Blog

AP Government Blog

Ryan Pubentz's Blog Page
This blog will be used to discuss what is being learned in AP Government.
4 - Media
Posted 10/26/2017 at 10:11:45 AM by Ryan Pubentz [staff member]
After reading the textbook and The Real Media Bias: Profits, formulate an opinion on what you believe the purpose of journalism should be. Do you agree with the “old school” opinion of the media as a watchdog group, providing credible information to inform a participatory public, or do you believe that journalism should reflect changing times, doing what it can to draw viewers and subscribers? Provide as many examples as you can to defend your opinion. 


Reply Posts
Media
Posted 11/5/2017 at 8:15:04 AM by [anonymous visitor]
The media is a very essential part of American politics. Mainly because it helps inform the citizens about what is going on in the government on a local, state, and national scale. Since the birth of our country there have been clear changes in the evolution of the media. For the most part in the way the news is presented to us. In today’s media all we see is the next scandal or who said what to who or who is where when they should be here. The big media brands today try to get the inside scoop on all these things so that they can draw in viewers to make more money and earn good ratings. However what we rarely see is what is really going on in D.C., in regards to what new law congress is trying to pass or how they are working or not working to fix our country’s problems. The media needs to return to the “old school” way of doing things. Meaning, they should be the watchdogs of our government, looking out for how things are being run and if things are going as they should be. Instead of trying to get dirt on every politician to gain viewers the media should be looking at what is going on with things like tax reform. Although it might be boring it affects each and every one of us more than if Hillary Clinton is still thinking about running for office again in three years. The purpose of the media is to inform us about the decisions being made in Washington that affect our lives and country, not to give us something to gossip about. Until that switch happens the media will continue to be corrupt. -T.G.
Media
Posted 11/1/2017 at 8:18:11 AM by [anonymous visitor]
I believe that journalism should return to it roots with credible information being the main reason that the media should shoot for when they make and broadcast a story about an issue, topic etc. For example most news today according to the president is fake news which is just the false perception that the media puts a spin on a story that makes the original story not true in nature. Another example is the mutual distrust that occurred when the Vietnam war and the Watergate scandal transpired, when this happened the trust level between the two sides went from a respected relationship to a mutual distrust from the media covering those events in a negative light showing that the government failed by using cold facts instead of their opinion on how they feel about the topic at hand.WS
Media
Posted 11/1/2017 at 8:18:02 AM by [anonymous visitor]
In my opinion, media should provide credible information to inform the public. The media influences what subjects become national political issues and for how long. For example - automobile safety, water pollution and the quality of prescription drugs were not a major political issue before the media started covering them and put them on political agenda’s. The media keeps track of and help make political reputations. The media has an instinctive and profitable desire to investigate personalities and expose scandals. Media is something which can shape the public opinion in many ways. When media provides credible and correct information to the public. It does a great service to the public and helps shape the public's opinion. Media at times can be bias but it mostly remains neutral. That is because if it were bias at all times no one would believe the media to provide credible information and just ignore it as a way to draw viewers and subscribers for a substantial amount of monetary gains like the Tribune Company of Chicago which keeps its goals to have a 30 percent profit margin. Telling us that this newspaper along with many other a capable of drawing viewers through fake news and scandals. Some states do not require journalists to share their sources with the public and some states are against this and say that in order to decrease fake news journalists must display their sources for the information they used in creating the story. The need for journalists to create discredited stories is because journalists are in a constant fight to find the best sensationalizing stories in a short amount of time. Just like in the spider-man series where peter parker works at a newspaper company and has to face a fake journalists who doctors his photographs and gives them to the editor. This would be a case where media is solely focussed on monetary gains. I think that media should stay true and try to be as unbiased as it can be. The media is a powerful tool that many political candidates fear and encourage. Candidates may use media to promote themselves as a better personality than other candidates. Media has to provide equal amounts of time to all candidates so that everything is fair. When the media acts like a watchdog it watched these candidates and scrutinizes them to every extent that even a small mistake could cause the public to lose faith in the candidates up for election. So media should continue to act like the government's watchdog and influence the public's opinion to make sure that everything is done right. -H.S
The Media
Posted 11/1/2017 at 8:17:56 AM by [anonymous visitor]
I believe the purpose of Journalism is letting the public know what is going on in the government. Although they need the viewers, they see by getting the most viewers is yielded from their use of yellow journalism, because it is more interesting. The old-school opinion of the media as a watchdog group giving credible information to the people is my preferred way. However, the watchdog method of focusing on the negative of each candidate is not good as well. Times are changing, so having a news outlet that reflects that would be the best option right now. The best example that would prove that today's media as it is, is not the best. Politicians and the media are enemies. That shouldn't be the case because they are reliant on each other they only hurt one another SL
Journalism Blog
Posted 11/1/2017 at 8:17:44 AM by [anonymous visitor]
In not so recent years, journalism has fallen from its former glory as a reliable bastion of truth and reverted into a simple money making machine. There’s nothing wrong with turning a profit; journalists need to make a living. However, I believe in order to keep consistent readership (and thus, profits) high, news media has to return to its old “watchdog” ways. The majority of today’s reporting sounds like high school gossip. “Crammed with celebrity interviews, disaster and crime reports, punditry and manufactured news,” notes Margo Hammond of the St. Petersburg Times, “the media is not so much an arsenal against ignorance. It's becoming a weapon of mass distraction.” The distracted focus of the media is keeping the public uninformed of real, important political issues. Accusing reporters of engaging in horserace journalism is old news, but trying to mask talk shows as political discussion is on another level. Sure, this easily digestible format attracts load of viewers now, but just like high school, people eventually graduate, the gossip becomes irrelevant, and the only people left respected were the truthful ones. People won’t return to a news source that constantly deceives and misinforms them. The media would only benefit from being honest in order to attract consistent, loyal readers. That’s how you build an empire; on loyal followers, not on a fleeting mass of viewers that comes and goes. The media, politicians, and the public all need each other, and the most reliable way to maintain that balance is honesty from all sides. -PY
Media Blog
Posted 11/1/2017 at 8:17:35 AM by [anonymous visitor]
As a United States citizen, I fully agree with the “old school” opinion of the media as a watchdog group, looking out for us. We as citizens are restricted in our access in knowing what is happening in the government and the media is one of our only ways to find that out. If the media doesn’t look out for us and only tires to bring in views, that is hurting all of America. We must be informed about what is happening so we can be knowledgeable on the topics (considering informed voters are required) so that when it comes time to voting we are able to know what is happening and how it will affect us. In the book it discusses how newspapers and television are so wrapped up in their horse race journalism and yellow journalism that they often forget to be our watchdog. We as citizens need someone to look out for us and protect us on the inside. If the media only worries about their views and the profits they bring in then they are failing to do what we expect and most certainly need them to do. This can be similarly seen in the article The Real Media Bias, where it states, “In other words, most news organizations, which once served to keep tabs on those in power, are now powerhouses themselves.” If the media continues to care solely about themselves and their profits alone, then it serves no purpose to us as citizens. We do not turn on the news to see meaningless stories, we turn on the news to see what is happening in the world around us- our world, our country, our home. What news companies fail to realize is that perhaps their ratings and views would increase and remain high if they provided us with news we needed and wanted to see. It would be the best of both worlds, we get the news we need and they get the profits they need. Overall, I strongly believe that the media needs to serve as our protector and our watch dog rather than making us blind and leaving us in the dark. -RR
Media
Posted 11/1/2017 at 8:17:26 AM by [anonymous visitor]
Journalism: the concept of preparing, writing, or recording for different mediums, such as newspapers, blogs, magazines, or preparing news to be broadcast. Journalism is a powerful, informing tool which connects Americans and politics, issues, policies, and occurrences. How Americans receive information correlate to an individual’s reception of such issues; will they agree, disagree, remain impartial, etc.? Americans prefer truths and detest lies. Americans cannot gather all news on their own; therefore, we rely on the media to form our structure of knowledgeable information. Journalists must be “old school” watchdogs and inform the public of credible information about American-tied issues and occurrences that occur both within the U.S government and overseas. Journalists must act as this connecting string between the array of Americans, politicians, and government. While America has experienced extreme changes, journalism should not reflect the new techniques to draw viewers, but rather embody the “old school” opinion of the media and inform citizens of credible information. Americans depend on the media to receive credible information and not false lies about politics, government, and America’s oversea relationships. While Margo Hammond and American Government hints that the media is biased--more liberal--about information due to “profit margins” and the editor's’ ability to write about selected issues, we learned in class that the press should be neutral and objective. Journalists must provide Americans with unbiased, credible facts and allow Americans to interpret information as they please, rather than being provided with already biased opinions. For example, journalists must not draw viewers with bold headlines or obscene content; for example, by titling Obamacare articles as “Stupidity of American voters” would halt the progress of Americans formulating their own opinions about Obamacare. Journalists must provide a title of “Obamacare, the Affordable Care Act” in allow readers and viewers an unbiased source with facts to pick-and-choose to align with (Viebeck, CBS News). Americans strive to interpret information individually, without a media provided bias and therefore, Journalists should supply strong, credible, neutral facts and not weak, opinionated information. While Americans prefer to receive unbiased facts, no longer do Americans flock to mediums, such as a nightly news show, to receive unbiased, credible information. As illustrated by Martin Wattenberg, from 1974 to 2002 the frequency of Americans to watch nightly news has decreased dramatically; as stated in class, half of all Americans used the internet to get political news in 2008. The introduction of technology compels Americans to turn to the internet to receive much of its information regarding the U.S government. Billion dollar companies, such as CNN, Fox News, and MSNBC, unfortunately fall under the spell of new-day journalism and play as watchdogs to expose Americans to juicy scandals, unimportant issues, and biased pieces about the U.S government and society. Many Americans ponder over subject bias in the media, being liberal or conservative, and the specific news printed, broadcasted, and put on the internet. When deciding whether or not a topic should be covered, American journalists reflect over the following question, “Does it make money?” (Hammond). Like a lion waiting on its prey, American businesses and citizens are run by money and the constant demand to gain more green. Compared to a game of heads-up-seven-up, journalists hope Americans will choose their broadcast, station, or article, with the journalistic goal of money in mind. To achieve a grand profit, the national media acts as a viewer-drawing gatekeeper by influencing what subjects become national issues and for what duration of time (Wilson, Dilulio, Bose). However, this gatekeeper method forces news stations to reflect changing technological times and wrongly abandon the “old school” opinion of media by bringing attention to unimportant occurrences. This abandonment of credible information proves ineffective and harmful to American viewers as it provides a wrong perception of the actual, worthy news at hand. Scrolling through CNN or Fox News, one is presented with “old school abandoning” headlines such as “8 dead in New York terror attack...House GOP struggles with tax plan” (CNN, Fox News). The media selectively chooses which subjects to cover based on the American audience and what will attract humans to read, view, or listen to a topic. Regarding the most recent terror attack in New York City, the media must act as an efficient “old school” bridge between the American people and politics by one, informing Americans of the attack, two, illustrating the reaction of President Trump, and three, providing the insight of Homeland Security and its future actions against terrorism. Journalists must have the function to inform Americans with credible information and, unlike Margo Hammond’s explanation of news being “crammed with celebrity, disaster and crime reports, and manufactured news,” it must not be a “weapon of mass destruction” but rather a wand giving unbiased facts to the American people. It is inappropriate for CNN to publish an article titled “New York Times executive accused of lewd sexual harassment” because, let’s be honest Americans, we want to focus on important issues, and not one's sex scandal. Americans need credible, worthy information from the media and journalists need our money: it’s a win-win situation as long as journalists continue to please its audience. Trust between the American public and the government is crucial in politics. Rather than taking extreme measures to lure viewers or subscribers, journalists must bridge this sense of trust by providing credible information to the public. Money is important to politics, yet the most important way to gain “ bonus points” is to inform Americans of red, white, and blue information and sprout their knowledge about an informative topic.
Media
Posted 11/1/2017 at 8:17:16 AM by [anonymous visitor]
There was once a time when crusading newspaper teams slowly uncovered huge scandals on political elites, and present the information to the general public. Now-a-days it truly seems that the real bias in media sources these days is not ideological but financial. The United states is constantly adapting to new tendencies to benefit the people but does the transition to a new type of journalism of devoting more time for entertainment instead of explicitly exposing scandals within the government really benefit all of us? It is very subjective to say which effect of journalism new or old is better for the majority of people. But with my opinion i believe that Old school journalism is more beneficial to society. My reason revolves around how news media is perceived by people and what helps keep the government intact and working properly. Old school journalism involves having the media being viewed as a watchdog group, that uncovers many of the political wrongdoings in order to educate and provide better reasoning to the general public on certain policies and events within the government. As people not commonly involved in politics do not have access to government information like other lobbyists and media individuals do. Another benefit to old school media is that Media reporters are the only hope for the general public in getting reliable sources on government actions because expert information is always in a short supply. Though it is a positive to the general public as the media individuals are able to uncover actions of the government it can come with a possible cost of ruining friendships and access with a politician. Nevertheless the connections between the media reporters and politicians still remain because in this democracy reporters and politicians need another to do their job correctly. As media reporters need politicians to give information on possible policies to report on, and politicians need to spread their words on certain issues that they stand for. Unfortunately it seems as if old school journalism is gone and only reappears on occasions when disasters happens. For example, old school journalism last occurred during the days and weeks that followed Sept. 11, 2001. “News organizations seemed to forget about profits and concentrated on serving the public. Television networks suspended commercials. Newspapers put out extra editions and expanded their news holes to accommodate badly sought after information about terrorism here and abroad” (Hammond, 2). Not only do we need the media to give awareness to all of the general public but according to democracy it would be advised to also “give the media the role of watchdog. Which is one of the best ways to hold government and powerful institutions accountable for their actions” (Hammond, 1). And the best way to keep the government in check with their actions is through Old school journalism. P.P
Media
Posted 11/1/2017 at 8:17:09 AM by [anonymous visitor]
What happened today? That is what everyone wants to know. People want to know the good things and the bad things. They want to be informed of the events in their community, nation, and the world. Media began as small one page pamphlets to do this. Over time, newspapers have grown to major nationally recognized media sources that are able to give almost instant coverage of the events anywhere in the world. The expectation is that media will focus on the issues that the average American would like to hear about; such as community and state issues, natural disasters, or stories that will inform or entertain them. People expect the media to be unbiased and give true accounts of what is happening. When people have all of the facts, they can make their own decisions about the issues and concerns that media presents. So, the purpose of media is to inform the public about all sides of an issue with as much truthful information that is available. With the invention of the car, television, Internet, and radio there has been a huge shift in how American society functions. As the world changed, media changed as well. It had to adapt, or it would have been forgotten. This shift is where I believe that the media lost its real purpose: informing the citizens of the nation with the information that was important to them. Unfortunately, the shift brought a new purpose to media: profits. For example, today, media congestion is a real issue, with 6-10 news networks, 10 weekly news magazines, countless radio talk shows, and Cable TV which has 24/7 news broadcasts. At one time,in the 1970s, there were only 3 major news networks ABC, NBC, and CBS, which only had a single 30 minute news broadcast a day. In the article, Real Media Bias:Profits article, it talks about how the media will try to remain unbiased to make a profit. By being unbiased, newspapers can sell to audiences of all political parties. The media once used Watchdog Journalism, in which reporters wait to report on stories exposing government scandal and wrongdoing; compared to the methods used today where reporters use Yellow Journalism (the use of sensational headlines to grab the reader's attention) and Horse-Race Journalism (the reporting of where a candidate stands in the polls compared to how they stand on issues). In the textbook, it stated that in 2000, 89% of the people interviewed stated that they felt the media focused on politics, instead of events happening around the nation or world. By using Watchdog Journalism, newspapers and media sources could get the in-depth information about topics the readers/viewers really are interested in: where candidates stand on issues, new laws, or bills that are being proposed. Instead, much of the media is focusing on topics such as poll ratings that are only important to politicians. So, the purpose of media has changed from being a source that reports on all sides of an important issue to a source that is very repetitive in the way that it reports information that is less important or interesting to the public. J.J.G
Media
Posted 11/1/2017 at 8:16:57 AM by [anonymous visitor]
The Media should go back to their "old school" ways of serving as a watchdog, providing credible information to inform a participatory public. As we have learned through class discussions, textbook readings, and supplemental readings the Media has been too concerned with how much money they will make. According to the Real Media Bias: Profit article, "Instead of keeping tabs on the people in power, the Media has become a powerhouse themselves. The Media views the public service as being too costly, and choose to go with the cheapest option possible". A prime example of the Media being a powerhouse is Media companies like Disney and News-Corp are in control of 90% of the Media (Disney controls ABC, ESPN, PIXAR, and more) . If the Media would focus on reporting credible news to the public instead of worrying about how much money they will make citizens would be more knowledgeable about current events and political issues. -NM
Media
Posted 11/1/2017 at 8:16:50 AM by [anonymous visitor]
I believe the purpose of journalism is to inform the public with accurate and digestible information as well as monitor the political happenings of elected officials. The media provides all of the insight that voters have on policy changes so it is their duty to spread the facts and call out injustices made by those who represent Americans. If the media continues to spend its time and resources spreading exaggerated content, the public will continue to distrust the media. That divide between media outlets and voters will not only keep the public ignorant but decrease profits for the companies who participate in yellow journalism. And I disagree with the notion that running for office gives the public right, morally not legally, to expose every mistake of your past. Airtime is precious and I do not think it should be wasted by stories about what happens in the privacy of official’s homes or their personal endeavors that do not impact their policy opinions. ~S. S.
Media blog
Posted 11/1/2017 at 8:16:43 AM by [anonymous visitor]
AP 1st I believe that the medias sole purpose is to educate and inform the american people with honestly and openness. Watch dog journalism may be pesky to government officials, but they are doing their job, letting go of the truth in oder for the american public to be connected to their government. Media is essential, becuase the public can not possibly find all the stories and scandals themselves. In a democracy it is essential the media does this. The media also brings current issue and policies into light. Giving these issues time and space, writing and talking about them all effect the way the public may take them all in. The media is also very powerful because they make the public think, by them cover out their and then its on our minds, they make us think. Thats why I beleive in watchdog journalism over Yellow journalism anyday. Yellow journalism doesn tmake us think, it injects false ideas and stories into our mind, giving us a false reality of our government. In The Real Media Bias it focuses on profit, and how profit is a media companies main goal. The articlle states that “The real bias in media these days is not ideological but financial”, this means the bias is no longer conservative or liberal, but what sells. The media is now focusing on what grabs viewers attention, and not what enlightens the public. Decisions about broadcasting or printing now come down to one question “Does it make money?”. However it wasnt always like this, in a different time long ago the media actially did their job, focused on the facts and not on what sells, and what only sells.
E.B.
