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

 I am afraid that I am not entirely optimistic about the future of democracy. As you know, "most Americans subscribe to both democracy and capitalism." (Draper 385) These high expectations can be hard to live up to. I envision that in the future we will no longer have two political parties, I think that we will soon have an independent party that attempts to reform our entire system and that they will probably have a lot of public support. I do think that this is realistic because while I do think that democracy is a wonderful idea I'm not sure that we operate a democracy in the best way that we can. The feeling in our democracy right now is one of distrust and non-participation. It seems that the more people get frustrated with what is going on in our country the less they are willing to participate. This does not bode well for the future of our democracy.

As I've said before in this class, I do not think that the form of democracy that we have here is really a true form of democracy. In fact, I think that "most Americans subscribe to both democracy and capitalism." (Draper 385) Too many things like lobbyists, bank bailouts, huge tax cuts for big corporations and occupying countries without approval of Congress are not according to the true form of democracy. "Understanding how the country's democracy currently falls short need not produce a cynical or resigned view  that little can be done to challenge concentrations and uneven distribution of wealth and power," (Draper 392) This is not easily accomplished but so important because we need each other more than ever right now.

However, there is no reason to lose all hope: "while our democracy remains rickety and our ruling elites remain unable to distinguish between public funds and private purposes, we take these baby steps as a sign that we will eventually get it right." (Olojede) 

 Critical Question: Do you think that the U.S. needs a public relations "face lift?" Do you think this could help for the rest of the world to view the U.S. in a more positive light?

Draper, Alan. The Politics of Power a Critical Introduction to American Government. 

New York: W.W. Norton & Company, Inc., 2011.

Olojede, Dele. "Fair Vote, Fragile Future." New York Times. nytimes.com 21 April. 

2011. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/22/opinion/22olojede.html.

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

 I think that the process of developing an economic policy that provides services and sustainability is a very complicated and intricate process. I think that it is accomplished here in the United States through many different programs and policies. As an aside, I believe that having a reliable and sustainable economic policy is important because "when policies that influence the production and allocation of goods and services work well, families have income to pay for food, housing, health care, and some amenities" (Draper 316)

The programs and policies that the government sponsors that aide in the process of developing an economic policy that provides services and sustainability are: monetary policy, regulation, taxes, fiscal policy, spending as well as supporting the gentle relationship between the government and the economy. I believe that it is the influence and operations of all of these programs and policies in congruence that has created, or attempted to create, an economic policy that provides services and sustainability.

I also think that it is worth noting that our government’s role in our economy is relatively small. In fact, "government is necessary to create a common currency that facilitates trade and exchange, to enforce contracts that promote security and predictability, and to supply public goods, such as police protection and highways, that society needs but the market will not provide because it is unprofitable to do so." (Draper 314) While the government provides these resources they also try to "manage the economy through monetary policy. Monetary policy attempts to fine-tune the economy by manipulating interest rates, the cost of money." (Draper 303) managed by the fed

I believe that the government’s small role in the economy through monetary policy is why the Fed is so important and influential in our economic policy. (The Fed manages our countries monetary policy.) It is for these reasons that I believe that while, all of these programs and policies are important but I think that the most important facet within all of these programs and policies is the Fed. However, it may also be telling that "of all the government agencies, the Fed enjoys the most political independence from both Congress and the president." (Draper 305) When the most influential economic government agency is in turn highly independent from political influence I think that this can only be a good thing for our economy.

However, not everyone agrees with the way our economic policy is currently running. (I know I don't all of the time.) During a recent Bush Institute conference to promote economic growth some people, including former president Bush voiced their dislike of the current state of our economic policy. On such person is Meg Whitman (former CEO of EBay) who at this same conference said, “the economic model we’re relying on in the U.S. isn’t working.” (Stahl) Ms. Whitman furthered her comments by also alleging that “most Western European nations have a lower corporate tax rate than the U.S. and that other countries’ success in attracting manufacturing jobs means the nation is being “out-competed.”” (Stahl)

I found this video from CNN that shows an interview with Reagan's budget director and his take on the state of the U.S. economy compelling. 

Critical Question:  All of this makes me wonder, do you think that the U.S. has a good economic policy? How do you think that we can prevent being “out-competed” by other countries who may have lower corporate tax rates or cheaper manufacturing than we do? 

