Blog #11- Interest groups and Social movements

Olson II- Group Size and Group Behavior

“All that need be granted, to accept the main argument of this study, is that large or latent groups will not organize for co- ordinated action merely because, as a group, they have a reason for doing so, though this could be true of smaller groups.”

Mancur Olson Jr.’s claim for his piece on “Group Size and Group Behavior” is that large groups are less effective compared to smaller groups. He discusses the importance of acknowledging the ineffectiveness of a large group and the benefits of smaller one. Smaller groups are classified as “privileged” because its members work hard “toward the achievement of the collective good.” However, latent groups refers to the idea of “inactive”. What makes the large group unsuccessful is the amount of people and the work that is put into it, obviously, Olson makes it clear throughout his work that people in a large group do not put in enough effort to propel the group and also since there are a lot of people, it is near impossible for there to be an absolute agreement. Even if a member of a large group were to neglect his own interest entirely, he still would not contribute toward the collective good because his own inputs would not be noticeable amongst the group. 

I chose this quote because it supported his main argument. Every supporting detail touches upon the idea that large or “latent” groups do not solve anything. It is the reason they split up into smaller subdivisions such as committees, subcommittees, and small leadership groups. A large group tends to spur a lot of discrepancies because not everyone is on the same page and the work is being tossed around freely by the individuals. I agree with Olson’s ideas on  group size and behavior because the smaller the group, the more effective it will be for there to be one solution or consensus, as opposed to a larger one. 

Blog #10- The Judiciary

Roe v. Wade 

“The Court held that a woman's right to an abortion fell within the right to privacy protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. The decision gave a woman total autonomy over the pregnancy during the first trimester and defined different levels of state interest for the second and third trimesters.”

Roe vs. Wade is a legal court case that established a woman’s right to privacy and legalized abortion.The case began in 1970 when Norma McCorvey  who went under the name of “Jane Roe” to protect her identity initiated legal action against Henry Wade, a district attorney of Dallas county, Texas, where Roe lived. The Supreme Court did not agree with Roe’s claim of her having the absolute right to terminate pregnancy for any reason unless her life was at risk. Because the Supreme Court wanted to regulate abortion, they tried to find a common ground that which balances a woman’s right of privacy with the state regulating abortion. Roe v. Wade was one of the first significant advances made in allowing women the right to privacy and choose what they would like for their bodies. This amendment made clear that limiting a women’s medical rights and decision for her body was unconstitutional under the Fourth Amendment as well as, to an extent, the Fourteenth Amendment, explaining that all women had a right to privacy. The Court ruled a 7-2 decision and that individual state laws banning abortion are unconstitutional. The decision was written by Justice Harry Blackmun, who spent almost ten years as the resident counsel for the Mayo Clinic. He believed that a woman has the right to make any choice she wishes regarding her pregnancy.

I chose the Roe vs. Wade case because abortion is one of the most controversial topics in the United States. I believe that a woman has the right to do whatever she wants with her body and it is not fair for men to decide how a woman should live her life.

Blog #9- The Presidency

President Reagan 1981 Inaugural Address

“We are a nation that has a government -- not the other way around...Our government has no power except that granted it by the people. It is time to check and reverse the growth of government, which shows signs of having grown beyond the consent of the governed...it's not my intention to do away with government. It is rather to make it work -- work with us, not over us; to stand by our side, not ride on our back.”

Ronald  Reagan wrote his inaugural address which touched upon his vision of America in the future and establish goals for the nation. He advocated for the re-establishment of self-government by limiting the power of the state which encourages self-reliance, a limited government, and individual liberty. In the quote above, Reagan is reminding his audience that the United States is not run by the government but by the people. The government does not own the nation, rather, it is a body of representatives mostly chosen by the people. Without the people, the government is powerless because it has no one to govern. Ronald Reagan declares that it is time to reassess the government and go back to the constitution because it has gone beyond the people's approval. The government is the problem as he says; unemployment rates are increasing, so is inflation and the Iran hostage crisis had not been resolved. The government’s decision seems to be at variance with the people's desires and necessities. However, Reagan is not saying that the nation does not need a government but one that works with the people in providing employment opportunities, better healthcare and proper living conditions for the governed. A true government that is for the people is ran by the people, rather than the government running over them; a nation decisions are consented by everyone and power is not abused.

Although Ronald Reagan made very interesting points in his address, I chose this quote because he was able to explicitly say that the government is the problem. At this time the citizens were in distress because they were at a loss with rising inflations, unemployment and diplomacy issues. A government should be a haven for the people and work together with them to ensure the prosperity of the nation and improve the citizens well being.