Posted 11/1/2017 at 8:16:34 AM by [anonymous visitor]
Media plays a large role in politics. It has the ability to influence public opinion and sets policy agendas which draw attention to certain issues. Because of this, journalists and government memebers are dependent of each other since the media informs the public. When it comes to medias purpose, I believe that the media should inform and educate the public of important issues and policies in our country. Unfortunately, now a days people and the media tend to focus in on stories deemed interesting and somewhat dramatized to bring in viewers. However, this is not how the media should operate. Rather than using sensationalism and horse race journalism, journalists should focus on providing credible and relevant information that would adequately inform the public. Only covering the positions of the candidates in the race prevents the public from learning about what is actually important - their views and platforms. The best way for the media to effectively communicate the on goings in the government to the public is to partake in watchdog journalism. Watchdog journalism involves tactics like fact checking, interviewing government officials, and investigative journalism. Most citizens only have a basic understanding of politics and may be misinformed or uninformed on certain issues within our country. With watchdog journalism, people are able to attain credible coverage of political issues and public policies. Watergate is an example of investigative journalismm that brought attention to government wrong doings and informed the masses of real issues. Overall,  yellow journalism, sensationalism, and news coverage for the purpose of gaining viewers is not the best way to inform the public of politcal issues. Since it is a journalists job to educate others to the best of their ability, they should rely on watchdog journalism to present the public with credible and relevant information.
Media
Posted 11/1/2017 at 8:16:24 AM by [anonymous visitor]
I believe journalism should be used to provide facts and information to the public, even if it means putting political candidates on that spot and exposing any wrongdoings of theirs. Watchdog journalism is when the media informs the public about on-goings in society. Rather than trying to become the best media source on the network, media should focus on informing the public about important credible information that the public would react to and push for changes. If the public is informed rather than watching news for fun or unnecessary activities going on in society, then they can react to what’s going on in politics and change their opinions as necessary. -AG
Real Media Bias
Posted 11/1/2017 at 8:16:17 AM by [anonymous visitor]
The purpose of journalism should be that the news should be told and it should be told accurately. I agree with the “old school” opinion of the media. The watchdog group that provides credible information to inform the public is how journalism should be. The most recent occurence of credible news was about seventeen years ago, following the 9/11 terrorist attacks. The text “The Real Media Bias: Profits” states, “During the days and weeks that followed Sept. 11, news organizations seemed to forget about profits and concentrated on serving the public. Television networks suspended commercials. Newspapers put out extra editions and expanded their news holes to accommodate badly sought after information about terrorism here and abroad.” News these days are all about unimportant information or profits and the wealth of others. The people are derived of facts that matter. It leads them to lose trust in modern journalism and the government altogether. -AB
Media
Posted 11/1/2017 at 8:16:10 AM by [anonymous visitor]
Before reading the textbook and The Real Media Bias, I was not aware of the drastic shift political journalism overcame. Journalism was once a watchdog group. A watchdog group watches the government to report issues or illegal acts. It was a loyal and upfront way of presenting information to the public, yet regulations are now focused on sensationalism. Sensationalism is not an authentic way of presenting information to the public. I believe journalism should act as a watchdog group because it provides individuals with the most reliable information. It allows citizens to react to the useful information and allows them to make rational political decisions. Journalism should not be a way of reporters doing what they can to draw viewers and subscribers. This way of documenting can be violent, both figuratively and literally. For example, reporter, William Randolph Hearst, used sensationalism. Hearst’s articles influenced for “war with Spain when the Cubans rebelled against Spanish rule”. Many government officials were against the war, but Hearst, as well as many other newspaper reporters, sparked a public interest for war through their aggressive writing. Even though superior government workers exclaimed that there would be no war, Hearst announced “Please remain. You furnish the pictures and I’ll furnish the war.” Hearst developed a battle through his writing, for which President McKinley fell into the public’s pressure and declared a war in 1898. Without the romanticized writing, the public would not have been drawn into Hearst’s exaggerated articles. Journalism ought to be authentic, aggressive stories lead to violence, while if the watchdog group approach was used, a war could have been avoided. Journalism should provide the public with valuable information they need and should know. This can be accomplished with the watchdog group, which includes evaluating government official’s statements, interviewing significant individuals, investigating an event, and gathering information during government meetings. Watchdog journalism protects the public and documents important situations. A more significant example of the watchdog group is the watergate story. Gary Hart was running for the 1988 Democratic presidential nomination, but the Miami Herald found out he was unfaithful to his wife. Hart was exposed to having an affair with a woman named Donna Rice. The watchdog group allowed the public to access useful information about a potential presidential candidate. I believe watchdog journalism is the best way the public can access their political information. It is a way of preventing abuse and warning citizens of the inappropriate actions government officials take part in. Although sensationalism is quickly expanding, watchdog journalism is the most beneficial to the public, for which it acts as a guardian to citizens while sensationalism acts as a source of gossip. Source: textbook L.I.
Media
Posted 11/1/2017 at 8:16:01 AM by [anonymous visitor]
The purpose of journalism is to report the most relevant information to the public. This information is meant to aid the public in making decisions that are dependent on what is presented. I agree with the “old school” opinion of media since it revolves around presenting pertinent info to the public. Unlike yellow journalism, watchdog journalism doesn’t attempt to sway the opinions of the audience by showing distracting events. Instead, all of the information that is presented in watchdog journalism relates directly to politics. An example of yellow journalism and its counterintuitive effects is the Bill Clinton sex scandal. Informing the public about the affair that the former president may have been having does nothing in the long term in terms of politics and how the government functions. Another example of a similar situation is the Toronto mayor and his use of crack cocaine. Although this affects his trustworthiness as an individual, this again does nothing for the long term when looking to advance policy drafting and congressional decision making. In both class-mentioned examples, all that the yellow journalists did when publishing their news was create a giant ruse for attention. The individuals that they exposed may not have been the best people, but they are human and prone to mistakes. But most importantly, these mistakes have nothing to do with how they plan to contribute to the complete work of the government. If journalists were truly serious about advancing the government by involving the people through their media, they would not report on things that would go against that. J.C.
Media
Posted 11/1/2017 at 8:15:51 AM by [anonymous visitor]
I’m conflicted on what I feel journalism should be or should become in the coming years. As much as i’d like to believe I want just the facts and to be informed by credible journalists, I really just don't think I’d consume that like I consume stories mixed with entertainment like “Last Week Tonight” and “the Colbert Report”. I need some level of entertainment to make the news digestible. For example, recently the JFK assassination files became public and that's something I’d be interested in, but I haven’t even thought of droning through the files and transcripts because that’d be awfully boring. I’m going to wait for someone I enjoy to do a story about it. That being said I don't exactly know where to go when I do just want the facts. Every news outlet now seems to be so colored by party affiliations and agendas that I don't know who to trust. I think that really there's a market for both types. In a perfect world I’d like to keep the newer, easy to digest, entertaining journalism that I do consume, but also have a place I can trust to give me the objective truth like the old way of journalistic watch dogs. JM
Media
Posted 11/1/2017 at 8:15:39 AM by [anonymous visitor]
Journalism: the concept of preparing, writing, or recording for different mediums, such as newspapers, blogs, magazines, or preparing news to be broadcast. Journalism is a powerful, informing tool which connects Americans and politics, issues, policies, and occurrences. How Americans receive information correlate to an individual’s reception of such issues; will they agree, disagree, remain impartial, etc.? Americans prefer truths and detest lies. Americans cannot gather all news on their own; therefore, we rely on the media to form our structure of knowledgeable information. Journalists must be “old school” watchdogs and inform the public of credible information about American-tied issues and occurrences that occur both within the U.S government and overseas. Journalists must act as this connecting string between the array of Americans, politicians, and government. While America has experienced extreme changes, journalism should not reflect the new techniques to draw viewers, but rather embody the “old school” opinion of the media and inform citizens of credible information. Americans depend on the media to receive credible information and not false lies about politics, government, and America’s oversea relationships. While Margo Hammond and American Government hints that the media is biased--more liberal--about information due to “profit margins” and the editor's’ ability to write about selected issues, we learned in class that the press should be neutral and objective. Journalists must provide Americans with unbiased, credible facts and allow Americans to interpret information as they please, rather than being provided with already biased opinions. For example, journalists must not draw viewers with bold headlines or obscene content; for example, by titling Obamacare articles as “Stupidity of American voters” would halt the progress of Americans formulating their own opinions about Obamacare. Journalists must provide a title of “Obamacare, the Affordable Care Act” in allow readers and viewers an unbiased source with facts to pick-and-choose to align with (Viebeck, CBS News). Americans strive to interpret information individually, without a media provided bias and therefore, Journalists should supply strong, credible, neutral facts and not weak, opinionated information. While Americans prefer to receive unbiased facts, no longer do Americans flock to mediums, such as a nightly news show, to receive unbiased, credible information. As illustrated by Martin Wattenberg, from 1974 to 2002 the frequency of Americans to watch nightly news has decreased dramatically; as stated in class, half of all Americans used the internet to get political news in 2008. The introduction of technology compels Americans to turn to the internet to receive much of its information regarding the U.S government. Billion dollar companies, such as CNN, Fox News, and MSNBC, unfortunately fall under the spell of new-day journalism and play as watchdogs to expose Americans to juicy scandals, unimportant issues, and biased pieces about the U.S government and society. Many Americans ponder over subject bias in the media, being liberal or conservative, and the specific news printed, broadcasted, and put on the internet. When deciding whether or not a topic should be covered, American journalists reflect over the following question, “Does it make money?” (Hammond). Like a lion waiting on its prey, American businesses and citizens are run by money and the constant demand to gain more green. Compared to a game of heads-up-seven-up, journalists hope Americans will choose their broadcast, station, or article, with the journalistic goal of money in mind. To achieve a grand profit, the national media acts as a viewer-drawing gatekeeper by influencing what subjects become national issues and for what duration of time (Wilson, Dilulio, Bose). However, this gatekeeper method forces news stations to reflect changing technological times and wrongly abandon the “old school” opinion of media by bringing attention to unimportant occurrences. This abandonment of credible information proves ineffective and harmful to American viewers as it provides a wrong perception of the actual, worthy news at hand. Scrolling through CNN or Fox News, one is presented with “old school abandoning” headlines such as “8 dead in New York terror attack...House GOP struggles with tax plan” (CNN, Fox News). The media selectively chooses which subjects to cover based on the American audience and what will attract humans to read, view, or listen to a topic. Regarding the most recent terror attack in New York City, the media must act as an efficient “old school” bridge between the American people and politics by one, informing Americans of the attack, two, illustrating the reaction of President Trump, and three, providing the insight of Homeland Security and its future actions against terrorism. Journalists must have the function to inform Americans with credible information and, unlike Margo Hammond’s explanation of news being “crammed with celebrity, disaster and crime reports, and manufactured news,” it must not be a “weapon of mass destruction” but rather a wand giving unbiased facts to the American people. It is inappropriate for CNN to publish an article titled “New York Times executive accused of lewd sexual harassment” because, let’s be honest Americans, we want to focus on important issues, and not one's sex scandal. Americans need credible, worthy information from the media and journalists need our money: it’s a win-win situation as long as journalists continue to please its audience. Trust between the American public and the government is crucial in politics. Rather than taking extreme measures to lure viewers or subscribers, journalists must bridge this sense of trust by providing credible information to the public. Money is important to politics, yet the most important way to gain “ bonus points” is to inform Americans of red, white, and blue information and sprout their knowledge about an informative topic. --SB
media
Posted 11/1/2017 at 8:15:27 AM by [anonymous visitor]
The purpose of Journalism should be to inform, and keep the public involved and up to date in politics as possible. Journalism should offer information to the public, for those who want to know what is going on in our government have the ability to know. Under our constitution, the US public has the right to know what issues arise in our country, and what the government does to handle these certain issues. Using the media, and journalism is prime way to inform the public, especially in the 21st century, where media has become a main access point to reach publics minds. Journalism should not be used to tell tall tales in order to gain viewers. It should be purposely used to spread useful and current information. Newspapers such as the Plain dealer, or new York times, who uses their papers to tell the public about social, political, and economic news that the public should be informed about. Unlike newspapers that represent tabloids, that the information they provide, although may draw in viewers, is not reliable information, and often times is not the full truth.
Media
Posted 11/1/2017 at 8:15:15 AM by [anonymous visitor]
Journalism should remain as a neutral source of information for the American public, which solely serves as a means of educating. As it has been in the past, journalism should be a ‘watchdog’, which leads to a fairer system. Many agencies have been involved in controversy in modern times for misinformation and clear biases towards certain issues, and the public in turn puts less trust in these agencies, which is harmful to both parties. Less credible news agencies leads to a less informed public. Media using the tactic of ‘yellow journalism’, adding sensationalism to news, has only worsened the situation, despite being done to attempt and draw in more attention and therefore revenue. This is shown by various graphs and studies showing both media trust and viewership are both down significantly in the past 20 or so years, showing a failure to stay in touch with the American public. If journalistic agencies were to abandon this and rather stuck to the original ideals and motives of journalism, a much better relationship would be formed between media and the American people. -MG
Media Blog
Posted 10/31/2017 at 8:21:50 AM by [anonymous visitor]
The purpose of journalism should be to provide citizens with the information they need to make the best possible decisions about their lives, their communities, their societies, and their governments. I tend to agree with the “old school” opinion of the media as a watchdog group, providing credible information to inform a participatory public. However, that is not the main focus of media and journalism in todays world. The media and journalism seems to bebe focused on the wrong things. We often see things such as horse race journalism which is a practice which journalist and reporters use in regards to government coverage and campaign coverage with emphasis on who is gaining or losing, not on what is being done about issues. We also see a lot of yellow journalism which is Journalism that exploits, distorts, or exaggerates the news to create sensations and attract readers. In the real media bias article it explains that ¨instead of hiring investigative reporters to keep politicians honest, newspapers settle for expanded lifestyle sections that please advertisers¨.The media tends to be extremely biased. As explained in the textbook, the national media can influence what subjects become national political issues and for how long. The term to describe this is gatekeeper. Gatekeeping can be dangerous, since it can lead to an abuse of power by deciding what information to discard and what to let pass although it is essential to influence viewers. The media also gets to decide who is winning and losing in Washington D.C. and keeps trach of political reputations. Scorekeeping leads the press to cover presidential elections as if they were horse raches rather than choices among policies. I believe the media should always be honest and report everything as it happens, not to report to attract viewers for more money. As citizens, we should know the truth behind the candidates that may become the president and leaders of our country. It is only fair to know the good and ugly of every candidate. However, I do not believe that the media should only be focused on the role of watchdog. Only exposing scandals and secrets does not provide any useful information on where candidates stand on issues and what they believe. I believe that it is wrong to use the wrongdoings and the pasts of candidates to make cases against them. Everyone makes mistakes and it should not be the spotlight of their careers. This is why I believe the media needs to go back to its old school ways and provide its audience with credible information in order to educate the people on the candidates they may be voting for. -ND
Media
Posted 10/31/2017 at 8:21:14 AM by [anonymous visitor]
After reading The Real Media Bias, I agree with the fact that journalism has significantly changed, providing stories with less substance in order to gain a profit. As we learned in class, the media sets the agenda for the public discourse, acting as the “gatekeeper,” and influencing which subjects become national news. They hold the the power to choose what our country is talking about, yet most of what they choose are segments that are “pre-packaged formulas bought from consultants, “ instead of in-depth reports from abroad. In the past decade there has been a rise of “endless entertainment features and talk shows that shed more heat than light. Crammed with celebrity interviews, disaster and crime reports, punditry and manufactured news.” When we, the people of of our country, are uninformed on the events going on in our country it becomes an issue, especially when the source of our information is unreliable. As the article says, the media is “becoming a weapon of mass distraction.” I believe that the media should resort to the “old school” methods of being a watchdog group if that means giving the public more in-depth and factual news coverage. As the article states, what the media does now is, “instead of hiring investigative reporters to keep politicians honest, newspapers settle for expanded lifestyle sections that please advertisers.” This needs to change. Being a citizen in our country means that we play a part in shaping how our country is run, even if it is minute. In order to properly participate, the public needs to be provided with credible information. As the article states, the media "must get better, not worse, to retain the loyalty of readers. If they fail to get better, newspapers will continue to shrink - in size, in quality, in importance. This would be tragic, because no other news medium can fill the role that good newspapers play in informing the country." MD
Media
Posted 10/31/2017 at 8:21:07 AM by [anonymous visitor]
I don’t believe there is an “duty” journalism has. The first amendment guarantees the right to freedom of speech, as such media outlets should be able to print whatever they want to. If an outlet wishes to pursue the truth, and act as a watchdog/information group then they have that express right. Likewise, if a media outlet wishes to do what it wants to gather viewers they have that right as well. Everyone else in the country wants to make money. Journalists choosing a certain profession does not absolve them of that. If the public truly desires the “old school” media, journalism will shift itself to what the public wants in order to make a profit. After all, as Margo Hammons points out in The Real Media Bias: Profits, “news decisions are subjected solely to an accounting test: "Does it make money?” The recent shift towards sensational news happened because people were buying it. People were interested and that made them profits. If the public is truly interested in “old school” news, that it what they will buy, that is what will sell, and therefore that is what media outlets will produce. Either way, outlets still have their first amendment right to produce what they want,old school or new school, and nobody except the government can take that from them. They can do what they want, and we should let them as the system will work itself out.-YS
Media
Posted 10/31/2017 at 8:20:59 AM by [anonymous visitor]
I believe that the purpose of journalism relies on the watchdog group. Watchdog journalism provides the public with the honest truth about what is happening within the government. Democracy depends on having informed citizens in order for them to be able to participate in the government. Incidents like the watergate and Vietnam prove that American’s were being left out of the details that they had the right to know. As opposed to types of journalism, like horse-race journalism or yellow journalism, that only present information that is not very relevant, watchdog journalism goes in depth to the goings on of the government. It is much more important for citizens to know all the details of a story rather than an exaggerated headline or a candidate's standing in the polls. Other types of journalism are motivated by money and only produce an eye-catching story in order to sell more. Watchdog journalism is effective in the way that it focuses solely on the details. The article “The Real Media Bias: Profits” revealed, “giving the media the role of watchdog is one of the best ways to hold government and powerful institutions accountable for their actions. News matters.” The watchdog group is the best way of journalism because it lets the information speak for itself and is not driven by money. AP
Media
Posted 10/31/2017 at 8:20:33 AM by [anonymous visitor]
Over the past few decades, the media has drastically transformed. All forms of media--broadcast, print, and internet--have changed their views of what the media should do. Instead of presenting officals opinions, broadcasters focus on how candidates and officials do in the polls, this is also known as horse race journalism. The internet focuses on scandals and more of talbot-like news to attract younger generations to the political scene and increase profits. And lastly, print media (even though it is more full of details and facts) uses yellow journalism to attract readers to their stories and increase profits. I believe that these tactics and new focuses that the media has developed overtime is wrong and the media is not using their real purpose: to inform the government. The so called “old school” media that acted more like “watchdogs” is more beneficial to our society. It may not be as profitable for the companies, but their purpose is to inform the society about our government, not generate large sums of money. The article The Real Media Bias agrees that the media should resort back to their old tactics as they state, “ In a democracy, giving the media the role of watchdog is one of the best ways to hold government and powerful institutions accountable for their actions. News matters.” The article also mentions how the media is only concerned with their profit, their end all goal being to make the most money as possible. As a result of this, “instead of hiring investigative reporters to keep politicians honest, newspapers settle for expanded lifestyle sections that please advertisers.” In order for a democracy to function, the media needs to be honest and informative. Currently, it is doing neither of those things. The government relies on the media to portray their information to the citizens, and the citizens rely on the media to deliver these messages efficiently and honestly. Instead, the media delivers “juicy stories” that have no bearing on what is actually going on. This is why the media is losing more and more trust with citizens, and they could ultimately end up with less profit than if they reported real news that helped citizens create informed opinions. Today, the media aims to entertain its viewers rather than do their job. Today’s “news” is hardly news since it is full of scandals, rumors, and mindless chatter. To fix this problem, the media should redirect their goals and consider the impacts of becoming “watchdogs” again. Maybe, this could cause our country to be more united and increase political knowledge and participation. -MA
Media
Posted 10/31/2017 at 8:20:24 AM by [anonymous visitor]
Journalism is very important in Americans’ life. It reports on/provides citizens with updates, information, and in news in general. However the news media has become more and more filled with what seems to be less facts and more gossip and drama- things that will capture people’s attention. But that shouldn’t be the case. It seems as if journalism has shifted its intent. Margo Hammond in her article ‘The Real Media Bias: Profits’ describes how “newspapers settle for expanded lifestyle sections that please advertisers. Instead of reporting on what government is doing, local stations offer ‘action news,’ segments that appear to be investigative reports...but which are really pre-packaged formulas bought from consultants.” Today, media stations simply just want to make money. It’s a competitive arena, and each network wants to be on top. In order to do so, they set their agenda by choosing which stories and topics to portray to citizens. In my opinion, this shouldn’t be the case. Americans receive their news mainly through the media. It’s how they stay connected to what’s going on in the government, and how they are educated about the policy making that is occurring within it. I think that the media needs to focus on the facts more than the money. After all, the media is how we stay informed. How can we stay informed on the government when we are being informed on the newest celebrity updates? In addition, Hammond states that “During the days and weeks that followed Sept. 11, news organizations seemed to forget about profits and concentrated on serving the public.” She says how this was the last time the news focused primarily on the facts opposed to the profits. But it should not take a disaster to happen to our country for the news to finally realize that Americans just want relevant information. In order for a democracy to work, it needs informed citizens. Informed on what the government is doing, informed on the policies that are being made so that they can become involved in it. The media chooses topics that they know will generate money because it will get the public riled up or form strong opinions on. And some topics like that are worth covering because it can lead to great changes for the country. However, when the media news is filled with irrelevant information, it’s doing no good. The media needs to encompass credible, reliable information that can help Americans grow stronger as educated individuals and move the country forward. CD
Media
Posted 10/31/2017 at 8:20:18 AM by [anonymous visitor]
I believe that journalism should reflect changing times, and do what it can to get the attention of viewers and subscribers. When discussing trends in class about the media, over time it has showed that there has been a shift from newspapers to the internet as well as what is being inputted in the media. As it states in the article, The Real Media Bias: Profits, " In a democracy, giving the media the role of watchdog is one of the best ways to hold government and powerful institutions accountable for their actions. News matters. But fewer and fewer media institutions are engaging in it, say Downie and Kaiser. '' In the past reporters have respected politicians and kept their scandals hidden, but now the press is using attack journalism and yellow journalism to draw in viewers and subscribers. This is because the media is being run by big corporations who base what stories should be run and not run off of if it would make money. Because of this, "Newspapers have shrunk their reporting staff and the space they devote to news." due to this the media drifting away from news as it doesn't draw in as much attention and money the corporations want it to. Journalism has shifted to writing about news to writing about what interests people, "The owners and managers of local television stations feel little obligation to provide coverage of government, politics or civic affairs in return for the free airwaves they use, or the First Amendment protections they enjoy," they write." Nowadays people aren't as interested in the government and civic affairs or else they would be reading newspapers vs. blogs (newspapers have the most detailed information) instead they want to read about scandals or disaster and crime reports. Because of this journalism has to reflect what the viewers want and write about these topics in order to continue and maintain an audience. B.F.
