 2010, shall we?

Candidate Websites - Still Alive?

I looked into whether the 2008 presidential candidates websites are "still alive", and here is what I found:

John McCain... all his website posts is a farewell message and thanks from all his supporters.

Hillary Clinton... ahh, classic. Clinton's website posts a BRIEF quote and asks you to contribute to a "clean-up fund" - wow...

Barack Obama & Joe Biden... here we also don't see much. A brief thank-you, a plead for a donation and the selling of Obama 08 t-shirts, again... interesting.

Perhaps if we searched the candidates' websites in December or so there would have been more there, but as we reach the end of February, these websites are pretty much non-operational.

Here is an article that discuss the 2008 election and the Internet: Election 2008: The Internet Campaign. Many people don't know how to respond to this new phenomenon. Internet-savvy users love it, yet the ones who are not to high-tech may not appreciate or understand it very well. I am one of those people in the middle, I don't rely solely on the internet for my news, I am more of a talk radio gal.

What Happended in 2008?

This week we are to discuss what happened in the 2008 election, as it relates to our readings for the week:

There is no doubt that as the presidential elections come and go, every four years it seems that the candidates are becoming more and more "vulnerable." This time around, President Bush had nothing to worry about since it was his last term in office. Normally, if a candidate was up for re-election they would be scrambling to garner as much support as possible. It was pretty clear that America wanted "change" and "hope" this time around, so even if Bush was allowed to run a third term, there is no way he would have won it. As always, candidates area individuals focused on winning their own elections - so 2008 was no different. The Democrats clear had an advantage this time around because they ruled Congress, but the Republicans gave a tough fight too.

There are always going to be tensions between candidate-centeredness and party centric campaigns because the candidate is after one thing and one thing only - winning the election. They will care more about their "own" campaign that they party's campaign, and rightly so. Obama and Hillary clearly held different opinions on many topics such as health care and the war. Generally, the Democrats have one big idea about such topics, but each candidate formed their own opinion (a more specific opinion, if you will) about such topics. Although the Democrats support government-run health care, both Obama and Hillary had their own versions of what that would look like, which created tensions amongst the two.

It seems that because of new technologies in presidential campaigns, such was the Internet and 24-news channels, we have begun to see more of a candidate-centered campaign. Candidates can now post their own Facebook pages, create their own blogs, and become the focus of 24-new channels by not waring a lapel pin on their jacket. There is so much more focus on the individual than the party these days. I think the media plays a large role in this transition. They become "attached" to one candidate (clearly in 2008 that was Obama - they just LOVED the guy) and clearly focus all their time covering that particular person and bashing others (like McCain & Palin). With candidates using these new technologies more than ever, it's clear that the days of the party running for office are over.

Congressional candidates also receive individual attention, it's not as wide spread as the presidential candidates. Frankly, that's because not as many people care about Congressional members as they do the president. I'm not too familiar with how Congressional candidates run their campaigns, because I've only just begun to be interested in politics, so I'm not sure if they use Facebook or YouTube more frequently than presidential candidates do. - Does anyone follow these types of campaigns?

It was clear in the 2008 presidential election that candidates used the Internet more than ever - is this a good or bad thing? I think they are taking a gamble when using the Internet too much because hackers can get into their sites and "mess things up" pretty bad and if they aren't careful they can make themselves look like fools. Facebook and the likes are clearly tools to reach out to the younger crowd - but how often do these younger folks come out to vote? Is it worth the candidates effort to use Facebook? As a non-Facebook user myself, I'm not sure. I'm not sure how effective their Facebook pages may be.

Obama to Sign Stimulus Bill Tuesday

This week, my article link is entitled: "Obama to Sign Stimulus Bill Tuesday" - "Obama to Sign Stimulus Bill Tuesday."

We all know that this "stimluus" bill is causing great grief amount the Republicans and Democrats - the Reps. don't like it's pork and the Dems. are fighting hard for it. It seems a little suspicious that the Dems. are fighting to hard to get this passed ASAP - probably because there is so much pork in it they want it to get signed before anyone knows what's really going on.

Just something to take a look it. I'm sure it will pass, but with how much support from the Reps.?

Module 3: Election Rules & Factions

This week we are to discuss elections and campaign finance.