Blog #8- Gerrymandering

America’s most gerrymandered congressional districts- Christopher Ingraham

“...the point of gerrymandering isn't to draw yourself a collection of overwhelmingly safe seats. Rather, it's to give your opponents a small number of safe seats, while drawing yourself a larger number of seats that are not quite as safe, but that you can expect to win comfortably.”

Gerrymandering is the act of manipulating the boundaries of a district so  that one political party can have an advantage over the other (Democrats vs. Republicans). Christopher Ingraham describes in his article on the Washington Post, the purpose of gerrymandering and gave a run down on the most to least gerrymandered states. The most gerrymandered districts have been redrawn numerous times to satisfy the political power in power and create a disadvantage for the opposing one. States like Maryland and North Carolina are the two most gerrymandered states today because their numbers are consistently high. I’m 2013, the Democrats were short by 18 seats because Republicans managed to draw congressional districts that put them at them at a disadvantage. The point of gerrymandering is not necessarily to redraw the districts in a party’s favor, but to make sure that the opposing party does not have enough votes to win. So when they draw the new borders, they draw a line right through any districts that support the opposing party joining them to a group that favors their party reducing the likelihood of any competition. Drawing a large number may be risky because individuals are obligated to change their vote, but it is more likely that the party drawing the districts will win.

I chose this quote because prior to the videos and the article,  I did not know what Gerrymandering was. I had brushed on it in my senior year of high school, but it was not as detailed as the information that was given in the articles. This specific quote became easier to analyze after reading all the articles and gave me a better understanding of why and how state legislatures gerrymander.

Blog #7- Equal rights

What to the Slave is the Fourth of July?- Frederick Douglass

“What, to the American slave, is your 4th of July? I answer: a day that reveals to him, more than all other days in the year, the gross injustice and cruelty to which he is the constant victim… There is not a nation on the earth guilty of practices, more shocking and bloody, than are the people of these United States, at this very hour.”

Frederick Douglass wrote this speech, “What to the Slave Is the Fourth of July?”, addressing the Rochester Ladies’ anti-slavery society on July 5th, 1852. Douglass was an american slave who later escaped and became a major part of the abolitionist movement. During his years of “freedom”, he was an orator who expressed the problems with slavery and pushed for its termination.

Douglass compares the views of a white man on Independence Day to a black slave on independence day, expressing more deeply that the slave is more “victimized” than free. To a white man, it is the  freedom from having a foreign nation rule over him, but that same white man still has a slave that he controls. America’s independence day signifies the independence of the nation and those within. However, Douglass mentions that liberty, citizenship and independence is an insult to slaves because they do not receive those privileges. Because of the cruelty and suffering that slaves had to endure, they lacked the ability to be individuals; they were held in captivity with no way out, even on the day that was supposed to signify their freedom. He continues to say that there is no other nation besides America that will have slaves and still claim independence. This is because the majority of the other countries were enslaved by foreigners, so when they claimed independence, it was to sever ties with the superior nation. However, in America, even after the Europeans brought the slave here to work, the Americans should have abolished, but instead gained independence from Great Britain still having slavery.

I chose this quote because it is ironic how "Americans" received independence from Britain, but the black Americans did not relieve independence from their slave owner. As a former slave, Douglass was right to be distraught. It is unfair that the blacks were treated so cruel even after the national day; It goes to show that blacks weren't perceived as individuals but property that the white men could profit from.

Blog #6- Fundamental American Liberties

A Lecture on the Anti-Slavery Movement 1855- Frederick Douglass

The slave as a man and a brother, must be the vital and animating thought and impulse of any movement, which is to effect the abolition of slavery in this country. Our anti-slavery organizations must be brought back to this doctrine…”

Frederick Douglass counters some abolition movement by disassociating them with abolishing slavery and instead having their own agenda that does not coincide with freeing slaves. The Liberty Party, however, has abided by their stance in pushing for liberty for the slaves. The anti-slavery movements should always keep in mind that the slaves that are helpless and being maltreated have people that love them and may even have children that they may never see because of the foolish captivity that they are held in. Also, that they are humans just like the white and should have the liberty as such. Incorporating the horrifying details that the slaves experienced into the teachings is important so that those who are listening can have a change of heart and support the movement. Not everyone may agree to abolishing slavery but accurately teaching the lives of the slaves instead of accomplishing different agendas, such as saving the North or leaving the slaves to fight for themselves, will cause peopleto look at the issue differently. Douglass expresses that all anti-salvery movements should go back to these teachings of whichthe movement was soley based on (freeing the slaves) and properly educate everyone so that slavery can be abolished.