Media
Posted 10/31/2017 at 8:20:00 AM by [anonymous visitor]
I believe that the media should go back to it’s roots of being a watchdog group that makes it easy for the public to get credible information. According to the article, “Real Media Bias: Profits” by Margo Hammond, “giving the media the role of watchdog is one of the best ways to hold government and powerful institutions accountable for their actions”. Without reporters investigating the scandals and wrongdoings of government officials, everyday citizens won’t ever be exposed to that information. We learn what’s going on in government from media sources, so it is their responsibility to give the people the news they need, not the news that gives broadcasting companies the most money. In the article, Hammond says, “The real bias in media these days is not ideological but financial”. Networking companies must cover the stories that interest people like celebrity news or cute animals in order to get viewers. However, those stories don’t give real news, it’s only for entertainment. This has become a real problem in the media lately. I believe that it dangerously urges people to ignore real issues and creates a society that moves on much too quickly from events. For instance, the Las Vegas shooting is already forgotten. I don’t hear others talk about it anymore, and I don’t see it when I watch the nightly news. Americans prefer to ignore the things that make them uncomfortable until something horrible like a shooting directly affects them. If the media moves on from these issues, then the people move on from those issues, and no one is influencing people in politics to do anything to prevent future occurrences. The media exists for the people, and the way it functions today is not in the people’s best interests. J.P.
4- Media
Posted 10/31/2017 at 8:19:52 AM by [anonymous visitor]
I agree with the old school method of media as being a watchdog. With the new media types: yellow journalism, attack journalism, etc., the participatory public is getting less and less credible information. The media needs to focus less on the horse race journalism which is just showing the polls and not focusing on the candidates policies and beliefs. Media is all based on profit and that is shown in the article The Real Media Bias: Profits, they focus on how the media's new purpose is to gain viewers and subscribers and lead with the big stories that are usually scandalous and have nothing to do with politics except for the fact that a politician is involved. When the media didn’t focus on profit and when they actually covered candidate's ideology more people viewed the nightly network news (Based of the Gannon Polls). After the events of Watergate and the Vietnam War politics and media didn’t mix well. These events are what sparked the new media outlook which has its benefits but also its disservices. People now tend to believe there is a natural media bias that leans toward one side of the political spectrum, but when studies are done they show that the media is fairly neutral. This all comes back to the new media bias and how it affects viewers by bringing the most interesting stories even if information is what is being looked for. -AF
Media
Posted 10/31/2017 at 8:19:42 AM by [anonymous visitor]
The purpose of journalism should be to provide credible information to the public, so they are aware of what is happening in their government. An example is the role of the media as a watchdog, or exposing government scandals and wrongdoings.According to The Real Media Bias: Profits, this is one of the best ways to “hold government and powerful institutions accountable for their actions”. The media has a duty to report this news to citizens because they need to know what is going on in their own country- even if it is bad or embarrassing. For example, the release of the Watergate Scandal revealed the true actions of government officials and caused the public to realize that the government isn’t always trustworthy. Since democracy requires informed citizens so they can make informed decisions in voting for certain issues or officials, the media must report truthful information. As stated in the textbook, politicians and the media need each other. If the media doesn’t present the information they are supposed to, then the politicians won’t get the publicity they need. Print media, such as newspapers, must continue their role in providing relevant and credible news because “no other news medium can fill the role that good newspapers play in informing the country” (Hammond).They are still able to draw in viewers and subscribers by doing this because all the public wants is the truth- not sensationalized news to get more money.Unfortunately, “news decisions are subjected solely to an accounting test: ‘Does it make money?’” (Hammond). The primary goal of trying to make money hurts the public because they are receiving information without substance.  -KN
Media
Posted 10/31/2017 at 8:19:35 AM by [anonymous visitor]
I believe that journalism should stick with the “old school” style, where they provide credible information to inform a participatory public rather than using absurd ways to gain attention. The reason I believe this is because back in class we learned that the public's trust has declined over the years as more yellow journalism and attack journalism appear. Selective attention is also important factor in media because the broadcaster may be spending more than he needs, because there may be people that ignore the broadcast or just not listen at all. People are more likely want to read a magazine with leisure activities and entertainment rather than politics. For example, I personally browse the internet a lot, but I never really focus on the political issues that are occurring, rather I focus on the entertainment just like many my age. There has also been a decrease in newspaper readers of all ages which means that the people who care are the ones left who read it. It would be an annoyance for the people that actually care reading all the yellow journalism that is around these days. -N.N
Media
Posted 10/31/2017 at 8:19:08 AM by [anonymous visitor]
I believe the purpose of journalism is to be a watchdog group, an “old school” opinion of the media, providing credible information to inform a participatory public rather than doing whatever they can to attract viewers and subscribers. The media’s number one priority should be to inform the public what their government and foreign governments are doing. It shouldn’t be to sensationalize news and manipulating the public to obtain more views and money. Up until the 1980s most to all of the nightly news the public watched was from the Big 3: NBC (National Broadcasting Company), ABC (American Broadcasting Company) and CBS (Columbia Broadcasting System) in no particular order. Yet now those three media giants hold a smaller share of the public’s viewing. Competition has become more intense in recent years with the advent of CNN (Cable News Network), Fox News and MSNBC, all 24 hour non-stop cable news channels, and over all since the 80’s nearly all age groups are watching the news (nightly and cable news) less on average. So it is understandable that some outlets would want to possibly sensationalize their coverage to attract more viewers yet I view this as abhorrent and disrespectful to the values they should be following. The media should be unbiased and shouldn’t color their coverage to match their views. According to Margo Hammond of the St. Petersburg Times, the real media bias currently is a liberal bias, and a lot of stations seem to throw away stories if it doesn’t make them money. They are cutting people and while as aforementioned above some are sensationalizing news, others are filling their blocks with very cheap stories. So all in all, I believe the media should be a watchdog group that provides credible information to inform the general public. -JB
Media
Posted 10/31/2017 at 8:19:02 AM by [anonymous visitor]
After reading the textbook and the article, I believe that journalism should focus less on making money through yellow journalism, and more on providing facts and news to the American people. Even though making money is an important part of journalism and companies in general, it should not be the sole purpose and goal of the different organizations that own media outlets. Because organizations are aiming to only making money, they create a bias in the information we receive. The article says, “The real bias in media these days is not ideological but financial, [...]. Too often, news decisions are subjected solely to an accounting test: ‘Does it make money?’ " Since the media outlets just want to make money, they don’t tell the news how it really is, just in the way that appeals to the most consumers. In my opinion, the media should focus on giving the facts and the whole truth, not just bits and pieces. The media should watch out for the people, and provide them with the information they need to stay alert and informed. In other countries, like my native Guatemala, the people are often left in the dark because of the media being payed off by corrupt officials or organizations to often be over exaggerated or straight up false. They aren’t able to make informed choices when elections occur, and the corrupt officials stay in office. In order to stop that from happening, the media need to stay true to its goals; to inform Americans truthfully. -JM
Media
Posted 10/31/2017 at 8:18:55 AM by [anonymous visitor]
When it comes to staying updated on politicians and our government, we often turn to the media to obtain information. Yet despite the large role it plays in our society, we are finding that a growing majority of our news has become all flash but no substance. I believe the media's main purpose should be to serve as the watchdog for the public and report credible information. By being watchdogs the media would be putting politicians in the public eye, subjecting them to more scrutiny and criticism. Doing so is not only beneficial but also incredibly important for a healthy democracy as it is one of the best ways to hold government and powerful institutions accountable for their actions (The Real Media Bias: Profits). With being one of the public's main connections to the government, media outlets have a large amount of power at their disposal. According to the textbook, experiments and studies done in Connecticut and North Carolina show that what citizens believe about some policy questions reflect what newspapers and TV stations say about them. With having such a large influence, it becomes critical to ensure that the news that is being put out is accurate and credible so that citizens can make informed decisions about the government and in turn be able to be more politically engaged in our democracy. However, media outlets that value providing credible news are becoming a rarity as these values are quickly being replaced by a prioritization of easy profits. That means instead of hiring investigative reporters to keep politicians honest, newspapers settle for expanded lifestyle sections that please advertisers (The Real Media Bias: Profits). This growing trend is not only harmful to the public consumers of media but also to the media networks themselves.In analyzing one of of our top media types- newspapers- editors Leonard Downie Jr and Robert Kaiser state, " If they fail to get better, newspapers will continue to shrink- in size, in quality, in importance. This would be tragic, because no other news medium can fill the role that good newspapers play in informing the country" (The Real Media Bias: Profits). If the public can't depend on newspapers-or any media for that matter- for honest, informative news, then the public will become less trusting of the media and less likely to consume it. RO
media
Posted 10/31/2017 at 8:18:43 AM by [anonymous visitor]
With the times changing accepting new is good but I do think that the “old school” media and journalism is the best. Journalism today is bias only for one main reason says Margo Hammond in the article The Real Media: Profits, and that is because they are just writing to make a profit. Now the real news is hard to find because journalist are only writing about pop culture and sensational news like sex and violence. There are a number of social media sites now that can give the public their information on pop culture, this should be why journalist stick to educational or credible news. People today are unaware of many important issues and if our journalist would go back to reporting on those issues then our public would be better educated. -rc
Media Blog
Posted 10/31/2017 at 8:18:36 AM by [anonymous visitor]
Media Blog I believe that the purpose of journalism should be like “old school” journalism as well as a watchdog group. Having the media have the role as a watchdog group will help keep the government along with others accountable for what they do. One reason this type of journalism is better is due to the fact that the people are given the facts, trying to not have a bias when stating them. Many people believe this is not the case in journalism today. For example it states, “Former CBS reporter and producer Bernard Goldberg argues that the quality of the news we receive has declined. Why? Because of a liberal bias in media”. With many more media outlets having a liberal bias it has caused people to not believe everything that is being said. This has also caused less people to watch these media outlets. Along with that, the “old school” opinion of the media did not worry as much as journalist do today about how much money this topic will produce. Today the media presents the topics that they believe will be the most interesting to viewers even though they may not be the most important. This is shown when it says, “The real bias in media these days is not ideological but financial...Too often, new decisions are subjected solely to an accounting test: ‘Does it make money’ “. With them thinking about money over information important topics may be left out or not receive the correct amount of time/attention that it should. Taking these points into consideration I believe that newspapers along with other media outlets will be more valuable if the purpose of journalism was how it used to be. -B.F.
Purpose of Media
Posted 10/31/2017 at 8:18:28 AM by [anonymous visitor]
I believe the purpose of Journalism is to inform the public about issues small and big. The representation of news presented to public, should shape the people and impact their decisions in life. I side with the “old school” media acting as a watchdog rather than modern day attack journalism. I say this because, nowadays many of the news presented is in the form of yellow journalism, most of the news are filled with sensational headlines, and exaggerated facts that are simply meant to attract more people, for example the article showed in class about the clinton’s daughter and who is her real parent is a type of yellow journalism(Clickbait), the primary motive of journalism in the 21st century according to the article, The Real Media Bias:Profits, is money. During the 1950, many of the news sources and companies were independent and spread out, there used to be around 50 companies in 1980s and right now, there are 6 multi-corporations that own all of the media sources. Companies such as Disney, Time Warner, Clear Channel, Gannet are responsible for the news that is based more on celebrities and gossip, rather than political issues surrounding the world and is turning media into a “weapon of mass distraction”(Hammond 2). If we reinstate the old school media, in which Journalism takes the role of watchdogs, this way we can “hold government and powerful institutions accountable for their own actions”(Hammond 1). Acting as watchdogs we also get credible information on sensitive issues and are more likely to be better prepared to face and manage them, only time this is shown to occur is during a catastrophe such as 9/11 when all sources of media ignored profits and solely worked to inform the public and help answer answers responsible for the attacks. This is truly sad that media companies turn to profits rather than connecting the public to the world. ~MP
Media
Posted 10/31/2017 at 8:18:20 AM by [anonymous visitor]
As understood by most people, the word, “news” means important new information about recent events, and so the purpose of newscasters, or journalists, therefore, is to deliver news. As Margo Hammond says in her article, The Real Media Bias: Profits, news is essential to uphold democracy by linking the people to the government. This argument is fundamentally correct because democracy can only function if citizens can make informed decisions on who to elect and know what exactly the current government is doing. It is therefore imperative for news media to inform the public of the government’s activity to maintain the true rule of the people. Unfortunately, this is not always the case. In today’s world, so much of what the news broadcasts is completely irrelevant to informing the public and instead serves a different agenda. Instead of always providing us credible information, today’s electronic media is, “crammed with celebrity interviews, disaster and crime reports, punditry and manufactured news” (Hammond). This flood of extraneous, blaring headlines makes it difficult for many viewers to discern what is actually important to their lives, such as government policy, and what is simply, as Hammond would say, a distraction that obstructs public participation in government, undermining democracy and selling out American political values. The real effects of this can be seen in the results of events as significant as presidential elections, as the limited knowledge of voters can significantly change the outcome. But in the heedless chase of profits, it is no surprise that sensational fake news can attract more attention than real news, which is what a Facebook study of the 2016 election concluded. With the great power of the media, it should nevertheless be their responsibility to supply the electorate with accurate, relevant information, in order to ensure the continuation of American democracy. IY
Media
Posted 10/30/2017 at 8:22:15 AM by [anonymous visitor]
I believe the purpose of journalism should be to provide the public with credible information, also known as being a watchdog group. As a democracy, citizens must be informed on what is happening in the government. Citizens rely on the media for their news, which shapes how they see the world and what they view as important issues. The media acts as an intermediary between the government and the people. Because of this, the media must provide the public with credible information so that everyone is informed of what is going on in the government. One way of doing this is called watchdog journalism, which is exposing government scandals and wrongdoings, such as Watergate and Vietnam. Unfortunately, the media doesn’t always do this. According to Margo Hammond in “The Real Media Bias: Profits,” “Most news organizations, which once served to keep tabs on those in power, are now powerhouses themselves. They are concerned not with public service, which they see as too costly, but with filling up airtime (and newsprint) as cheaply as possible.” The media is focusing on making a profit, so it runs the stories that will provide that. These stories are not frequently about the government and important policies, they are mostly about entertainment, sports, celebrities, etc. Consequently, the public remains uncertain about things going on in the government because their attention is focused elsewhere. For example, media sources will talk about the latest celebrity gossip over talking about the recent bill that was passed by Congress. I believe that journalism needs to remember the role it was originally made for and get back to its roots of reporting needed information about the government to the public, and worry a little less about money. -MM
Media
Posted 10/30/2017 at 8:22:07 AM by [anonymous visitor]
The main purpose of journalism should be as a link between the people and the government. Citizens are not able to know what the government does on a daily basis, so it is the responsibility of the media to provide that information to the public. Credible information is vital to a democracy, because citizens need to be able to make informed decisions in elections. The focus today on profits leads media companies to alter what they report. Newspapers and television stations can no longer just share the facts and remain successful. Now, these news sources must exaggerate headlines to draw in viewers and formulate their stances to reflect their current viewers’ opinions in order to keep them. In the article “The Real Media Bias: Profits” the author Margo Hammond mentions, “Too often, news decisions are subjected solely to an accounting test: ‘Does it make money?’” These media companies need to establish a substantial revenue stream to remain competitive in the industry. The problem arises from the shift from locally and independently owned newspapers and journals to large broadcasting corporations who do not always care about the public interest. This all comes at the expense of the American public, the majority of whom want to see an unbiased account of candidates’ policies and government actions. Another important role of the media is as a watchdog. Since the public cannot constantly keep an eye on government officials, we rely on the media to let us know if politicians do anything in particular that would warrant a public reaction. As a watchdog, the media holds government officials accountable for carrying out agendas and acting in the ways for which they were elected. If not, journalists can write stories to inform the public, and they can be voted out of office in the next election. The constant scrutiny makes sure that government officials are doing their jobs properly because they do not want to be publicly criticized. -AR
MM
Posted 10/30/2017 at 8:21:59 AM by [anonymous visitor]
I believe media should follow the old school tradition of being a watchdog group and provide credible information for the participatory public. Media that is made to attract viewers and subscribers tends to use “title or clip bait” which is defined by this generation as titles or still photos on the front of videos, magazines or shows that capture viewers attention despite the media’s true information within. People who don’t continue to read into the article or watch the video may interpret the media wrong and with social media today word spreads very fast therefore false information can be spread very quickly throughout society due to this “title or clip bait”. An example of this is three title recently posted about kylie jenner, one suggesting she is marrying jordyn woods, another suggesting she is marrying travis scott and the last one suggesting she is pregnant with Tyga’s baby. All these articles were posted via celebuzz, bet.com and people.com despite the truth all three rumors spread like wildfire over social media which attracted viewers to these website and have kylie a swarm of attention. Due to this is why I believe media should be old school only presenting credible information but due to the first amendment this is nearly impossible. Although the government has to give tv and radio stations a license through the FCC that can not control the internet, social media or magazines/newspapers therefore false information can be spread easily throughout society. My beliefs are strong for the media presenting only true credible information because I don’t believe celebrities, gov officials or any information should be put out of context and twisted. But despite my beliefs the constitution protects the right of freedom of speech, media and film.