The text suggests that primaries were implemented to "diminish the influence of political organizations on political life." - in essence primaries were created to limit the amount of influence that parties have on the nominating process. I agree with this comment because the establishment of direct primaries have allowed the voters to have more of a say in who gets nominated and who doesn't. It's really become MORE democratic with the invention of the direct primaries. Caucuses and conventions, when they were used, were tools that allowed "bosses" control over who was nominated and what their platforms stood for. With the invention and success of direct primaries, voters have enjoyed the luxury of more political participation. They are allowed to use their vote as a way to voice their opinion. Primaries are also a simple way for average voters to take part in the entire process. Each primary is based on state law and each state controls their own primaries, which I think is important because each state can make their own rules and regulations as they see fit. One downfall of these direct primaries is that it produces a more moderate candidate - one who must conform to the wishes of all the voters so he must appeal to those on the left and those on the right. This may be a good thing for some, but it's also a downfall for others because some voters who label themselves an independent appeal to those moderate candidates, while those who label themselves as Conservative or Liberal may not be attracted to a moderate candidate.

Campaign finance has played a large role in campaigns for several decades now. There are generally three main complaints concerning campaign finance: campaign costs have grown too much, people who donate expect something in return, and there is often corruption when huge sums of money are spent/collect for political purposes. To address some of these concerns, the FECA and McCain Feingold Act have been created and implemented. Due to these "new" acts, new restrictions have been put in place regarding how much can be contributed to campaigns and how campaigns are suppose to disclose that information to the public. These regulations have come with mixed results. The main goal was to limit the cost of campaigns, but obviously this aspect has greatly failed. Campaigns are more expensive than ever. These acts have also failed to curtail the influence of organized interests as well as allowed candidates to use federal funds to aid their campaign. On a positive note, the regulations have somewhat limited the amount of corruption and misuse of monies that have gone on. Money is definitely a motivator so it's important to keep a close eye on who contributes, how much they contribute and what their possible "motivations" are. Certain groups may contribute more in the hopes that they will get something in return from the candidate if they win. For instance, let's say that a specific environmental group contributes tons of money to a presidential campaign in the hopes that if that candidate wins they will support that group's initiative. It's almost like buying votes - that sort of stuff we should keep an eye on - and that's why we've created these regulations. They will probably get even more strict in the future. Making campaign contributions available to public access is one way to hold candidates accountable. I think it's important to have factions because its a way to make sure every group is spoken for, but too many factions may clog the system and draw attention to places that aren't important.

Young Voters Help Start Political Phenom

For this week's article, I have chosen: http://www.foxnews.com/wires/2008Apr11/0,4670,PoliticalCelebrities,00.html

This article, entitled:"Young Voters Help Start Political Phenom" talks about how decentralization has played a role in the past 2008 election. It was an election of great importance because more and more regular Americans became involved. Alot of the politicians involved in the election of 2008 came to talk to us average Americans and to me that speaks alot - obviiously they came to talk to us to get votes but at the same time it makes you feel like they are trying to relate to you on some level. The article also says, "Obama's success has validated the larger cultural decentralization, which replaces the old, vertical, expert-to-layman approach with horizontal, peer-to-peer interactivity." People think they can relate to Obama and "how far he's come."

Interesting article.

SKolbeck

Module 2: Decentralization

This week, we are asked to think about how decentralization affects parties and the challenge it poses:

Decentralization helps to shape parties and make them more attune to the public's needs and wants. Decentralization in politics is the idea that more power is given to politicians at the local level so as to give them a better opportunity to serve their constituents. The goal here is to give elected representatives more power in decision-making power so they can better serve. If we didn't rely on decentralization our system would be a mess. Just think of it, if we let one person run the country, how would they be able to serve everyone. Every area has special needs and it would be impossible for one person at the national level to service all those various needs. For instance, how would someone from the elite east coast be able to relate to someone in the plane and simple Midwest? The answer is, not well. That is why we rely on our "own" elected representatives who live amongst us, who understand our problems and our needs, to represent us. There is no way someone who can't relate to the issues that are important to us to be able to govern effectively. Perhaps that is why many presidents who have come from very elite and wealthy backgrounds have a hard time reaching out to the average American. How can they possibly understand us if they've never "lived in our shoes?" I think the decentralization is an important part of our political system. America is an extremely diverse nation so we need extremely diverse people to represent us. I think the fact that Obama has become president is an important stepping stone in our country because it shows you that old white men aren't the only ones who can be president. You don't have to be rich, or come from a fancy background to be president. I think it's what this country needs - someone who understands us and our needs (whether Obama is that person is up for consideration, but that is another matter all together...). I think it's important to elect diverse people to governing positions because they will bring something "new" to the table, whether it be ideas, experiences, etc. Because of the election of Obama, I think the US is in store for alot of change in the future. There's no doubt we are going to have a woman president in the next couple decades, and who knows what's next after that? Although decentralization most of the times means the growth in the size of government, which in turn means more tax dollars, etc. I think it's best to let each state make it's own rules, and each county, town, city, etc. make it's own rules as well. There is no one better to govern that someone who grew up amongst us and has an understanding of what we need.

The Role of Political Parties

Here is the article I chose for Module 1: http://www.america.gov/st/elections08-english/2008/April/20080423223737eaifas0.6480067.html.

The title is: The Role of Political Parties. The article talks a little bit about the historical formation of politcal parties in America, their current role in politics and the not-so-popular third parties.

Enjoy

S.Kolbeck

Module 1: Define Political Parties

This weeks question is: What are political parties. There are many different ways to define "political parties." When most people think of political parties they may think of "Democrat" or "Republican." I think a more broad definition may be any political organization that seeks to espouse political power to their benefit. Most of us like to consider we belong to a political party, I think. This week we read several different primary sources that deal with the idea of political parties and factions. The source I found most interesting was Washington's Farewell Address. The point Washington tried to make here was that political parties are dangerous. Washington says that "[political parties] agitate the community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms, kindles the animosity of one party against the other and forments occasional riot and insurrection." This was pretty powerful for the time. Political parties were hardly even formed during this period of history, yet Washington had the most ill feelings for them. Again, in Madison's Federalist 10 and 51 he speaks of factions. I think Madison is pretty correct in saying that factions are groups of individuals with interests apart from the whole community. Even today, it seems that political parties have their "own agenda" and don't care so much for the wishes of the majority - they are only thinking about their own goals and agendas. Madison, in Federalist 10, goes on to talk about how large republics are better because there are more candidates to choose from a potentially less corruption. I do not completely agree with Madison here but I think he raises interesting points about how if we have a large republic we have more ideas and more accountability. In Delay's Farewell Address, we see something very different. Perhaps because it's a "modern" document it stuck me as "different." Most interesting to me is how DeLay discusses that because Democrats fought him and Republics, alot of things did not get done in Washington, D.C. He says, "imagine all the things we could have accomplished." I think this is key because it points out that because political parties are only after their own agenda we forget about the task at hand - to serve Americans. Political parties, like I mentioned, seem to be focused on their own agenda, not the country's agenda. Because of this there are great inefficiencies in government and politics. Finally, DeLay goes on to say that great American heroes of the past were great not because who they were (Dem., Rep.) but because of what they did. I think that Washington, D.C. has lost the mentality of doing great and is more focused on being great.

Blog #1

Hello all,

This is my first blog (assignment #1; I suppose). I have never blogged before, so I'm not quite sure what all this is about - but it will be a great learning experience for me. This seems to be the "wave of the future", so I better jump aboard.

A little about myself: I am a Junior at UWM and my major is political science. I work as a paralegal in a law firm in downtown Milwaukee and attend school at UWM full time. I am currently engaged (as of New Year's Eve) and am busy planning wedding for 11.21.09 in Los Cabos, Mexico. I enjoy spending time with my boyfriend and family, as well as exercising and staying active. I am taking Political Science 421 because I am majoring in political science, but moreover I was interested in the title of this class and would like to learn more about party politics in America. I hope to learn more about blogging while taking this class but am also looking forward to reading about everyone else's points of view about politics in America. With the presidential election just behind us now, this is a great time to be taking this class because I am sure there will be lots to talk about and everyone will have lots to say.

Enjoy the semster.

SKolbeck