Draper, Alan. The Politics of Power a Critical Introduction to American Government. 

New York: W.W. Norton & Company, Inc., 2011.

Stahl, Lori. "Bush Calls for Backing Off Government Involvement in Padding Economy." 
dallasnews.com. 12 April. 2011.

http://www.dallasnews.com/news/politics/headlines/20110412-bush-calls-for-backing-off-government-involvement-in-padding-economy.ece.

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

While I do think that the government facilitates comprehensive care for us without sacrificing equity in some ways, I do not think that it is always an easy thing to accomplish. Thankfully, I did find one very recent example of the government facilitating comprehensive care for us while still attempting to be fiscally responsible: so-called "Obama care". Recent health care reforms that would provide health care for all citizens would come at a pricey $940 billion dollars over a ten year period. "The high and escalating cost of health care was one of the main reasons offered by President Obama in support of his plan to create universal access to health insurance that, he claimed, would be a key means to contain costs and distribute them across the age spectrum" (Draper 341) However, in an fiscally responsible manner, they have also proposed "fees", spending reductions for Medicare and high income earner's tax and even predict a debt downfall. "because of new fees, taxes on high-income  earners, and reductions to Medicare spending (by phrasing out the private-plan part of Medicare and reducing the rate of increasing payments to hospitals and doctors), the Congressional Budget Officer estimated that the legislation actually will narrow the federal budget deficit in this period by $138 billion. (Draper 343-344)

I also believe that if we could institute a system similar to the French system that we may be successful with "socialized" health care. "To fund universal health care in France, workers are required to pay about 21 percent of their income into the national health care system. Employers pick up a little more than half of that. (French employers say these high taxes constrain their ability to hire more people.) Americans don't pay as much in taxes. Nonetheless, they end up paying more for health care when one adds in the costs of buying insurance and the higher out-of-pocket expenses for medicine, doctors and hospitals." (Shapiro)

It  seems like government provided care while maintaining fiscal responsibility can be accomplished by implementing strong social policies coupled with fiscal responsibility. As our text says the "role of government should be in seeking to reduce income and wealth gaps among Americans through the instruments of social policy." (Draper 345) I also believe that our new health care overhaul is a great example of how the United States balances these things.       

Critical Question: Would you be open to the idea of paying higher taxes in exchange for more public paid services?                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          

Draper, Alan. The Politics of Power a Critical Introduction to American Government. 

New York: W.W. Norton & Company, Inc., 2011.

Shapire, Joseph. "Health Care Lessons From France." npr - npr.org. 11 July. 2008. 

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=92419273. 

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

A nation-state should develop its foreign and domestic policies in accordance with its values in order to be a high functioning, highly productive government. While this objective does seem very valuable and even necessary to the success of a government it would appear that here in the United States we are not always successful in providing this balance here at home. 

I think that in order to provide this balance it is important that the government's policies reflect its core values. At the heart of this argument is what our own country represents and if our policies support and project those representations. For example, the United States is a democracy built on the ideal that we are self sufficient, a land of freedom, opportunity and a model of democracy. In some ways we do support these ideals. We promote justice and the spread of democracy in countries that have dictatorships and we have formed social policy that allows for immigrants to naturalize here and benefit from our social resources. We also have in place a system of checks and balances to ensure the longevity of a democracy. One example of this is the budget. While the president initially makes up the budget based on their political agenda the Congress must then approve it. If the Congress is not of the same political makeup as the president they may conform the budget to suit the political agenda of their political majority. "The president and Congress, in effect, share power over the budget; conflict is inevitable between them as each branch tries to impose its own priorities." (Draper 295) One example of budget woes is going on right now "leaders of both parties publicly staked out seemingly inflexible positions while staff members worked in private on a possible compromise to finally pass the 2011 budget." (Kane) It is in the same manner that our countries foreign policy is also driven by the political agenda of the president and the Congress and I believe this sort of activity "blurs the line between monetary and fiscal policy." (Draper 308)

In contrast, our country also has foreign and domestic policies that do not necessarily reflect our core values. One example would be how low are taxes are in contrast to other successful democracies. In comparison to other rich democracies we have relatively low taxes however, we pay the price for these low taxes with less government paid services. Other successful democracies pay out generously for child care and health care in return for higher taxes. "In many other rich democracies, the government either provides child-care services directly or gives more generous subsidies for child care than American families receive" (Draper 292) I do not think that lower taxes in exchange for government paid services is very reflective of our countries core values.