Media
Posted 10/30/2017 at 8:21:40 AM by [anonymous visitor]
I think media has its place down pretty well in the world. People complain that media just focuses on bad news but people wouldn't pay attention if the news was good. I do think journalism should be used to inform the public because that’s what makes us a democracy. In order to inform the public they have to sell the media. Journalism is both watchdog journalism and changing times. News itself keeps up with the changing times while informing citizens whether it’s about Donald Trump or Kim Kardashian. I think journalism will always do what it can to stay relevant in the world. -KK
Media
Posted 10/30/2017 at 8:21:33 AM by [anonymous visitor]
Based on our readings and class discussions, I think that the news reflecting changing times is actually beneficial to the news provided to the public. In the past, political machines controlled the news, so it was very biased towards one candidate or another. According to the Princeton review book, today the media is increasingly less biased, and it provides more objective news to viewers. I believe that this way of reporting allows the audience to get both sides of a story and form their own opinion on an issue. Also, in the article, The Real Media Bias: Profit, Margo Hammond describes that the only bias in media now is money. The current reporting strategies draw in more viewers and subscribers, and therefore more money to the reporters. If a news source is openly liberal or conservative, it could lose thousands or even millions of viewers with opposing opinions. One problem with the drive to draw in as many viewers as possible is that today many reporters will sensationalize news reports to draw in more viewers and money. For example, in the 1890s, news reporters sensationalized and in some cases completely made up events in Cuba in order to draw more subscribers, even though the events were untrue. These reports had dramatic consequences and were one reason that America to went to war with Spain. Although news reports have become sensationalized, the recent reporting is much less biased and provides objective information to the public. JR
Media
Posted 10/30/2017 at 8:21:24 AM by [anonymous visitor]
Stories; they have been around for as long as human culture has. As humans, we have a desire to share our experiences with others. Journalism, the practice of sharing not only interesting stories, but information, is the embodiment of the human desire to communicate. However, many believe journalism is deteriorating, being consolidated into mega-corporations whose only worry is lining their pockets with even more green. Margo Hammond, of the St. Petersburg Times, even goes as far as to call the media a “weapon of mass distraction,” and ardently claiming that the media has abandoned its true purpose of being a “watchdog” in the name of making profits. While journalism shouldn’t be dictated by profits, journalism isn’t abandoning its roles, but simply changing to mirror the changing times. The idea of watchdog journalism isn’t outdated, persay, but journalism and the media have evolved from just this attack journalism. With the internet and social media, people can learn about events and issues as they are happening. In this sense, traditional journalism is a middle man being cut out, with movements and stories being spread directly between communities online. Newspapers and TV news is still necessary to confirm facts and stories, but they don’t need as many hard-hitting stories when the scandals have already been exposed online. Also, while Hammond claims the media is just being “crammed” with pointless, fluff news, I believe this silly news serves a purpose. No one can hear about trauma and murder day after day. Sometimes it is comforting to hear about lighter, surface topics in between dark stories. I don’t avidly watch the news because of this reason; I don’t need to learn about all the death and destruction that I can’t fix. I do, however, watch an internet outlet about pop culture. The public does need to be informed about important issues, but if it also wants to know about celebrity gossip, the media can’t be blamed for catering to its demands. --MZ
Media
Posted 10/30/2017 at 8:20:52 AM by [anonymous visitor]
Journalism is very important in Americans’ life. It reports on/provides citizens with updates, information, and in news in general. However the news media has become more and more filled with what seems to be less facts and more gossip and drama- things that will capture people’s attention. But that shouldn’t be the case. It seems as if journalism has shifted its intent. Margo Hammond in her article ‘The Real Media Bias: Profits’ describes how “newspapers settle for expanded lifestyle sections that please advertisers. Instead of reporting on what government is doing, local stations offer ‘action news,’ segments that appear to be investigative reports...but which are really pre-packaged formulas bought from consultants.” Today, media stations simply just want to make money. It’s a competitive arena, and each network wants to be on top. In order to do so, they set their agenda by choosing which stories and topics to portray to citizens. In my opinion, this shouldn’t be the case. Americans receive their news mainly through the media. It’s how they stay connected to what’s going on in the government, and how they are educated about the policy making that is occurring within it. I think that the media needs to focus on the facts more than the money. After all, the media is how we stay informed. How can we stay informed on the government when we are being informed on the newest celebrity updates? In addition, Hammond states that “During the days and weeks that followed Sept. 11, news organizations seemed to forget about profits and concentrated on serving the public.” She says how this was the last time the news focused primarily on the facts opposed to the profits. But it should not take a disaster to happen to our country for the news to finally realize that Americans just want relevant information. In order for a democracy to work, it needs informed citizens. Informed on what the government is doing, informed on the policies that are being made so that they can become involved in it. The media chooses topics that they know will generate money because it will get the public riled up or form strong opinions on. And some topics like that are worth covering because it can lead to great changes for the country. However, when the media news is filled with irrelevant information, it’s doing no good. The media needs to encompass credible, reliable information that can help Americans grow stronger as educated individuals and move the country forward. CD
Media
Posted 10/30/2017 at 8:20:10 AM by [anonymous visitor]
In my opinion, media has changed over time, and it has changed for the worse. Journalism’s purpose is supposed to be informing the public on national, state, or local issues, but now the media is just trying to turn into a profit making business. Today media sources are racing to get the story out first, then find out the facts later. In the Real Media Bias:Profits article, it talks about how the media will try to remain as unbiased as possible in order to make a profit; which is the reason why media has changed for the worse. The media was a Watchdog Journalism(exposing government scandal and wrongdoing) but now they are a Horse-Race Journalism(focusing on where the candidates stand in the polls, not where they stand on issues). The public criticizes the media because this information is useless, because it doesn’t help the voters choose the best candidate. The media moved towards getting the information out quickly to make a profit, instead of reporting the news the public wanted to hear. The use of Yellow Journalism(using sensational headlines to grab attention) has also been used to make a profit by selling headlines to make money. In reference to the article, newspapers try to keep as unbiased as possible to sell to people of all political parties not just the one the newspaper favors, but no matter how unbiased a newspaper said they were, there would still be bias from editors, reporters, or publishers. The only reason why people argue that there is major bias in the media stems from how they perceive the news. A event for one person might be considered heroic while a person from a different political party would think that the event was a major setback. A major example of this is when the political parties rewrite their party platform. In a study done before 2000, 89% of the public interviewed said that the media had too much political coverage of backgrounds and scandals, and not enough coverage of the issues. Since there is a growing distrust between the media and the government, the topics of these stories have gotten more personal that previously in U.S. history. Before the 1970s, cases like Franklin Roosevelt's Polio or John F. Kennedy’s meetings with women other than his wife, were never covered. But after Watergate and the Iran-contra issue, the media has dove into the public lives of candidates and discovered Bill Clinton’s affair in 1992. The influence of media has grown over time. Before the 1970s, there were only 3 major news networks; ABC, NBC, and CBS which each had only a single 30 minute news show a day. But today, we have an oversaturation of news: 6-10 news networks, 10 weekly newsmagazines, countless radio talk shows, and countless cable TV networks. These cable networks air 24 hour news broadcasts. Because there is so much competition for viewer attention/ profit, media outlets use Yellow Journalism or Horse-Race Journalism and do not report on other news that the viewers might be interested in. J.J.G
Post A Reply
3 - Third Parties
Posted 9/19/2017 at 2:39:05 PM by Ryan Pubentz [staff member]

Based on the readings and class discussions, Are third parties good or bad for American elections and politics? Explain why or why not?

Reply Posts
Third Parties
Posted 9/28/2017 at 9:12:33 AM by [anonymous visitor]
Third parties are #3 in polling, but #1 in my heart. Despite never winning an election, and besides the election of 1912, never even coming close, third parties play an important role in the US political process. Whether they are disrupting political culture, shaping the focus of the American people, or splitting a party vote, third parties squeeze their way into relevance in a big way. This involvement is good for the United States. The Simpsons video we watched in class pokes fun at third parties saying a vote for a third party is a vote thrown away. Yes I believe in a sense that this is true but to a lot of Americans that option to vote third party is important. A third party vote is an option to escape the crushing polarization of the current state of politics. A third party vote is a way to voice that you don't align with these two extremes. The option for third parties to exist is symbolic of the freedom that America claims to provide. Without third parties, if you don't agree with one party or the other, your only option is to not vote or show support for something you don't support in any sense. That's not freedom, there's very little choice in a two party system. In order for America to truly be free, the option for third parties to exist must be present. Even though no third party has ever won an election, it’s ignorant to believe they shouldn't exist and will never win in the future. If at some point the American people get fed up with the two parties already in place, and there's no alternative, the public as a whole is in a bad spot. In my opinion third parties are most important and good for that reason. More choices for the people. JM
Third Party Blog
Posted 9/26/2017 at 9:12:42 AM by [anonymous visitor]
Third parties are good for American politics because they bring more issues to the attention of political elites and weaken the power of parties, allowing candidates to be chosen by their personal merit instead of by the party affiliation. In the video we watched in class, the political scientist said “They don’t win, but they sometimes make a difference” in reference to third party candidates taking votes from the two major political parties. In my opinion, that difference is almost always positive because I don’t believe that the two largest parties should have rule over public opinion. In the political parties article, it talks about how more and more of the american population are considering themselves indepent. I would argue, along with others brought up in the article, that this adds more fairness to politics due to the merging lines between the republican and democratic parties. It is true that third parties have weakened the two party system but I believe that is for the better. The less power there is within these groups, the more democratic our system can become and the less corrupt it could become. ~SS
Third Parties
Posted 9/25/2017 at 9:14:48 AM by [anonymous visitor]
Third Parties have never been successful in America. The most successful third party there has ever been was Teddy Roosevelt's Bull Moose Party. Even then, Teddy Roosevelt only won about 16% of the total electoral votes. This was a huge step for third parties, but still was not remotely close to winning a presidential election. In this instance, third parties were proven to be a good thing for America. Despite the loss of the Bull Moose Party, Woodrow Wilson realized that the US citizens supported Roosevelt’s ideas. As a result of this, President Wilson adopted some of Roosevelt’s platforms. According to the article Why The Election of 1912 Changed America, the social reform of the Bull Moose Party highlighted the right of the people to rule with “the initiative, the referendum, and the direct primary, which exalted not the "grassroots" but mass opinion.” Not every third party has had a positive influence on America though. In 2010 the Tea Party won over the Senate and the House’s favor as many Republicans got elected and identified themselves as members of the Tea Party. Their overall goal was to lower national debt, which has ceased to happen. Now, according to the article Tea Party Victory Opens Rift Between Moderate and Conservative Republicans, there is a greater split between the Republican party as these efforts failed. In this case, the rise of a third party has left a negative influence on America. So, are third parties good or bad? I say they can have both a positive and negative influence on American politics, depending on the party you’re talking about. As Mr. Pubentz says, “third parties will never win, but they can sometimes make a difference.” Sometimes their difference is positive, like the Bull Moose Party, and sometimes it’s not, like the Tea Party. -MA
Third Parties
Posted 9/25/2017 at 9:14:39 AM by [anonymous visitor]
Third parties have never won an American election. Even Teddy Roosevelt couldn’t be the exception to that fact. That being said, third parties can definitely sway elections. The votes in the 1912 election would have looked very different without the Bull Moose Party. With the Bull Moose as the perfect example, the main function of third parties in American politics is to take votes away from one of the major parties. A republican voting for a third party may as well be voting democrat. Some American voters don’t understand this and will vote for a moderate third party because they side with their outlook more, not realizing that they just threw away their vote to the other side. By voting for their first choice voters effectively elect not their second choice, but their third. Conversely, people who understand this flaw in the system will try and use it as a strategy to sabotage the opposing major party by voting third party. “At least so and so won’t get elected” is the logic behind it. Third parties aren’t inherently bad. In fact, they provide immense political diversity and equality in Europe’s multi party systems. However, with the US’s extremely dominant two parties, third parties just muddle political waters and add a potential extra layer of corruption. The chances that a third party candidate will win a general election are just laughable so any vote for them is either misguided or strategic. In any case, it could potentially lead the opposite outcome from what voters want. If the US can somehow weaken the two dominant parties and introduce a believable third party American elections could become more representative and depolarize, but that prospect is less than unlikely. -PY
Third Parties
Posted 9/25/2017 at 9:14:30 AM by [anonymous visitor]
Third Parties Third parties; the parties that never win. Yet even though they may not win an election, they are important to American elections and politics. They raise issues that need to be discussed and can in fact alter election results if they gain enough support and attention. Third parties, while they may be but small, can definitely be influential. Being a two party system, it’s hard for third parties to have election success in the United States. The Democratic and Republican parties have held control for a while now and will continue to do so. However, third parties can alter these elections. For example, in the article “Is It Time For a Third Party?” by Upfront it describes how “After Roosevelt, a two-term Republican president (1901-09), lost the Republican nomination in 1912, he helped found the Progressive Party and ran on that ticket. He won 27 percent of the vote, but drew enough support away from the Republican candidate, William H. Taft, that Democrat Woodrow Wilson won”. Third parties can in fact change the outcome of elections. Taft would have gotten more votes if Roosevelt had not run for the third party, and because Roosevelt did so, he helped to make individuals aware of the parties’ influence. The parties may not win it all, but they can either help or prevent another party from winning by pulling more votes away. In addition, Teddy Roosevelt helped give rise to progressivism and gave more people a chance to voice their opinions. In the article “Why the Election of 1912 Changed America” it states, T.R.'s bolt from the Republican party freed him to make a bolder, more consistent defense of ‘pure democracy’ than Wilson, who, as the nominee of the Democrats, was necessarily more constrained by the structure and organizational practices of the traditional two-party system. In disdaining party politics, and the local self-government it embodied, T.R. gave voice to progressive faith in the American people's aspiration for social justice, and to the responsibility of leaders to give effect to these aspirations. Roosevelt, by being a representative for the third party, helped to make aware the concerns many people had about American society. He helped advocate what many people wanted to through his success he helped attain for the party. Third parties help to shed light on various issues and gain attention, as many parties strive to do so such as the Progressives. Third parties will not bring a victory, but they do in fact help shape American politics. They take votes away from the two major parties which can alter election results, and raise awareness on certain issues that they base their party on. They may be small and not as successful as the Republican or Democratic parties, but they can in fact make a difference. CD
Third Parties
Posted 9/25/2017 at 9:14:20 AM by [anonymous visitor]
Throughout American history, the political system has been known as a two party system that consists of Democratic and Republican government, However there have been times in history where third parties have stood up to challenge the two-party system, one of the most famous example of a third party challenging the two-party system was in 1912 when Teddy Roosevelt split from the Republican party and formed the bull moose party that gained considerable recognition around the U.S winning 27.4% of the popular vote and 88 electoral votes from 6 states(why the election of 1912 changed America), no other third party has ever gained this many votes in history, however no third party has still won the seat to presidency and this is because in order for third parties to get on a presidential ballot they need considerable support of the public through signed petitions, require a lot of money to advertise campaign and many states support the two party system rather than third parties and therefore make it hard to appear on ballot(Is it time for a third party?)(Two’s Company). Regardless of slim chances of success for a third party, third parties a lot of time raise issues not being discussed by other candidates, Some examples such as slavery, granting suffrage to women, establishing minimum wages, child labor, and Income tax and in the recent election the green party influenced environmental issues. Despite third parties standing no chance to the two party system they do in fact influence and call attention to ignored and suppressed issues that aren't addressed by the Democratic and republican parties.Therefore Third parties are good for American Elections. MP
E.B.