I chose this quote because it was interesting how Douglass was reminding people of why the anti-slavery movement was created in the first place. He implied that establishing emotion from the gruesome acts done to the slaves would appeal to people to support the movement, however, it is of no shock that people already know what is being done to them, they are just ignoring it. But I do agree with the idea that being reminded of the violent treatment will strengthen any movement to engage the audience and encourage the abolition of slavery.

Blog #5- The Seventh of March Speech

“Now, Sir, upon the general nature and influence of slavery there exists a wide difference of opinion between the northern portion of this country and the southern...In all such disputes, there will sometimes be found men with whom every thing is absolute; absolutely wrong, or absolutely right… They are not seldom willing to establish that line upon their own convictions of truth or justice...There are men who, with clear perception, as they think, of their own duty, do not see how too eager a pursuit of one duty may involve them in the violation of others…  They have, therefore, none too much charity towards others who differ from them... too impatient to wait for the slow progress of moral causes in the improvement of mankind…”

The Compromise of 1850 joined California to the North as a free state, but most importantly established a new and improved resolution for salve owners, the Fugitive Slave Act, which allowed slave owners to enter the North and round up African Americans to use them as slaves in the South. The compromise enabled Congress to avoid sectional and slavery issues for several years which further angered the Abolitionist. Because of this, the North and South had many discrepancies that kept the sections divided. Daniel Webster hoped to unite both sections by covering the issue of slavery in his Seventh of March Speech.  

Daniel begins his speech with slavery and religion and the notion that every man is subjected to their own opinion. There are men who have strict rules that they abide by regardless of the situation; it is either hot or cold, the idea of lukewarm is unappreciated and rejected by them. In times of disagreements, they fail to acknowledge their opposers and remain to their beliefs.There are those who believe that they have clarity of awareness and do not realize how their actions may negatively affect someone else or everyone. Without acknowledging the abolitionist movement,  some may assume that the men Daniel describes are extremists, people who hold extreme beliefs, which in most cases drives extreme action. In the North, abolitionist are referred to with a positive connotation, unlike the South where they obviously despised, but only by the slave owners who are in no support of freeing their slaves. Daniel webster not in favor of slavery but in favor of a union. He inserts these sequence of sentences into his speech to shed light on the mere fact that just because a movement or social group are striving to protect the greater good, does not mean that everyone will be in support of the cause. Everyone has their own morals that they stand for, however, not all share those same morals. In reference to salvery, the abolitionists wanted slavery to end; however, the south was not in favor of getting rid of slavery. the moral cause would be for every african american to be free, rather than be maltreatedby a white slave owner. Daniel says that, like any other change that is being pushed for to take place will take time. without refering to abolitionist, he is implying that they are too impatient to wait for the south to come to terms of abolishing slavery. This “difference in opinion” was majority of Webster’s speech and he wanted to share his stance on the topic so that it will influence the North and the South to come to an agreement and become a union.

I chose to write about this particular quote because Webster touched on the issue of how some people, in this case men, become blindsighted by their beliefs and disprove someone else’s because it failed to concur with their own. It is inevitable to clash with someone because of differences, although you personally may not agree with what they say, it is not wrong to listen to their argument and understand where they are coming from. Although the abolitionist wanted slavery to end immediately, it took years for congress to come to conclusion of getting rid of it and they did successfully by ratifying the 13th amendment, which ended slavery.

Blog #4- Debating the Constitution

“The drafters of the 1787 Constitution had good reasons for giving life  tenure to federal judges -- reasons that are no valid today.”

    The average life expectancy during the 17th century lasted only 30 to 40 years. Because of healthcare progressing, the life expectancy of a U.S  citizen has more than doubled (70-80 years). While the US Constitution was being drafted, decisions were made that satisfied the nation’s standards during that time (18th century). In article 111, the Constitution establishes that “The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour”. The notion behind  “good behavior” is vague but straightforward. It was not specific on how long the judges should serve for a term, hence, their lifetime tenure. However, The U.S. Constitution doesn't specifically grant Supreme Court justices a lifetime appointment. As long as they do not commit any illegal activities, they will keep their job in office. This means that the only actions that can remove a federal judge are death, resignation, or impeachment by Congress. Jamal Greene is saying that because times have changed, the government should revisit the Constitution (specifically where the justices are concerned) and alter it so that it can be applied to our current time.

I chose this quote because I do not completely agree with it. For instance, Jamal Greene, the writer of the article, believes that the US government needs to revisit the constitution (article 3 to be exact) and set term limits for federal judges. If Supreme Court justices are given life tenures, they are free to issue rulings based on the law, rather than political favor. Now, majority of those who run for office are politicians; they sat what the public wants to hear to gain popularity and win votes. However, I do agree with the idea that in a democracy, no one person should hold so much power for so long. It is not a crime to have different ideas and have disagreements, but in our current day in age, it is wise to keep the constitution as it is.