This all makes me wonder the critical question: do you think that the budget should be a collaborative effort? Do you think that it would be easier/better if the Congress or the president were in charge of the budget?

Draper, Alan. The Politics of Power a Critical Introduction to American Government. New York: 

W.W. Norton & Company, Inc., 2011.

Kane, Paul. "Government Shutdown Looms over Talks as Crunch Time for 2011 Budget Nears - The 

Washington Post." The Washington Post: National, World & D.C. Area News and Headlines - 

Washingtonpost.com. 03 Apr. 2011. Web. 04 Apr. 2011.

 <http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/crunch-time-for-the-2011-budget/2011/04/03/AFoonzVC_story.html>.

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

I think that judges and the judicial system play a very important role in supporting freedom. Judges tell us what the law is and how it is interpreted through their rulings and decisions. "They get to say what the law is, and their judgment is final." (Draper 247) It is for this reason that I believe that they are integral in supporting freedom. "Unlike umpires, judges do not simply apply the rules to what occurs on the field; instead, they actually decide what the rules are through their decisions." (Draper 249) Additionally, judges have the power to make rulings or decisions that may take away some of our freedoms, for the most part they have upheld our basic and inherent freedoms; in this way they have also supported freedom. "The justices of the U.S. Supreme Court regularly profess ardent devotion to what they divine as having been the intentions of the framers of our nation’s Constitution." (Gusewelle)

The judicial system is also a social change tool. The judicial system as well as judges are entrusted with the task of ensuring that we are all treated equally and fairly. All laws apply to all people. "the law is an arena of equality: the same rules apply to everyone." (Draper 249) I think that ensuring equality is very important in supporting freedom.

While I do believe that judges and the judicial system play a very important role in supporting freedom I also believe that they are highly contradictory in their nature. The court's are often influenced by political causes and actions which could lead to unfair, prejudicial and preferential decisions. This is evident in the fact that federal and supreme court judges are appointed rather than elected. Judges who closely represent the political affiliations of the president who are selecting judges to fill vacancies are more likely to be appointed  then judges who don't. This can ensure that their parties beliefs are represented for years to come. I am not sure that this is the best way to support freedom. 

This all begs the critical question: do you think that judges should be elected rather than appointed? What sort of political influences that currently exist in the judicial system do you think this approach would help to avoid?

 Draper, Alan. The Politics of Power a Critical Introduction to American Government. New York: W.W. Norton & Company, Inc., 2011.

kansascity.com. "Westboro Baptist Church members dishonor their faith." Gusewelle, C.W. Published Mar. 19, 2011 10:21 PM. http://www.kansascity.com/2011/03/19/2739306/westboro-baptist-church-members.html#ixzz1HBvf6N6V

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

I think that at the heart of this authenticity question is the fact that our current Congress may not resemble what the founding fathers intended Congress to look like. However, I also believe that there are so many changes that have occurred in our country that the founding fathers could never have predicted or envisioned would have happened that have shaped our Congress to be the way it exists today. 

Having said that, I believe that the current structure of the U.S. Congress mostly limits “authentic” representation. I think that this limitation is the result of many different things.   Firstly, I believe that this limitation may result from the vast power that has been granted to Congress. While I do believe that the founding fathers intended Congress to have substantial power I believe that it's important to point out that "in almost every other democracy, the national legislature lacks the kind of authority the American separation of powers system places in Congress." (Draper 210) I also believe that the founding fathers intended for the other two branches of the government to provide a checks and balance system for Congress. However, it would appear that this very separation of powers has actually empowered Congress to an extent that is no longer as subordinate as it was prior to the 1960s. "Into the 1960s, Congress continued to play a mostly subordinate role to the presidency in initiating policy proposals and setting the agenda of government. Congress was content to let the president provide leadership, and even encroach on congressional powers, because it largely agreed with the president's policies." (Draper 217)