Posted 9/25/2017 at 9:14:10 AM by [anonymous visitor]
Third party is a term used to describe a party other than the Democratic or Republican. While third parties are meant to provide more options other than the two major parties and represent other political ideologies, they are both good and bad for American politics and elections. Third parties take away votes from the Democratic and Republican candidates even though third parties have little to no chance of winning an election. When individuals vote for a third party they are basically losing their vote since third parties are not very significant and will most likely loose. However, third parties can call attention to certain issues forcing the main two parties to address them. For example, the Green party is more of a left side party which promotes issues like environmentalism and social justice. While they have many of the same ideologies as the democratic party they promote environmentalism, justice, and nonviolence to a much greater extent. This can be beneficial if it causes the major parties to address the same issues that individuals feel strongly about. At the same time it can be disadvantageous to political elections since it can split the vote for one of the major parties. People who voted for the Green party in the most recent election took away votes from the Democratic party which is most likely the party they would have voted for otherwise. Overall, third parties can be good for political elections but can be harmful as well. They can take away votes away from the major parties but they can also address certain issues and bring light to different political ideologies.
Third parties
Posted 9/25/2017 at 9:14:00 AM by [anonymous visitor]
Third Parties Many have debated over the topic of if third parties are good or bad. I believe that third parties are good for elections and politics because although they do not stand a chance at winning they bring awareness to issues that are going on. This is shown in the article, “Why the Election of 1912 Changed America” when it states, “With the celebrated former President Roosevelt as its candidate, the most prominent figure of his age, the Bull Moose party won 27.4% of the popular vote and 88 electoral votes from six states”. This was significant because a third party has never received this large of a number of votes before. Even though the third party was far away from winning third party candidates can take votes away from the other major political parties. By doing this the outcome of the election can be different than if it was just the two major parties running.In addition to that, the election of 1912 showed the importance of the progressive party and allowed changes in American politics to be made. For example this is emphasized when Milkis says, “ More importantly, as a party that embraced and helped legitimize new social movements and candidate-centered campaigns, it pioneered a plebiscitary form of governance that has evolved over the course of the 20th century and appears to have come into its own in recent elections”. The progressive party won over votes by shedding light on issues that go unannounced by the major two parties in the election. These important topics that third parties take a stance on help raise awareness and help come up with changes for the issue that is going on. Also in the article written by Joshua Spivak he stated, “Third­party runs are important. As we've seen, they can make or break a presidential election. Everyone remembers Ralph Nader's three runs for the White House, especially his bid in 2000 that cost Al Gore the presidency. And Ross Perot might have fatally damaged George Bush when he collected 19% of the vote in 1992”. This statement demonstrates the overall idea of third parties and the reason why they exist. As it has been said time and time again third parties do not win elections but they can sway the way an election goes. These votes that go to third members can alter who wins the election and impact one's election, as it did for George Bush. With all this being said this is why third parties are good for elections and politics. -B.F.
Third Parties
Posted 9/25/2017 at 9:13:52 AM by [anonymous visitor]
Third parties are good for the American political system. Third parties aren’t created to win the popular vote of the American people, they bring up points of view and controversy that the two power parties don’t talk enough about. The progressive movement is just one example of how third parties affect the Presidency. Theodore Roosevelt was able to gain massive popular votes based off his Bull Moose party, which happened to start the progressive movement. He didn’t win the election but he was able to spark a movement without actually being elected again as President. Third parties are great for the American political system because they manage to bring up the unspoken points of view. Although it is said that a “vote for a third party is throwing your vote away,” they still manage to gain votes. Third parties are sticking around and gaining momentum but they will never become as big as the Republicans or Democrats. America is used to being a strong two party system and the likelihood of gaining a third independent party is strongly unlikely, nut that doesn’t cut down its importance to the American political system. -AF
Third Parties
Posted 9/25/2017 at 9:13:41 AM by [anonymous visitor]
Third parties in American elections are very controversial over whether they are good or bad, important or not. I believe third parties are good for American elections and politics because even though they will never win they make a difference. The positive effects of third parties on elections was highlighted in the election of 1912. The election of 1912 included William Howard Taft for the Republicans, Woodrow Wilson for the democrats, Eugene Debs for the Socialists and the most impactful candidate in the election, Theodore Roosevelt for the Progressives. Theodore Roosevelt's bull moose party campaign won him the highest percentage of popular vote and number of electoral votes that a third party before or after him ever has, “the Bull Moose party won 27.4% of the popular vote and 88 electoral votes from six states” (Milkis). The significance of pulling such a large number of votes toward a third parties is that it can completely change the outcome of an election just like it did in the 1912 election. Without Theodore Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson may have lost to taft. But, pulling the votes was not the only significant part of Theodore Roosevelt running in a third party. The progressive platform that Theodore Roosevelt ran on included issues the two major parties left in silence and therefore when Woodrow Wilson won he was almost forced to be a complete progressive president. Stated in the article Why the Election of 1912 Changed America, “Nevertheless, it was neither the Democrats, nor the Republicans, nor the Socialists who set the tone of the 1912 campaign. It was the Progressives. Beyond the 1912 election, their program of political and social reform has been an enduring feature of American political discourse and electoral struggle” (Milkis). Despite not winning the Bull Moose Party in 1912 changes the political and social ways of America. This election showed the power of third parties and why their existence is vital to American politics and elections. The best way to explain why third parties are important is how the video in class put it, “Third parties will never win but they make a difference.” Third parties can change the outcome of the election, they can change the way the new president follows his platform and they can bring new issues into the sight of the public. Third parties are essential despite their almost impossible chance of actually winning.
Are third parties good for the U.S.?
Posted 9/25/2017 at 9:13:31 AM by [anonymous visitor]
Third parties benefit society because they promote progressiveness in terms of moving forward and concentrating on current world issues. Third parties influence the bigger parties and the bigger parties will make reforms based on those third parties so they really change what happens in our society. For example, today we have the green party which puts a lot of focus into the environment and people will vote for them just because of that so that makes the main parties take a stance on the situation to get votes. The Democratic party takes a stance that is more towards the environment while the Republican side is less worried about environmental issues. So I would say they promote things to get done and make the two main sides stronger by giving the sides to take. KK
Third Parties
Posted 9/25/2017 at 9:13:24 AM by [anonymous visitor]
Third parties do have a benefit in the American election system and politics in general. Third parties allow issues to be voiced that the two major party platforms do not necessarily address. Third party candidates can then in turn force the democratic and republican candidates to discuss their approach to these issues instead of ignore them. Additionally, they allow new ideas to reach mainstream attention, and push progress that would not be otherwise seen in the election process. An example would be the bull moose party, which did not necessarily win the election, but had a huge impact on the American public. -MG
Are third parties good or bad?
Posted 9/25/2017 at 9:13:15 AM by [anonymous visitor]
Third parties are good for American elections for many reasons. One of the reasons is that third parties generally cover issues that are often overlooked by the two major parties. Sometimes if enough support is shown these views will be adopted by the two major parties. For example, in the 1800's both the Prohibition and Socialist parties supported the Women's Suffrage movement. By 1916 both the Republicans and Democrats had adopted the issue as a part of their platforms. The same thing happened with Child Labor laws in also in 1916 thanks to third parties. Another reason why third parties are good is because they offer a choice away from our Democrat and Republican obsessed society. These alternatives to the majors often aim to solve problems rather than just try to win the election so their party can control the three branches and push their agenda. Because of this, third parties can have a flexible stance to fit the needs of the people instead of being a prisoner to interest groups and elites with millions of dollars. Although Third parties may not stand a chance against the big two, they're good because they offer hope to those who do not want to follow the system that has been set in place since the early days of our country's founding.
Third Parties
Posted 9/25/2017 at 9:13:05 AM by [anonymous visitor]
Third parties have proven time and time again to have beneficial and significant effects on the way our nation is run; because while they may never win, much like political elites they can raise and frame political issues, though to a greater degree. Furthermore, they bring to light issues that the general public considers significant and puts said issue in the political spotlight. Third parties are even able to change the way the election winners govern; A prime example of this, is in the piece “Why the election of 1912 changed America” by Sidney M. Milkis where the author states “...Wilson, whose New Freedom campaign was far more sympathetic to the decentralized state of courts and parties than T.R.’s, felt compelled, as president, to govern as a New Nationalist Progressive.” Theodore Roosevelt, while not having won the presidential election, had such an impact that the individual who won, Woodrow Wilson, became a progressive. This was recently reflected in the 2016 elections where Hillary Clinton was forced to change her stances on certain topics simply due to the fact that people were “Feeling the Burn,” as it were. Though this is not the end of the influence third parties have on American politics; In addition to forcing Wilson to govern as a Progressive, Roosevelt changed the way campaigns were done since that day forward. Rather than being party centric, they became candidate centered, as stated by Milkis in her aforementioned article. This is without mentioning the fact that the third most popular reasons people gave for not voting in the 2016 election was “Didn’t like the candidates.” This is a critical sign that third parties are needed, for if this trend continues, where the presidential candidates are disliked by a significant portion of the United States, a third party may truly have a chance to win, a formerly inconceivable thought. Even now, as stated in the article “Is It Time for a THIRD PARTY?” by Patricia Smith, “Dissatisfaction with this year’s major-party nominees, Clinton and the Republican Donald Trump, is driving some voters to at least consider voting for a third-party candidate.” While not in massive numbers, this is still indicative of a potential future where third party candidates begin drawing in more voters than previously ever achieved, potentially even one day outstripping the Bull Moose party of the 1918 elections. Once all of these factors are combined, the positive impact of third parties upon American politics and elections becomes more evident. -N.S.
Third Parties
Posted 9/25/2017 at 9:12:52 AM by [anonymous visitor]
The Green Party, Reform Party, Constitution Party, Natural Law Party, and Libertarians are some of the most active third parties in the United States. Ultimately, a presidential election will come down to candidates--a Republican and a Democrat. When only given two opposing options, people may not like either candidate and choose not to vote. Third parties may be good in the sense that they split up the votes to where it is not just a black or white election. They may be bad, however, if a candidate were running and lost due to votes being pulled by the third party. It is said that a vote for the third party is a vote “wasted”, since no third party candidate has won an election since 1860, making it highly unlikely. Since majority of Americans classify themselves as moderates, a third party may give a more true-to-beliefs candidate. Though, both parties, Democratic and Republican, tend to lean either way causing the two-way divided trend Third parties call for more than two candidates and give the people more options. Therefore, a third party is more beneficial to American politics. -AB
Third Parties
Posted 9/24/2017 at 9:18:59 AM by [anonymous visitor]
Even though third parties will never win elections I think they are still good and play an important role in elections and politics. As we discussed in class a big part of what the third party does is promote concepts. Third parties will take a straight forward stance on a topic that is an important one to be discussed at that time. Because of this many people recognize the topic and talk about changes that need to be made. Eventually the two major parties will incorporate this topic into their policies. So because of third parties topics like women rights and social security have been brought up and laws have been made. Along with bringing u important issues third parties can impact the election greatly and cause someone to win or loose as we saw the in article the Election of 1912. In 1912 we saw that Teddy Roosevelt came in second and took electoral and popular votes from the Republican party. When it comes to elections sometimes third parties will often take votes away from one party, causing their votes to lessen often making a difference because the other parties votes didn't split. However this doesn't always happen, while people will listen to third parties they will eventually loose interest and not pay as much attention in the end. Even though third parties won't get their vote as stated in Two's Company Bloomberg dropped his Republican affiliation to become an independent or a third party bid tells us that people will listen to their stances because people are also becoming more independent. Overall, third parties are good because they contribute to important political views but when it comes time for elections they don't negatively impact the voting as they never had a chance to win. Therefore its still an even match between the two major parties. B F.
Third Parties
Posted 9/24/2017 at 9:18:50 AM by [anonymous visitor]
Third parties have little to no chance of winning a presidential election, but they do have the ability to affect the outcome of an election. For example in the 2000 presidential election described in “Twos Company”, Ralph Nadar, a third party candidate, greatly influenced the outcome of the election. The support for Republican George W. Bush and Democrat Al Gore were close. But since Ralph Nadar appealed to numerous Democratic voters, Nadar ended up taking away Democratic votes expected for Gore and resulted in Bush’s victory. I believe that third parties are good for American elections and politics because more and more Americans are considering themselves to be moderates and independents; according to page 195 in the text, around 40% of people identify as independent. Third parties allow American voters to have more choices when voting rather than just the two major parties with their strong political stances. Also, in the article “Is It Time for a Third Party?”, it explains that third party candidates can raise awareness for issues not usually discussed by Democrat and Republican candidates. In the long run, third parties can influence the two major parties to shift their positions and attract more voters. Democratic and Republican candidates often adopt third party issues and take a stance on them. Bringing awareness to new issues can guide American politicians to solve different problems and bring more awareness to the American people. Third parties can have great effects on American elections politics, and I believe they are an important part of our politics. They give the growing moderates more options in voting and bring awareness to important issues not initially discussed by the two major parties. JR
Third Parties
Posted 9/24/2017 at 9:18:41 AM by [anonymous visitor]
Third parties are good for American elections and politics. Although third parties are not known for making a large difference in American politics, they still are important. Third parties allow for Americans to side with people who they truly identify with. Because the Republican and Democratic parties are so drastically different on almost every issue, third parties allow people to side with someone who has beliefs that are the middle-ground between the two dominant parties. In the article “Two’s Company,” author Joshua Spivak states, “There is the same infinitesimal chance for a successful third-­party run as there has been for nearly 100 years. And every smart politician knows this.” Third parties are gaining more and more recognition from voters, so they definitely deserve the opportunity to be part of American elections. Third parties can offer a sense of comfort to Americans voting in elections because they know they are voting for someone they truly trust, instead of someone they do not in one of the larger parties. Third parties have a lot to offer in elections and politics, so they should not be discredited by the other parties. -AP
Third Parties
Posted 9/24/2017 at 9:18:11 AM by [anonymous visitor]
Third party candidates will never win. It is nearly impossible. In 1912, even Teddy Roosevelt couldn’t win with the Bull-Moose Party, and he was a former president (CRB). Besides winning, according to "The Wall Street Journal," simply getting on state ballots is difficult and the trouble of getting on the national-level ballot is “magnified” tenfold. However, third parties can still have a big impact and are beneficial for American politics. The main benefit of third parties is that they bring up new, important issues. For example, while Roosevelt didn’t win the 1912 election, his progressive party was “the driving force of [the] election” (CRB). Moreover, one of the only reasons the Republican Party in 1854 (a third party) was successful in getting Lincoln elected was that they, in the words of "The New York Times’ Upfront", “entered the political scene with the right issue at the right time: the abolition of slavery.” The Republican Party is a clear example of how third parties can act as a platform to address new issues. They were the only party to take a strong, anti-slavery position and therefore became the party of the many people who shared this view, but had to no one to represent them. In general, third parties are made of activists and political elites with strong opinions who, as 'The Wall Street Journal' puts it, “take a stand on a hot-button issue.” Even if a third party’s issue doesn’t garner enough support to win an election, they can have enough influence to affect one of the main party candidates. If a third party’s position on an issue is very popular and gaining a lot of support, in the words of "The New York Times’ Upfront," the Democratic candidate or Republican candidate will “shift their positions to attract more voters.” A recent example of this phenomenon occurred in the 2016 election. Hillary Clinton was forced to adapt some of Bernie Sanders’ policies and ideas because of his substantial following. So while we will never have a third party president, third parties still have a positive impact on American Politics. -MZ
Third Parties
Posted 9/24/2017 at 9:18:03 AM by [anonymous visitor]
Overall, I believe that third parties are good for American politics. Even though the chances of them winning a presidential election are very slim, they have many benefits. First, they can be symbolic for voters who do not approve of the candidate from their normal party. In the Upfront article the author mentions how during the 2016 election season, “40 percent of Republicans say they’re content with Trump, and only 43 percent of Democrats say they’re satisfied with Clinton.” This was paired with relatively high support for third party candidates Gary Johnson and Jill Stein. Despite the fact that either Trump or Clinton would undoubtedly win, these numbers suggest that the two major parties are distancing themselves from the majority of their supporters, which can signal to the parties, that they need to change in some way. Another reason third parties are beneficial is because they can give light to vital issues that the two major parties do not. An example of this is the election of 1860 when Republican Abraham Lincoln won the presidency. At the time, neither of the two major parties,the Democrats and the Whigs, took a solid stance on slavery. The Republicans branched off from the Whigs and took a firm position wholly opposed to slavery, which is how they gained mass support throughout the northern states. A third reason is that third parties can influence the major parties to adopt certain policies that the public public wants. The article about the election of 1912 mentions, “The Democratic Party, under the tutelage of their candidate, Woodrow Wilson, and his advisor, Louis Brandeis, embraced a ‘New Freedom’ version of progressivism, which prescribed antitrust measures and state regulations as an alternative to the expansion of national administrative power.” In order to set the Democratic party up for future success and restrict competition, Wilson the Democrats enacted some of the policies that Roosevelt and the Progressives campaigned on that made them so popular. All of these reasons explain how third parties help shape the political landscape to better suit the public.
Third Parties
Posted 9/24/2017 at 9:17:53 AM by [anonymous visitor]
Third parties can be both good and bad for American elections and politics, but more good than bad. According to Is It Time For a Third Party?, they are good because they acknowledge issues that aren’t being addressed by the two main parties. This was especially important during the 1800s because Abraham Lincoln won the presidency as a third party candidate. He took a stance on slavery as a Republican- the biggest issue of the time- when the two main parties, the Whigs and Democrats, didn’t. By focusing on certain problems, they can show the Democratic and Republican nominees that there is a need for more attention on them, which can lead to more voters. The issues that are later adopted by the major parties were once the ones brought to attention by the third parties. For example, prohibition, income tax, and social security, were issues brought up by the Socialist or Populist Party. Depending on how you look at it, third parties can be good or bad during elections because they have the power to make or break an election. In Two’s Company, the most notable examples of this are Green Party candidate Ralph Nader costing Al Gore the presidency in 2000 and Ross Perot ruining George Bush’s chances in 1992 by taking 19% of the popular vote. Another significant third party candidate influencing the results of an election is Teddy Roosevelt. In Why The Election of 1912 Changed America, Roosevelt stole votes from William Taft because they were both technically Republican, but Roosevelt bolted from the GOP and ran for the Progressive Party. The votes he stole put him in second place, with 27.4% of the popular vote and 88 electoral votes. It is good for the winning candidate, yet it is bad for the other candidate that lost crucial popular votes costing him electoral votes, and the presidency. -KN
Third parties
Posted 9/24/2017 at 9:17:44 AM by [anonymous visitor]
In American elections, the winner almost never comes from a third or independent party. Although this may be true, third parties shed light on issues that are important in society at that time, promoting them to everyone through their campaign. Because of this, third parties are essential for American elections. In class we discussed that when someone runs in a third party, they promote concepts that are incorporated by the two major parties such as women's suffrage, child labor laws, and immigration restrictions. This often draws votes away from the candidate with similar views, leading the opponent of them to victory. This isn't all bad though, because it makes the winner reform their platform. For example, in the article Why the Election of 1912 Changed America, Wilson won because Roosevelt stole some of Taft's votes, dividing the republican party. After his victory, Wilson had to reform his platform and incorporate some of Roosevelt's views since it was clear many voters felt that same way. Wilson ran his campaign as a democrat but ran his presidency in a progressive way. As I stated previously, the main reason third parties are so important is because of the awareness they bring to certain issues. This can be demonstrated through the variety of different independent parties. For example, in the book on page 213, there is a chart that shows the types of minor parties. It lists parties such as Ideological parties, One-issue parties, Economic-protest parties, and Factional parties. All of these parties were created to draw awareness to different things. For instance, the Free-Soil party was created to prevent the spread of slavery. This most likely resonated with many voters causing the two main parties to do something about this as well. In conclusion, Third parties are essential for America because they help facilitate and promote ideas as well as help bring these issues into the eyes of the two major parties. -RR
Third Parties: Good or Bad?