Blog #3- The Politics of the American Founding

“Different interests necessarily exist in different classes of citizens. If a majority be united by a common interest, the rights of the minority will be insecure.”

Over the course of history, many political parties have drawn the attention of different classes in society based off of personal interests that people have seen in these political factions. In this instance, James Madison wanted to spread the need for the ratification of the new constitution in a federalist approach. Madison believed that the Articles of Confederation was weak because it was unable to control factions that spread their individual beliefs about the existence and work of the Articles of Confederation, which thus created the different interests amongst people and their lack of unification. Political factors are causing divisions amongst the citizens. The purpose of the Constitution was to amend the problems that the Articles of Confederations could not. James believed that great number of factions and diversity that would avoid tyranny, and also a large population would be difficult to have factions gain control. Hence, people would likely to a  mutual agreement that considers both majority and minority. However, It is nearly impossible for everyone to agree on one thing. There is no sense of greater good within the federalist papers because the “greater good” is not so much greater; in fact, it actually does not help the minority. Because of what majority rules “good” will always put the minority in discomfort.

I chose this quote because it can not only be applied to politics but life decisions in general. The phrase “majority rules” is emphasized when large groups need to come to a solid conclusion. For instance, during my senior year of high school in Physics, the teacher did a poll that gave us the options of either having the exam on the original date before the spring break or after. It was not a surprise that majority chose after break, however, the rest of us (minority) had other exams to prepare for after the break. So as most of the students were enjoying the break and working toward the physics exam, the rest of us were struggling to balance the studying time toward other finals. I completely agree with the what James Madison said about the minority being insecure because in my case, those who are unable to cram or retain information fast would have difficulty taking the exam and they did.

Blog #2- Citizenship and American Identity

“No reverberatory effect of the great war has caused American public opinion more solicitude than the failure of the ‘melting- pot.’”

The purpose of the melting pot was to allow immigrants to assimilate into the American culture. Immigrants were being forced to integrate into the american culture. They run away from political  distress, religious persecutions, unemployment, famine, and many other issues within their native country. Immigrants come from all over the world to America to be free and receive more opportunities for jobs and an education, not knowing that they are coming to be integrated into a system that is completely western. These new immigrants were not coming to fully assimilate and  strengthen American nationalism, but instead holding on to their traditional beliefs, which was becoming a conflicting matter with traditional American beliefs. Immigrants in America are being coerced into the western culture indirectly because they cannot get by speaking their native tongue (getting a job or even going to school). They must inhabit the ways of the western culture and adopt its customs in order to be considered “American”. “Failure of the melting pot” refers to the anglo saxons preventing America from reaching its diversity of various cultures. Americans were trying to integrate the cultures of immigrants into their own disregarding the fact that not everyone wanted to be assimilated. Hence the relation between “Americanization and Anglosaxination”.

The reason I chose this quote was to shed light on the notion that American beliefs and values, that are being held dear by its people (anglo saxons), are becoming major factors in changing nationalism. Randolph was right about America failing to be a melting pot because those who come here and go to school or get a job become inevitably influenced by the western culture.

Blog #1- Power and Citizenship in American Politics

In “Inverted Totalitarianism”, Sheldon Wolin discusses the topic of power and the differences therein. He shares with his readers the meaning of Inverted Totalitarianism—which means to “aspire toward unlimited power, but the methods and actions are inverse.” Wolin believes that The United States is increasingly becoming a controlled democracy and also explains how the government is becoming closer to their goal of “total power”.

“United States, however, it is the streets where democracy is most alive— while the real danger lies with an increasingly unbridled government.”

Wolin used this sentence as an example to explain the coined term “Inverted Totalitarianism”. The reason I chose this quote was because it is not only the truth but a reality.

In the United States, people are always advocating for change, whether it be from the gay community, the black lives matter movement, or any other social group. People gather around and come together to advocate for a change they deem is necessary for the greater good. Activities like riots, marches and public speaking has taken in place in various neighborhoods all for the purpose of receiving acknowledgement and hopefully a better lifestyle. As for the government, it is decisions and laws that are shared with the people but not how the decisions and/or law was made. For example, the controversial topic of abortion has once again regained popularity amongst many US citizens, in that those in government have decided to dictate a woman’s choice regarding her child’s life. The majority believes that abortion should be legalized regardless of how many weeks the woman is pregnant; however, the government overlooking these concerns still abide by their decision of soon illegalizing abortion in all states. This issue goes much deeper than the surface scratched, but it goes to show that democracy is always active within the people and tuned out by the government. The reason Wolin expresses the government  as “unbridled” or “uncontrolled” is because when a decision is made and agreed upon, there is no rebuttals; hence the term danger associated with it.