Secondly, I think that the evolution of lobbyists has also led to the decline of authenticity in Congress. Lobbyists were certainly never conceptualized by the founding fathers and their current power has led to the possibility of buying representatives to a certain extent. Lobbyists spend huge amounts of money to make sure that their “clients” causes are represented in Congress. In fact, "the pharmaceutical industry has more registered lobbyists than there are members of Congress." (Draper 241) I think that this has led to the decline of authenticity mostly because the more money you can spend on a cause the more exposure that cause will have and then the possibility of that cause’s goals being enacted in Congress grow exponentially. Lastly, what I really worry about is that after some crucial supreme court decisions the future holds the prospect of unlimited campaign contributions and therefore accelerated lobbying. As one author put it: "if you think spending on the 2010 election broke records, wait until the 2012 race heats up later this year. So long, campaign disclosure. Hello, unlimited secret spending." (Schneider) This prospect frightens me. 

 I believe that the current structure of the U.S. Congress supports “authentic” representation in that our Congress has, for the most part, always remained true to the vision of the founding fathers. We have, and hopefully always will have, a system of checks and balances that ensure that each branch of the government remains accountable to the others. The fact that the Congress, or any other branch of the government, has never tried to “do away” with our system of checks and balances shows that the U.S. Congress does support “authentic” representation.  

I think that all this begs the critical question: What remedies do you think the founding fathers provided to "check and balance" the Congress? Do you think they are effective?

Draper, Alan. The Politics of Power a Critical Introduction to American Government. New York: W.W. Norton & Company, Inc., 2011.

theday.com. "Democracy can't survive shrouded in secrecy." Schneider, Gabriela. Published 03/13/2011 12:00 AM. http://www.theday.com/article/20110313/OP03/303139957/1044.

In what ways does the U.S. Presidency support and limit the formation of an ideal democracy?

I think that the U.S. Presidency supports the ideals of democracy in many ways. As our book points out, "the presidency is the most powerful institution within American government, but presidents encounter immensely powerful obstacles to the pursuit of their goals within American government and society as well as abroad." (Draper 189) This change in power from the government to the president occurred After "the New Deal and World War II supersized the presidency and the executive branch. Accompanying the growth of the federal government's role was a change in the balance of power among the three branches of government: power tilted decisively toward the president during Franklin D. Roosevelt's presidency from 1933 to 1945." (Draper 180)

One way that the U.S. Presidency supports the ideals of democracy is by passing bills. The president must sign off on many pieces of legislature before they become "law." In many instances it is up to the president to ensure that any laws represent the best interests of the county. I believe that this is an extremely important example of how the U.S. Presidency supports the ideals of democracy.

One more way that I believe that the U.S. Presidency supports the ideals of democracy is in foreign relations. "Throughout the nineteenth and early twentieth century's, there were swings between strong and weak presidents, between presidential and congressional supremacy." (Draper 179) These swings in power made it so that the presidency is most often the face of our democracy and way of life to the rest of the world. It is very important that they present the whole countries ideals when they are dealing with the rest of the world. 

 Alternatively, I believe that the U.S. Presidency limits the ideals of democracy is almost in direct contrast of the ways that it supports democracy. Our government has in place a system of checks and balances that are meant to keep each arm of the government in synch and accountable to all of the other arms. It is the executive branch's duty to make sure that the president's actions are in the best interests of our country. If the president uses his veto power neglectfully or if he passes bills that are not in our best interest then he is limiting the formation of an ideal democracy. One recent decision that Obama made that I do not necessarily believe was promoting the ideals of democracy happened when, last summer, he "bypassed Congress and appointed Dr. Donald Berwick to head Medicare and Medicaid -- filling the job while Congress is in recess to get around Republican opposition that threatened to derail Berwick's confirmation." (FoxNews.com) Taking this important decision out of the hands of the Congress was not the right way to show our country or the world that our president fully supports an ideal democracy. 

All of this makes me wonder the critical question: are there any additional checks and balances we could put on place to ensure that the presidency never becomes a dictatorship? 

Draper, Alan. The Politics of Power a Critical Introduction to American Government. New York: W.W. Norton & Company, Inc., 2011.

FoxNews.com. "Obama Fills Medicare and Medicaid Post Without Senate Approval." FoxNews. July 07, 2010. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/07/06/president-medicare-medicaid-post-senate-approval/#ixzz1FrGIA2h8