Posted 9/24/2017 at 9:17:36 AM by [anonymous visitor]
Third parties are both “good” and “bad” for American elections and politics. Firstly, this would depend on what party one would support. In cases such as the election of 1912, Democrats would have been really happy and excited to see that Republican votes were being drawn away and put towards the Bull Moose party of Teddy Roosevelt. In contrast, the Republican party must have been furious that they lost because of the interference of a third party. They would have been especially unhappy at the fact that the number of votes drawn away was large enough to otherwise help William Howard Taft surely dominate the election. Not only does the third party by taking away votes from either of the two major parties, it also brings forth important concepts that need to be addressed. Because of the strength and validity of such concepts, the major parties are essentially forced to take in party of the third party’s platform. Again using the 1912 election, TR ran on a progressive platform, bringing the issue of a changing society to light. In order to top TR’s act, Woodrow Wilson was forced to adopt the same platform of political and social reform. In this respect, the nature of the third party to bring out issues that need to be addressed is highly beneficial to American elections and politics. J.C.
3rd Party Significance
Posted 9/24/2017 at 9:17:27 AM by [anonymous visitor]
3rd Party significance I believe that 3rd parties have a major influence on American elections and politics. 3rd parties have major influence on the American election system. In the “Two’s Company” the article talks about how in 2000, Ralph Nader, “ Ralph Nader's three runs for the White House, especially his bid in 2000 that cost Al Gore the presidency.” (Spivak). By Ralph Nader running for president, he took votes that would have gone to Al Gore, in Florida, causing the recount, making the state go to Bush. In the “1912 Election” article, talked about how that the Bull Moose Party, “Not only was it the driving force of this election, but it remains the most important third party to appear on the American political landscape in the 20th century.” (Milkis) and how overall Teddy Roosevelt split the Republican vote, let Woodrow Wilson win by a major margin. Teddy Roosevelt and the Bull Moose party was the first real successful 3rd party to gain 27.4% of the popular vote and 88 electoral votes. Also in the “1912 Election” article, it talks about how “Above all, the party stood for "pure democracy," that is, democracy purged of the impure influence of the special interests. The party platform's endorsement of "pure democracy" was sanctified as a "covenant with the people," a deep and abiding pledge to make the people the "masters of their constitution."(Milkis). The idea of “pure democracy” means that each person has a voice, even if it is not a support for a major party, but for a 3rd party. Many of today’s political policies have been influenced and set because the ideology of 3rd parties. The Socialists party influenced Women’s Rights, Child Labor Laws, Reduction of work hours, Income tax, and Social Security, and the Populists party influenced the Immigration Restrictions. In the “Two’s Company” article, it talks about how “Since third ­party candidates must draw their support from disaffected voters in both parties, taking a stand on a hot­-button issues”(Spivak), meaning that they take stances on very controversial topics like abortion or gay-rights or health-care. This relates back to the election of 1860, with Abraham Lincoln winning, because the Republican Party took a stance on the issue of slavery. 3rd parties also influence the political view of president candidates. In the article, “1912 Election”, “New Nationalists, led by Roosevelt, prevailed, pledging the party to regulate, rather than attempt to dismantle, corporate power; however, this disagreement carried over to the general election. The Democratic Party, under the tutelage of their candidate, Woodrow Wilson, and his advisor, Louis Brandeis, embraced a "New Freedom" version of progressivism, which prescribed antitrust measures and state regulations as an alternative to the expansion of national administrative power.”(Milkis). Woodrow Wilson had to change his whole presidential campaign due to Teddy Roosevelt and his progressive party. This completely changed Wilson’s political career to follow Roosevelt’s presidential progressive set up. JJG
Third Parties
Posted 9/24/2017 at 9:17:17 AM by [anonymous visitor]
According to everything we have read, I believe that third parties are good for American politics and elections because the give a new option as opposed to the monotony of our regular two party system. According to the Upfront article, many people are dissatisfied with the two major candidates (like in the 2016 election) so this opens up the door to third parties. If people aren’t happy with the democrats and the republicans, they shouldn’t be forced to pick between the two, they should be allowed to put their vote in someone they actually believe in. However, it may seem like the are throwing away their vote, but in reality third parties to have an affect on elections. In the Election of 1912 article, we see that TR’s Bull Moose party took major votes, and ultimately ended up shifting the outcome by taking away votes from Taft. This is why I believe third parties are good for elections. They add more competition to elections giving other parties more to think about. Third parties can also help mobilize voters by giving them a fresh perspective.
Third Parties
Posted 9/24/2017 at 9:17:08 AM by [anonymous visitor]
In my opinion, third parties are beneficial for American government. We’ve seen the republican and democratic parties change over the years as major shifts occurred; such as the issue of slavery in 1960. If conflicts like that changed the political ideology of parties before, why can’t it lead to the popularization of a new party that better suits the demands of the people? Even though parties are statistically less significant today, it almost seems as if that’s changing since the 2016 presidential election. Those who identify as democrats or republicans today are extremely divided and it disrupts the ability for congress to decide on issues. I believe that this time period opens a perfect opportunity for a third-party candidate to be successful. For instance, take Green Party candidate Jill Stein. According to the article, “Is It Time for a Third Party?” by Patricia Smith, “third-party candidates often raise issues not being discussed by other candidates”. With the disastrous hurricanes occurring throughout the world and the uproar of the subject of climate change in the media, it makes perfect sense for the public to support a green-party candidate like Stein. Even if a green-party candidate doesn’t win a future election, their public influence on social issues may cause more liberal candidates to focus much more on fighting for environmental policies. J.P.
Third Parties
Posted 9/24/2017 at 9:16:58 AM by [anonymous visitor]
Third Parties are good for American elections and politics. There have been reforms on public policies due to third parties influencing bigger parties. For example in the book on page 215 it says, “Mugwumps and liberal Republicans, by bolting the regular party, may have made that party more sensitive to the issue of civil service reform; the Bull Moose and La Follette Progressive parties probably helped encourage the major parties to pay more attention to issues on business regulation.” These third parties have helped America evolve for the better, they have brought many policies that were hidden in dark to the light, where they would be handled. Even now we continue to move forward following the concept that the progressives provided for us. It is now apart of our daily lives, as said by Sidney M. Milkus in “Why the Election of 1912 Changed America”, “For better or worse, the Progressive democracy championed by T.R. in 1912, and the love-hate relationship with the state it has led to, now seem enduring parts of our political life.” N.N
Are third parties good or bad?
Posted 9/24/2017 at 9:16:48 AM by [anonymous visitor]
I believe that third parties are bad for American elections and politics. This is because third parties will never win an election and therefore take away the votes that the main candidates could have been getting which can swing the election. As said in the political parties article “only a strong party has a chance of creating significant policy changes.” In a sense, the third party is useless because of its lack of power. The third party allows for split-ticket voting which can allow for people to vote for a president of one party and other candidates for the congress of another party. Also, since third parties aren't as popular, they aren't as recognized. This means that they don't have as much money as the other candidates and therefore are unable to make themselves known. They also get a lack of media coverage.A big disadvantage that comes with third parties is that if a third party candidate were to win a certain number of states in a presidential election, it could result in no candidate winning the majority of electoral votes. Therefore, third parties are not very good for elections and politics because of the many disadvantages they have. -ND
Third Parties
Posted 9/24/2017 at 9:16:39 AM by [anonymous visitor]
Third parties are inherently good for the American political system. This is because the help prevent a “monopoly” by the two dominant parties. If third parties didn’t exist, people would be forced to choose between what the Republicans or Democrats were offering, and those two parties would have no reason to change or evolve. Third parties force the two main parties to shit and evolve in order to appeal to new and changing demographics. For example, in the 2016 election, Hillary Clinton was forced to adapt policies of her Democrat opponent, Bernie Sanders. While it is true he was a Democrat on paper, Sanders and his supporters had a decidedly different socialist approach that leaned more towards almost being its own socialist third party. For this reason, he can still act to serve as an example of different groups forcing a main party to evolve. It is true that sometimes third parties split votes from main parties that can negatively impact the election, as seen in the “Spoiler Alert” section of Is it Time for a Third Party by Patricia Smith. Despite this however, third parties still result in many issues being brought to attention that otherwise wouldn’t be if the main parties didn’t want it to. While they stand no chance of winning, third parties positively impact American politics by forcing major parties to adapt and preventing them from becoming complacent. -YS
third parties
Posted 9/24/2017 at 9:16:29 AM by [anonymous visitor]
Third parties are good for american elections and politics. Third parties often bring different views on topics, that most republican and democratic people don’t think about. Third party politicians often have a very different way of handling political and economic issues that are brought up in elections. Although a third party will probably never win an american election, they bring topics and issues to the table, that the public adhere to, they respond to, and support. Causing the republican and democratic parties to reposition themselves on the topic in order to obtain the support and the needed vote of the people who support third party politicians. Third parties promote concepts, and policies are then incorporated by the two major parties. For example, women’s right to vote was a socialist party concept, but during elections, was adopted by one of the major parties to gain support. Immigration restrictions was a populist party concept, again, supported by the major parties once brought to the surface. Today, our third parties include libertarian, green, and constitution parties. Due to third parties in our history, issues have been brought to the surface, and taken care of. It’s possible that without third parties, some of the concepts would never have been adopted by either democrats or republicans. - MC
Are Third Parties Good or Bad For US Politics?
Posted 9/24/2017 at 9:16:22 AM by [anonymous visitor]
I believe that third parties are not only beneficial but they are also important to US elections and politics. Only having two parties causes politics to be presented in a very black and white manner. However, that is not a true reflection of how our world truly is-there are numerous grey areas in life and it's very difficult to address the varying perspectives that exist with only two parties. Third parties help bring those grey areas to surface and provide the American public with views that are more personalized and better aligned to their beliefs. Dylan Blair precisely explains the frustrations of many Americans today in the Upfront article as he says, "The American people shouldn't be held hostage to a two party system and forced to accept the lesser of two evils." Additionally, third party candidates often raise issues not being discussed by other candidates and over the long term can influence Democrats and Republicans to shift their positions to attract more voters (Upfront). A perfect example of this is detailed in the article "Why The Election of 1912 Changed America", this election was very important for third parties as no third-party candidate for the presidency—before or after 1912—had received so large a percentage of the popular vote or as many electoral votes. While the Bull Moose (Progressive) party did loose, it did leave a lasting impact on American politics and helped legitimize new social movements and candidate-centered campaigns. The winner of the election, Woodrow Wilson, was heavily influenced by the ideas brought about by the Bull Moose party in the election and after seeing the large public approval that the third party received he was compelled to shift some of his views and govern as a New Nationalist Progressive. -RO
Third Parties
Posted 9/24/2017 at 9:16:03 AM by [anonymous visitor]
I think Third parties are both good and bad in their respective ways. Third parties provide another platform where political parties require more effective ways to gain popularity such as raising common issues to sway the public votes, third parties intervene in this process by raising other common issues or global issues splitting the votes and creating healthy political competition. They are able to present weaker ideas and make them stronger which would otherwise be ignored by the major-parties or press. They serve as single hub for organizing and sometimes actually win an election such as winning in congressional elections. Third parties this way can help the political health of the country. Now, they can cause many negative effects as well when they cause a split in votes such as the time Teddy Roosevelt did in 1912 or Ross Perot did in 1992 in these cases they were able to gain some popular vote with similar platforms causing one of the major-parties to gain advantage over the other. Third parties therefore can be both good and bad for politics in their own respective ways raising small issues or sometimes causing a split in votes. Third parties face very high obstacle and can never win the major elections is because of the feeling of wasting votes some people think that their vote may be wasted if they vote for third parties giving third parties less ability to pull votes towards them H.S
Third Parties
Posted 9/24/2017 at 9:15:53 AM by [anonymous visitor]
The newest remedy for weight loss, the latest hit by Ed Sheeran, and the most recent version of the iPhone. Individuals flock to fresh, new objects or people which have the potential to entirely transform the world for the better. Humans embrace new ideas, concepts, and different ways of thinking when compared to the normal. Considering this, why don’t more Americans support third parties—a political party of the United States other than the Republican and Democratic parties (Wikipedia)? Dating back to the Founding Fathers, third parties are rarely given a chance to win; therefore, the U.S is seen as having a two-party system (Smith). In modern day politics, it is extremely hard for third parties to break through the surface and reach the minds of Americans. However, in recent years due to the increased polarization of society, more and more Americans are labeling themselves as independent (Political Parties). Nevertheless, the media ignores third-party candidates, third parties lack big donors compared to Democrats and Republicans, and some states make it difficult for third-party candidates to get on the ballot (Smith, Spivak). While third-party candidates only hold 15% of the vote, such parties have positives effects on American elections and politics (Smith). Third parties aim to promote and embrace new issues, increase voter choice, and separate candidates. While Democrats and Republicans focus on specific political issues, third-party candidates bring previously hidden ideas to light. As discussed in class, third parties bring policies to attention such as the women’s right to vote, child labor laws, immigration restrictions, reduction of work hours, etc. Third parties develop different political platforms—a political party’s statement of its goals and policies for the next four years—compared to Democrats and Republicans. For example, Theodore Roosevelt’s Bull Moose Party’s platform built upon political and social reform and idealized a complete democracy as people are masters of the constitution (Milkis). Modern day third parties such as the Libertarian Party, Green Party, and Constitution Party presents individual platforms from being opposed to any government influence to striving to secure the blessings of liberty at all levels of government (lp, constitutionparty). As Judd Gregg states “Republicans should focus on fiscal responsibility,” third-party candidates fly under-the-radar and emerge expressing opinions on different unique issues (Kerszenhorn). Example ideas include ecology, rights of the individual, socialism, reform, etc. Third parties are important in that they do support and promote upcoming issues to change the public opinion of Americans. Third parties increases voter choice by having candidates that represent other political parties besides Republicans and Democrats. Considering state and national elections only have two dominant choices, the voter may refrain from voting if they lack political efficacy or dislike both potential candidates. In spite of this, third-party candidates provide Americans with another option to select when voting. No party has successfully organized around a man as that of the Progressive Party (LaFollette). To illustrate this, in 1912 the Bull Moose third-party—represented by Theodore Roosevelt—won 27.4% of the popular vote and 88 electoral votes from six states (Milkis, Spivak). In addition, in 1992 Ross Perot split the conservative vote and played a major role in Bill Clinton winning the presidency. While third parties do not win a majority of the vote, they take votes from one party and therefore swing elections. Third parties ensure that the dominating parties will fluctuate their current position or—as stated above—allow third party candidates to create a new, different platform. Third parties aim to promote and embrace new issues, increase voter choice, and separate candidates. While third parties rarely win, they are extremely essential when presenting new issues and informing Americans. Nevertheless, the impact of third parties is rarely permanent—evident through America’s two-party system. Illustrated by the words of political historian Richard Hofstadter, “Third parties are like bees: once they have stung, they die.” S.B
third parties
Posted 9/24/2017 at 9:15:34 AM by [anonymous visitor]
Third parties are usually considered jokes in today's politics however many argue that they show a statement of going against the status quo of voting for “Tweedle Dee” or “Tweedle Dum.” But most just see it as throwing their vote away like in the video that we watched in class from the Simpsons with the 2 aliens being the two only candidates but someone wanting to vote for a third party but it was pointless since one of the aliens were going to win anyway. Third parties are only good at getting the other party elected. For example in class we watched a documentary on third parties and one of the people interviewed stated “ A vote for a right wing third party is a vote for the left while a left wing third party is a vote for the right.” Most reasons third parties don’t win is for that reason, moreover a third party on either side pulls votes away from their side making the vote very split from what it would be, For example in the election of 1912 which most third parties look up to since it for the first and only time they won a large number of electoral votes with 88 making it the most ever won by a third party but they still lost to the winner Woodrow Wilson. W.S.
Third Parties
Posted 9/24/2017 at 9:15:19 AM by [anonymous visitor]
Third Parties are good for American elections and politics because they are very influential. According to the article Is It Time for a Third Party, "They do have an impact in the sense that they can drain votes away from one candidate or another and change what might happen in a state", third parties do this by introducing new view points and bringing larger issues to light. Third parties have the ability to determine which party wins the election. - NM
Third Party
Posted 9/24/2017 at 9:15:07 AM by [anonymous visitor]
Third parties in America seem to be unimportant in most people’s eyes but they are actually really good for American elections. There are three major parties that are considered to be third parties, they consist of The Green Party, The Libertarian Party, and The Natural Law Party. These parties are good for America for a number of reasons, one would be because they allow people to have more “moderate” view in politics, and more people are falling under this moderate category today. Another reason that they are good is because they often allow the candidates in the major two parties to see what the moderate people want. Which often times the candidate that is elected will conform to similar views that the third party has displayed, and we see this in the “Why the Election of 1912 Changed America”. Third Parties are often formed because the person isn’t chosen as the leading representative of a major party, so they will run by himself as an individual but can hold the same viewpoint as a major party. This causing a downside with the third parties because we see that third parties could have an impact on votes. When people are voting for a third party it pulls the votes away from the party they are most similar to causing the opposing major party to get more votes. This process is explain to us in more detail in the “Is It Time for a Third Party” article and also in the election of 1912 because a third party in that year got 88 electoral votes. Although third parties can have a sway in the election they will never win because of the lack of funding they get, and many times the people are not known about because they are not talked about in the media. -RC
Third Parties
Posted 9/24/2017 at 9:14:58 AM by [anonymous visitor]
In the result of the 2016 United States Presidential election, it is clear that third- and fourth-party candidates have little hope for being elected, no matter how unpopular the candidates of the two main parties may seem. And even when the third party candidate may be as popular as the great Teddy Roosevelt in the election of 1912, they actually secure more than 30% of the votes, much less hope to win the general election (Why the Election of 1912 Changed America). Yet, the sole act of running for public office, albeit perhaps optimistically, exercises the democratic rights of almost any citizen to run for office, and in the process may contribute something important to the outcome of the general election in either forcing candidates to address certain issues or significantly altering the outcome of the vote (Two’s Company). For example, as Joshua Spivak explains in “Two’s Company,” Ralph Nader’s run for President in the election of 2000 may have cost his fellow Democratic candidate, Al Gore, the presidency because the two candidates were so similar in their platforms that Nader may have decided Bush’s victory by dividing the liberal vote. Similarly, the recent formation of the Tea Party to protest President Obama’s financial aid policy for bankrupt homeowners reflected the more conservative views among some Republicans (Tea Party Movement Opens Rift). In fact, the role that third parties play in defining issues is critical because it reflects the more nuanced and not black-and-white perspectives held by most Americans. The “Political Parties” article adds that because Republican and Democratic positions on many issues have become so moderate, there is no significant difference between the two parties and that the presence of the third party is essential to lift the issue to public awareness to cause a meaningful change in policy. And while the Founding Fathers originally opposed the creation of parties altogether because of fear that they would manipulate voters for their own self-interest and not serve the public good (Political Parties), these fears became reality when Jefferson’s Democratic Republican Party would undermine the Adams administration by leaking to the French government, jeopardizing the legitimacy of parties in the first place (The First Democrats). Because of this, the presence of third parties is essential to regulate the sometimes divisive or unproductive policies of the two major parties. In all, the role that third parties play is vital to American democracy and is a catalyst towards us attaining a “more perfect union” as the Founding Fathers had intended. IY
Third Parties
Posted 9/23/2017 at 9:19:26 AM by [anonymous visitor]
Since the beginning of the political party system, the United States has always been portrayed as a two-party system, regardless of the fact that there are more than two political parties. Republicans and Democrats dominate the party system as being the top two systems to win any sort of political election. However, there are still candidates that run for elections being in other separate parties, like the Green party or Libertarian party. So, if the political system only seems to elect candidates from the Republican party or Democratic party, why do other parties still exist? In the Upfront article titled “Is It Time for a Third Party?” by Patricia Smith, she quotes William Rosenberg, a political scientist at Drexel University, that, “[third parties] do have an impact in the sense that they can drain votes away from one candidate or another and change what may happen in a state,” (1). A good example of this would be what happened back in the election of 1912. Theodore Roosevelt, a previous two-term Republican president, helped found the Progressive party, another political third party. Since he ran for the Progressive party, he managed to win enough support away from Republican presidential candidate, William Howard Taft, thus allowing Democrat Woodrow Wilson to win the election of 1912. Although third parties don’t necessarily win presidential or other political elections, it doesn’t mean they aren’t helpful at certain times, or that they’re unnecessary. I believe they’re more good than bad in American politics, and can extensively alter the outcomes of elections. -AG
Third Parties
Posted 9/23/2017 at 9:19:18 AM by [anonymous visitor]
Third parties are both good and bad for American elections and politics. There are pros and cons for them and they usually cancel each other out. For instance, third parties, although they have an almost 0% chance of winning, bring important issues to the table that the usual parties would maybe glance over or not address fully. For instance the Green party specializes in green and ecological issues. If the two main parties’ candidates don’t have a specific statement or ideology on green issues or energy then the green party will usually put pressure on them to create a statement or stance on the issues for their voters to know where they stand. In 1992 during the first presidential debate, Independent candidate Ross Perot brought up issues including the budget deficit, education and drug use that weren’t being discussed by the two other candidates, incumbent Republican George Bush and Democrat Bill Clinton. But sometimes third parties can have adverse effects. For example, sometimes a third party will pull more votes away from a certain party than the other. This was apparent in the election of 1912 where Theodore Roosevelt lost the the Republican nomination and thus formed his own new party dubbed the Bull Moose Party. Democrat Woodrow Wilson won the election with 6 million votes. Roosevelt in his new Bull Moose Party platform was 2 million votes behind with 4 million, while incumbent Republican William Howard Taft was 700,000 votes behind Roosevelt with 3.2 million votes. Wilson benefitted from the fact that the Bull Moose Party was pretty much just a branch off the Republican party and ergo Roosevelt had seemingly split the party in half. Had Roosevelt simply won the Republican nomination, assuming Taft didn’t start his own third party, he most likely would have also won the presidency for a third non-consecutive term by taking away those 3.2 million votes directed at Taft. And vice-versa if Roosevelt didn’t start a new party, Taft most likely would have won a second term. Who knows how history would have played out had Taft or Roosevelt won in 1912, not Wilson. All in all a third party candidate will most likely never win an election and there probably won’t be another one who will ever be more successful than Ross Perot or get more votes than him, but they are still important to the politics of America. But as the video source said, people that wholeheartedly vote for a third party candidate, not as a joke, are literally throwing their vote straight into the trash. -JB
Third Parties
Posted 9/23/2017 at 9:19:10 AM by [anonymous visitor]
As we discussed in class, there is essentially no point to the third party running because they always lose the election. They may get a good proportion of votes, but they will never measure up to the amount of votes the two major parties (Democrat and Republican) receive due to polarization of voters. As said by the article, Two’s Company, “While they may influence the vote, that does not mean they actually have a chance of winning.” Even when well-liked, former president Theodore Roosevelt ran for reelection in 1912, he did not win because he was not in one of the major parties. Two’s Company also described the difficult journey it takes for a third party to get on the ballot: “Getting on the ballot is difficult in many states, requiring candidates to spend significant cash and effort just to have the opportunity to run. This is magnified on the national level, where candidates have to get on all 50 ballots to be viewed as a serious contender.” This said, third parties are not good for American elections. They weaken the chance for a candidate of a major party to win the election by pulling votes. This is often called The Spoiler Effect in politics, as the spoiler is a non-winning candidate whose presence on the ballot affects which candidate wins. For example, in the election of 1912, Theodore Roosevelt’s third party, the Progressives, pulled votes from Republican candidate William Howard Taft because Roosevelt had similar politics as him. We also see this in the election of 2000, when Al Gore ran for president in the Democratic party against George W. Bush, and Ralph Nader, a third party candidate, pulled votes away from Gore. Supporters of Gore argued that if Nader had not run, his votes would have been cast for Gore and Bush would not have won. Lastly, third parties can also pull votes when both candidates of the major parties are disliked, which can really throw off the results of the election. The only upside to third parties, is that they tend to promote concepts that aren’t looked into very much by the two major parties. Topics include: immigration restrictions, income tax and child labor laws. Unfortunately for third parties, their topics usually end up getting incorporated into the major parties and become part of their platforms. -MD
Third Parties
Posted 9/21/2017 at 9:19:51 AM by [anonymous visitor]
In “The First Democrats” article we read for class Thomas Jefferson explained that we needed parties in the political system that was being built, saying, “In the present situation of the United States, divided as they are between two parties ... this exalted station [the presidency] is surrounded with dangerous rocks, and the most eminent abilities will not be sufficient to steer clear of them all.” What he means is that the problems that face voting for the next president were not there for George Washington because he was a unanimous choice for president for the whole, newly formed, country. But future presidents would not get that opportunity, they needed someone, something to back the candidates to win votes for them. Jefferson realized that, although he absolutely hated them, parties are essential in government. Although they are needed in government, the question is if they are good or not, more specifically third parties. Casting one’s vote for a third party candidate is basically throwing away that vote, but that doesn’t mean third parties are completely invisible. In fact they can influence the main two parties (Republican and Democrat) to start looking at an issue or alter their view on one. The prime example of a third party turning tides was the election of 1912, when former president Theodore Roosevelt was running again but for a different party, the Bull Moose party. Although he didn’t win, he came the closest any third party has come yet, the Bull Moose party won 27.4% of the popular vote and 88 electoral votes from six states. This was extraordinary for a third party. And with the influence that Roosevelt had, had influenced the candidate who did win (Woodrow Wilson) to incorporate a progressive impact, The New Deal. To rest my case, I do believe that third parties are indeed important as they have the influence to make the First two parties make a change whether it be to look at a problem differently, or to start looking at an issue.
Third Parties
Posted 9/21/2017 at 9:19:38 AM by [anonymous visitor]
I believe third parties are good for American elections and politics. Third party candidates have the ability to bring attention to issues that the two major party candidates ignore. When they start talking about these issues, they cause the others to have to take a stance and talk about them as well. In the article “Two’s Company,” author Joshua Spivak states, “Third-­party runs are important. As we've seen, they can make or break a presidential election. Everyone remembers Ralph Nader's three runs for the White House, especially his bid in 2000 that cost Al Gore the presidency. And Ross Perot might have fatally damaged George Bush when he collected 19% of the vote in 1992.” Third parties promote concepts, policies incorporated by the two major parties, such as women’s right to vote, child labor laws, immigration restrictions, reduction of work hours, income tax, and social security. But unfortunately, while third party runs are important, they won’t win. Spivak also mentions, “There is the same infinitesimal chance for a successful third-­party run as there has been for nearly 100 years. And every smart politician knows this.” Although third parties don’t win elections, they definitely change the outcome. Third parties take away some of the votes that would be going to one of the two major parties. Without third parties, the list of presidents for the United States may be different. Third parties make a difference in elections and campaigns, therefore they are good for American politics. -MM
Post A Reply
2 - Family vs. Outside Influences
Posted 8/28/2017 at 9:13:39 AM by Ryan Pubentz [staff member]

Using your textbook, the articles Homo Politicus and How Divided Are We?, class discussions and additional resources for reference write a reaction to the following question: Is a person's political identity influenced more by family or outside influences?

See attached rubric.



Reply Posts
Family vs. Outside Influences
Posted 9/7/2017 at 5:19:37 PM by [anonymous visitor]
Nature or Nurture Last year I took AP psychology with Ms. Pumphrey. Psychology is a strange subject to learn, it seems that every year the stance on each component making up the science fluxuates. One of the main issues that gets brought up in psychology is nature vs. nurture. This means there is a debate between what impacts behavior, including political belief more, genetics or outside influences. Originally I thought it was simple, genetics determines my hair color not who I vote for, but it seems that psychologists would disagree. How is this testable? How can you determine if people with similar genetics have the same opinions? Psychologists found the answer to that in twins, and not just twins but twins who are raised separately. This way they have people who are genetically similar but have widely differing experiences. What they found was that despite a totally different upbringing, twins still shared vastly similar opinions. Some twins even went as far to say that it was like they were having a conversation with themselves after talking with their separated twin. These studies, along with our book reading, and our discussions in class lead me to believe family is a much more important factor in shaping our political views than outside experiences. However it’s not totally in the way I expected at first. Originally I thought family would have a large impact on political views simply because they are the first views we experience and the most reinforced over time. Almost like our parents feed us a narrative we learn is true through what we witness while we're with them. Now, because of what I learned in psychology I find myself believing that there's more to it than that. There must also be some genetic element to one’s beliefs whether we’d like to admit it or not. Thinking that discourages me, I’d like to think we are more in control of our beliefs than what our genetic code has to say. I’d like to believe that we could still somehow break through what we dont have control over, but until I see the data I can't. JM
What influences people politically
Posted 9/6/2017 at 5:19:21 PM by [anonymous visitor]
What influences people politically the most In today's politics where a person falls on the political spectrum is extremely prevalent. A person's political identity is influenced by many things including their family, friends, and outside sources like media. Personality along with outside sources such as media are the main influences of where a person falls politically. Friends go along with personality in a large amount as well. According to the article Homo Politicus people tend to fall with their personalities on the political spectrum. They said “Conservatives tend to crave order and structure in their lives, and are more consistent in the way they make decisions”. While the personality of a person is the main influence on them politically outside sources like media and friends can also play a large roll. Homo Politicus says “"But occasionally there is road work, or perhaps an animal crosses the road, and you need to break out of your habitual response in order to deal with this new information”, meaning that people will take what's been given to them and let it influence what they already believe in. Similarly the article How Divided Are We?, states “The news we get is not only more omnipresent, it is also more competitive and hence often more adversarial.“ This goes back to when presidents started using media such as Roosevelt with the fireside talks or John F. Kennedy when the television became prevalent. It makes sense for the presidents to use these sources since people are influenced so much by them. Similarly, today president Donald Trump uses Twitter to influence a younger generation who uses social media.
ai
Posted 9/5/2017 at 5:19:51 PM by [anonymous visitor]
AI Ap Government 9/3/17 Family vs. Outside Influence A person's political identity tends to refer to political positions that coincide with the interests and views of the social groups with which they identify. Political identities have various influences some of which include where you live, race, nationality, religion, and gender. One's political identity refers to a specific political party in which the affiliate themselves with. Their identity also tends to have an influence on who people vote for and their opinions on public issues. People often feel inclined to have the same political identity as their parents. As children grow up in a household that tends to have strong political opinions, they will usually steer towards those opinions as well. Many children grow up and vote the way their parents do. Family is the first and most influential factor on many people's developing political views as they grow up, however as people grow older their outlooks start to diverge as they explore other views. This still doesn’t take away all the influence you're family has on your identity. I think the second main factor is social media/the people you associate yourself with because you usually follow and hang out with people that have similar interests as you. Overall I still believe that family has the largest influence on people's political identity. Some people may stray from their parents beliefs but most often tend to see things the same way as their parents because that is how they grew up. And people may identify themselves differently than their family, but they still usually follow/believe things they grew up hearing about from their parents which means they still have some similar views as their family.
Political Influence
Posted 9/5/2017 at 5:19:09 PM by [anonymous visitor]
B F Ap Gov Blog I believe that a person's political identity is overall shaped by their parents and their family because that is who people are surrounded by most in life. At a young age not many kids care about their political identity and in most cases just follow in the footsteps of their parents and identify within the same group that their parents are. People are more influenced by their family because people care more about their family members opinion than what an article on the internet says. For example, this is displayed in the article, “How Divided Are We” when it states, “Not only are they themselves increasingly polarized, but consumers are well aware of it and act on that awareness. Fewer people now subscribe to newspapers or watch the network evening news...the mainstream press generally does not tell the truth, or at least not the whole truth” (Wilson,2). The Media tells the version of the story that makes the news the most interesting. Since they pick what should and shouldn't be said many times not everything is true along with the whole story may not be told. With that being said when it comes to a person's political view the media is not the most reliable source which is why it is not a big influence on people. However, a person's family can influence their political stance in numerous ways. When discussing this matter in class family was the number one factor influencing political socialization. I believe this is the case because many people have the same beliefs and morals as their parents. As they are growing up they after their parents and without them even realizing it may be influencing their kids through their actions. With all this being said this is why a person's family has a bigger influence on them instead of other outside influences like the media and school. -BF
Family vs. Outside Influences
Posted 9/5/2017 at 5:18:49 PM by [anonymous visitor]
When asked whether a person's political identity is influenced more by family or outside influences, I can confidently answer that family, in most cases, has the upper hand in shaping political identification. Family is what we encounter everyday in our lives for, at least, the first 18 years of life. And there are always issues to talk about, and ones that need solving; that's the start of a dive into politics, solving problems. At the age of 3 kids probably don’t have a clear understanding of politics. However, children are information sponges. They are the most observant and curious kinds of people and their main source of information for their first 3 years of life are their families. They watch and imitate and that goes without saying, political beliefs. In Homo politicus there have been studies on how personality traits may have an effect on political persuasion as there are correlations between the two; this may have something to do with how influential families are to the political polarization of people. As they grow up they start to get a grasp of their own ideas. Now adolescents, they have been exposed to other outside influences and make decisions of their own. Back at home they decide if these ideas are important or not and what they’re going to do with the information. Depending on previous experience with family they may decide to judge and decide, look into it more, or decide to just not think about it How family shapes political views does not always mean that the kid will always agree with their parents or siblings, nor does it have to be American politics; it can be politics within the family which lead to how one thinks. Political identity is mainly shaped by the family. Of course there will always be outside influences but the magnitude of its effects will not reach that of family, for whom gives one a first taste of people's opinions of other people. SL
influence on a persons political identity
Posted 9/5/2017 at 5:18:39 PM by [anonymous visitor]
When the person in question is very young he is very much likely to be politically influenced by family members. The young person would be in contact and seek their parents or relatives help in many cases of early life. They would also pick up habits from those family members and act upon those habits such as political stance(liking a certain politician or pointing out a politician on television). So, children when they grow up tend to vote same as their family, Families are generally the first, and often the most enduring, influence on a child's developing political opinions. Even if there attitudes tend to diverge from their family they are still ideologically influenced and the influence still remains. ideologically , the more politically active your family, the more likely the child is to hold the same beliefs. Now as the child grows up and becomes more aware about his surroundings. He tends to lean more on his peers and the social environment(television is more effective) causing a shift in political ideology slightly different than the family as he becomes more diverse in his political knowledge learning from school, stranger's, news, etc. this would affect his political stance. Also according to Homo Politicus “but even if genes may provide a blueprint for more liberal or conservative orientations, they are shaped substantially by one’s environment over the course of development,”-Amodio. In the end family is more likely to affect the political identity of an individual person as family os the one factor which will always remain in the individual’s life and help him to make tough decisions even if his social surroundings are offering to help make the decisions, the individual will always look towards his family for support…H.S
Family vs Outside Forces
Posted 9/5/2017 at 5:18:31 PM by [anonymous visitor]
From birth those who raise you, your parents and/or your family are who teach you how to do everything and shape you as a person. When your family shares their opinions and discuss political topics with you that aswell shapes you as a person and your political identity. When you are younger you are surrounded by family all the time and despite growing up and having more peers and more access to opinionated media I believe your family still has the strongest influence on your political identity. The time spent with your family or the discussions you may have with them is not the only reason I believe this, your family decides what media you are exposed to when you are a child, they decide what school you go to, where you live, who you can be friends with and they give you your genes. The textbook discusses this topic and shows how political identities correlate with religion, race, income and demographics. Considering these have an effect on your political identity and that your family decides your income, they pass down their genes for race, they teach you religion and they decide where you live they have full control over all these factors that influence your political identity. Because your family has so much control over your life and thoughts as you grow up is why I believe family over other factors is the most influential on one's political identity. As kids grow up they gain more access to media and to the opinion of their peers but I still believe family is the most influential for many reasons. Media and peers both share opinions with children as they grow up which can also affect one's political identity but quoted from Homo Politicus, “The brain neurons of liberals and conservatives fire differently when confronted with tough choices, suggesting that some political divides may be hard-wired, according a study released Sunday” (Hood). This article suggests that one's thought process that gives them their political identity is hard wired meaning it is within their genes which again is from their parents, their family. This quote also proves that when confronted with tough choices like elections or voting on specific topics the choice is hard wired therefore the persuasive commercials or peers trying to convince their friends to agree with them can't override one's hard wired brain. Family is the backbone of everyone's life, you are raised and live with your family from the moment you are born and therefore you grew up in a specific environment with opinionated media and ideas being shown to you as your brain develops. Your brain also is predisposed to develop a certain way and process information in a specific way due to your genes which are passed down from your parents. Because genes and how and where you are raised are such a big influence on brain development and political identity is why I believe family is the biggest factor as opposed to other outside forces. M.M
Family is a Bigger Factor in Shaping Political Opinions
Posted 9/5/2017 at 5:18:18 PM by [anonymous visitor]
In the American society, anyone can freely take any political position. However, even though all of the power in choosing what “side” to be on is in the hands of the citizen, research suggests that family and other outside influences affect the stance that an individual takes. Furthermore, this research has also shown that, between family and other outside influences, family is the much more contributing factor in shaping the political opinions of the two. Most of the family influences exist in a parent-to-child transfer of political concepts. As James Wilson states in his article How Divided are We?, “many Americans and much of the press regularly speak of the President as a dimwit, a charlatan, or a knave.” Considering that many of the Americans that form these types of opinions are adults, and also considering that children cannot really think for themselves at a young age, these negative concepts are being told to the widely-open ear of the youth. To the children, and even to those about to enter adulthood, the “high and mighty” parental figure proves to be the most correct person in their lives. Marlowe Hood also agrees with this concept, as he writes in his article Homo Politicus: Brian Function of Liberals, Conservatives Differs, “The affinity between political views and "cognitive style" has also been shown to be heritable, handed down from parents to children, said the study, published in the British journal Nature Neuroscience.” Not only do parents surround their children with their political opinions, similar ways of thinking are passed on even biologically. All of this only supports the fact that family dominates in influencing individuals and their view on politics. There might be stray factors that may also influence the thinking of citizens when it comes to taking a stand on how the government should be run, but in the end, parents and other family members are the most responsible for the shaping of political minds. J.C.
Family V.S. Outside Influence
Posted 9/5/2017 at 5:18:06 PM by [anonymous visitor]
In politics today, we see a major divide in our country between are two major parties. Although a popular view is that people think they are in the middle, we always seem to sway one way or another, either on social or economic views. But the major question is where do these views come from? This question also cause a divide in the country. People argue over genetics, the media, school, and peers, but never seem to come to a conclusion. Based on our class discussions and the readings, I believe that family is the biggest influence on our political views, even though other factors are important as well. Family is one of the biggest influences of political beliefs, even from a young age. From the start, we spend more time with our family than any other group of people, they are who we see everyday. And with the time spent around the dinner table or at family gatherings, we are bound to hear the political opinions of the people around us, and we tend to pick up on them. In my life, I’ve always looked up to my parents, and I took their beliefs and my own, so personally, it was the biggest influence. According to the textbook, people who view themselves as deeply conservative come from parents who view themselves as deeply conservative. However, there are other factors that have influences as well. According to “Homo Politicus” and the textbook, there are some genetic factors in politics. People who are conservative and people who are liberal have different biological systems, their neurons fire differently. Also the book states that genetics help explain people’s political ideologies in a big way. Genetics do play a factor in politics, even though the influence isn’t as big as family. There isn’t just one answer when it comes to explaining the origins of political ideologies in a person. There are so many factors- family, genetics, social class, ethnicity, the media, etc- that just one isn’t going to control a person’s entire set of beliefs. The divide in our country isn’t explained just by what CNN said or just by what a friend told you at school. It is the collective of our own experiences working together to explain who we are and what we believe. However, some factors have more influence than others, and in my opinion, family is the biggest. -JM
Family vs. Outside Influences
Posted 9/5/2017 at 5:17:57 PM by [anonymous visitor]
Political identity is shaped by a variety of factors that influence and impact a person throughout their lifetime. Media, peers, school, all have a part in shaping an individual’s political identity. Family is consistently considered the most important of these factors. An individual has the most exposure to their family opposed to anything else, leading to a greater amount of influence from family than any other source of information. Basic beliefs are inherited from family, and it becomes the first source than an individual trusts. In class activities, family appeared consistently as the most important source of political identity among students, at least for the earlier years of their life. The textbook also cites family as the most important source of political identity above all others. As you age, other factors influence your life, but your basic beliefs are adopted from the ones who raise you. -MG
Family and Politics
Posted 9/5/2017 at 5:17:47 PM by [anonymous visitor]
Politics is always said to be off limits at the dinner table. Who knows, maybe you and dad have radically different views on, say, military spending. This conversation only ends in yelling, followed by awkward silence, followed by the occasional clanging of forks and desperate attempts from mom to change the subject. This scene sounds familiar; however, most studies find it to be unlikely. Most sources agree, people inherit the political ideologies of their parents. The family unit is the cradle that shapes the child’s morale, and views on life. It makes sense, children spend the majority of their time at home with their parents, especially in their younger years. Some studies like the one outlined in Homo Politicus are going even further than that and claiming that liberals and conservatives physically, biologically, think differently. Their findings support the claim. This suggests that political ideology is tied to genetic traits and can be inherited. The textbook supports this idea in mentioning that identical twins (100% shared genes) tend to have closer political outlooks than fraternal twins (50% shared genes). Despite this, it would be foolish to say that people are born with set political views. People grow, develop, and change. Outside influences play an important role in this development. With each year the media is becoming more and more pervasive. With all different kinds of media, you’d expect all different kinds of political views, however that’s too rash of a conclusion. Once kids/adolescents are old enough to consciously consume media, they already have a preconceived political/moral basis set by their family and so they chose their media accordingly. There’s a reason that family comes first: they’re your closest people, and thus they have the most influence on you. Generalizations cannot be made in certain, but most evidence suggests that the apple doesn’t fall far from the tree. -PY
Family vs. Outside Influences
Posted 9/5/2017 at 5:17:36 PM by [anonymous visitor]
There are various influences on a person’s political identity. It is said that there are other influences that have a larger impact on a person’s political identity however, family has the largest impact on a person’s political identity. It is said the more politically active your family is, the greater the chance you will have the same beliefs, as your family is generally the first, long-term influence on a young person’s developing political opinions. For instance, “Consistently, students report identifying with the same party and ideology as their parents, even if they have differing opinions on certain issues.”, says Lindsay Hoffman, Professor of Communication and Political Science at the University of Delaware, from the Washington Post. This is because we spend the most time with our families as children. We not only listen to what our parents say but we also watch their every move, we model their behavior until we truly understand what “values” and “beliefs” are. According to the article How Divided Are We, “By polarization I mean something else: an intense commitment to a candidate, a culture, or an ideology that sets people in one group definitively apart from people in another, rival group.” The polarization they are talking about in this article that we see today is largely due to the time we spent with our family as children, all the conversations at the dinner table or in the car about which president has the better values or stances on certain political issues. Finally, from Homo Politicus, Marlowe Hood states “The affinity between political views and “cognitive style” has also been shown to be heritable, handed down from parents to children”. From this we find out that what we believe goes beyond just what we hear but also what our parents give to us biologically. Gender, age, religion, and race are some influences that are impactful on one’s political identity but the most prevailing of them all is family. -NM
Essay
Posted 9/5/2017 at 5:17:27 PM by [anonymous visitor]
Based on the research we have done inside and outside of class, I have concluded that one’s political identity is most heavily influenced by factors other than family than by family alone. It would be false to say that the family of an individual has no impact since the study featured in the article “Homo politicus” clearly shows a difference in the way liberals versus conservatives approach change based on experiences in early childhood. Although this is significant and difficult to refute, it is only a small aspect of a person’s political identity. The media has a huge effect on the polarization of political beliefs as Wilson, the author of “How Divided Are We?” pointed out. The media has an ability to only inform our political opinions but sway them with emotion-hitching statements and easily digestible forms of implicit bias. I would argue that these subtle (and often less subtle) intake of morals has a much larger impact on our beliefs on policy, politicians and general political beliefs. And from the perspective of a high schooler, peers can have a large impact on our political opinions because it gives us an opportunity to argue and use what we have learned from our family and the media to potentially change the opinions of others or at least strengthen our own beliefs. What we learn in school about who our founding fathers were and what they based our government on can impact our understanding of America’s political culture but I think it only has a minimal impact on our individual political identity. Although it gives us an environment to challenge each other and what we have learned. The people we spend our time having engaging conversations with are likely who will impact our political identity the most and living in our current political scene, we can see the enormous impact of the media, school and peers on our political identity. ~SS
Family vs. Outside Influences
Posted 9/5/2017 at 5:17:16 PM by [anonymous visitor]
An individual's political ideology is shaped and influenced by several factors throughout their life. From media to peers, politics is a dominant and controversial topic that is seen everywhere. However, a person's political identity is influenced more by family than it is by any outside influences. A person is constantly around their family more than anyone else, especially when they are younger. At a young age, children are easily influenced so political beliefs tend to be passed down through families. Before kids can go to school or form their own opinions, they have a set example from their parents which shapes their own political identity. In Homo Politicus, Marlowe Hood writes, "Dozens of previous studies have established a strong link between political persuasion and certain personality traits." This is vital since personality traits are also influenced by genetic factors. People are more likely to think and act like their parents therefore they are more likely to share similar beliefs and have similar political viewpoints. Hood agrees, stating, "The affinity between political views and 'cognitive style' has also been shown to be heritable, handed down from parents to children..." Also, most cultures and religions have corresponding political ideologies so it makes sense that people are influenced by their family who are of the same background and culture. Other factors also influence political identity, but not to the same extent as family. Media plays a role since technology is all around and people are able to learn about political issues and develop an opinion. While this is true, media only becomes a large influence later on, about adolescence, which can be seen in the poll we took in class. But before media is able to shape a person's views, that person already has a foundation for their beliefs and opinions that came from their family. School and peers also influence an individual's political identity but, like media, not to the extent that family does. Kids start school at around five years of age but they don't start learning about political issues and beliefs until later on and their peers don't have a large political influence on them until they are also aware of the issues and their stance. This means that until a person is at that age where they become more informed on politics or start to hear about it amongst their peers, they only have their family to look up to. There are many factors that form and shape a person's political identity. Outside forces such as media, peers and school have a large impact on a person's beliefs and viewpoints. However, overall, family has the largest influence on a person's political identity since family sets a constant example and has a substantial impact on a person’s personal beliefs. -E.B.
AP gov. 2nd blog ~P.P
Posted 9/5/2017 at 5:17:05 PM by [anonymous visitor]
Polarization of political ideology that occurs in the U.S. is not an irregular sort of issue, constantly throughout U.S. history there have been many factors that had effect on an individual's political identity. Accordingly some factors can seem advantageous or be a source of separation. To be more precise there are two unique points that are viewed as guidance to certain political thinking; outside and family influences. However individuals want to see a conscious decision on which has the greater impact, but is there truly any separation between the two influences or is there no distinct advantage? Family is the most important aspect of many people's lives. Relating to political orientation, it can be confidently stated that family initially introduces politics to the young individual of the family. Though family members may be divided on political ideology, according to New York University political scientist David Amodio, he states: “The neural mechanisms for conflict monitoring are formed early in childhood and are probably rooted in part in our genetic heritage” (Hood, 2). Though the impact of an individual's genes on political issues may be subliminal in the individuals childhood, they will still grow up based off the beliefs that the parents set, either liberal or conservative. Honestly along with this it has been stated that “dozens of previous studies have established a strong link between political persuasion and certain personality traits” (Hood, 1). And with simple thinking many can conclude that family easily has the initial response in another family members decision on an important topic. Though on the other hand, David Amodio added “But even if geness may provide a blueprint for more liberal or conservative orientations, they are shaped substantially by one's environment over the course of development” ( Hood, 2). Examples of outside influences such as the media, environment, and political Elites can still have a very influential impact on an individual. A prominent influencer in our current day is the internet, or all sorts of media sources. Media helps spread different discoveries and viewpoints around the world such as ways to view a certain politician, or the way we speak of certain political elites. According to the piece How divided are we? It states “ The media heavily contributes to polarization (of political ideology in the U.S.)... as many media outlets are clearly liberal, while sources like fox are now just as clearly conservative” (Wilson, 4). Along with media outlets shaping their audience with their own biased news, the internet and whatever the media broadcasts is long lasting, as specific points brought up on candidates or social issues can always arise once more and result in political hostility between democratic and republican parties and varying thoughts on the correct thinking in politics. Once more, it is important to clarify that political thinking can be supplemented with many outside and family influences, though the general public might want a precise answer to this issue of more powerful influences, it is immature to come to a conclusion on this issue. Simply personalities between people differ, and no matter the quantity or quality of the influences surrounding an individual, they will always have their own differentiated, and unique say on issues.
Nature vs. Nurture
Posted 9/5/2017 at 5:16:42 PM by [anonymous visitor]
As stated by the former American politician Jesse Jackson, “America is not a blanket woven from one thread, one color, one cloth.” While Americans have unified roots dating back to the Founding Fathers, Americans’ political identities are not uniform. Polarization—“an intense commitment to a candidate, a culture, or an ideology” sets one group apart from another (Wilson). Many Americans label themselves as conservative Republicans while others are liberal Democrats. The U.S Congress, media, and interest groups are likewise polarized. Marlowe Hood illustrates this difference: “Conservatives tend to crave order and structure in their lives” while “Liberals tolerate ambiguity and complexity” (1). Division is present regarding presidential candidates, political parties, and high-profile issues (Wilson 2). While many factors—gender, social class, and region—contribute to individual beliefs, one’s family influences his/her political identity the greatest. Due to the constant relationship between one and his/her family, children’s beliefs and actions are heavily influenced by their family. As discussed in class, family is the immediate instiller of our political values. Hood explains how “neural mechanisms for conflict monitoring are formed in childhood” and are rooted in one’s heritage (2). Political dinner tables and car rides—such as the Pubentz family’s—discuss political topics, debates, and ideas (Stephen Colbert). These discussions pose great impacts and hard-wire liberal—i.e. increase government spending, etc.—and conservative—i.e.pro-military strength, etc.—ideologies into children and adults. A family’s religion and race also affects political identity. Religion affects social beliefs regarding issues such as abortion and same sex marriage. Most Protestants vote as conservatives, Catholics are split between liberal and conservative, and Jews act liberal. Likewise, the cross cutting factor of race is critical when discussing political identities. African Americans overwhelmingly support the Democratic Party than any other minority group or whites. Most black families stand against the 95 percent of Republicans who supported Bush in the 2004 presidential election; also, African Americans would align with the 70 percent of Al Gore or John Kerry supporters who favored abortion in 2000 and 2004 (Wilson 1-2). Based on one’s heritage race, an individual aligns with or protests against specific values. One’s liberal or conservative orientations are also influenced by one’s environment, school, and media (Hood). In school and through the media, information travels through the “filter of the brain”; allowing one to pick and choose which to align with based on family values. While many factors—gender, race, social class, and region—contribute to individual beliefs, one’s family influences his/her political identity the greatest. The more concrete a family’s political activity, the more likely family members will have a uniform political identity and values. -SB
Family vs. Outside Opinions
Posted 9/5/2017 at 5:16:33 PM by [anonymous visitor]
I believe that family is the most influential factor in a persons political identity. Since family is the main factor that one is exposed to for most of their life early on, family shapes out belief system, which in turn will affect what we choose to believe later on from other sources such as media, school, etc. Our class activity showed on a smaller scale how important family is, being the most common #1 factor for the class. The textbook supports this, stating that family is the most important -MG
What Influences Our Political Identity
Posted 9/5/2017 at 5:16:24 PM by [anonymous visitor]
For ages the nature vs nurture debate has dumbfounded scientists and the general public alike. Many frequently wonder whether it is family and genetics or external influences that is the root of human behavior. And as our political environment grows increasingly more and more polarized, the question of political identity is becoming no stranger to this sort of debate. The nature-nurture controversy is often incorrectly seen through a black and white lens. However, this situation is more accurately assessed by uncovering the gray areas and understanding how both factors overlap. Both genetics and family as well as our external environment work to contribute to our political identity as a whole. Family and genetics are one of the essential factors which can impact an individual's political identity. The article, “Homo Politicus” by Marlowe Hood explores this implication through scientific studies and research. The study investigated how differently the brains of liberals and conservatives reacted when asked to perform a series of computer tests involving cues urging them to break a well-established routine. According to the study’s results, “Respondents who had described themselves as liberals showed ‘significantly greater conflict-related neural activity’ when the hypothetical situation called for an unscheduled break in routine. Conservatives, however, were less flexible, refusing to deviate from old habits…” These findings confirm that there are indeed physical genetic differences between the minds of liberals compared to conservatives. The correlation of certain personality traits to certain political ideologies highlights the impact that family and genes can have on an individual's sense of political identity. While genetics and family play a large role in the development of political identity, external influences can also be significant contributors as well. In James Wilson’s “How Divided Are We”, he addresses the growing divide between political parties in the US. One of the factors that Wilson attributes to this divide is the media. The article explains how as the news media industry has grown and became more competitive, it shifted from broadcasting information which gravitated toward the middle of the ideological spectrum, to mainly targeting areas of the ideological extremes. In this day and age, media consumption is more prevalent than ever. Our constant exposure to news media greatly shapes our opinions and perspectives. Doing so makes us more susceptible to polarizing towards a specific political ideology which in turn influences the formation of our political identity. Further evidence of such coexistence of nature and nurture in the process of political identity can simply be found in the AP Government textbook as it states, “Half of our political views come from family backgrounds, the other half is from individual life experiences.” But beyond articles and textbooks, the claim of the simultaneous effects of family and environment is evident in real life situations. A very clear example of that is of the Bush brothers- Jeb and George. Both are affiliated with the Republican party and share just about the same overarching beliefs. However, there are still instances where their opinions don’t always align, despite them being related and identifying with the same party. For example, an article by the Los Angeles times revealed that Jeb Bush was generally against oil drilling. This heavily contrasted with the beliefs of most republicans and even more so with the beliefs of his own brother who was a proponent of the expansion of oil drilling. While nature did play a part in forming the family’s common political ideology as Republicans, nurture also contributed in the deviances between the two brothers within that common political party- in this case, their differences on the issue of oil drilling. As politics in the United States continue to become more and more polarizing, it becomes more crucial to have a firm understanding of where such political ideologies and perspectives come from. There are some that believe that family alone plays a significant role in developing one’s political identity, while others believe it’s external factors. However, as more evidence and research emerges it becomes clear that both factors intertwine and play an equally important role in the process of our political identity formation. -RO
Family vs Outside Influences
Posted 9/4/2017 at 5:16:13 PM by [anonymous visitor]
A person’s political view is affected mostly by their family, and this is because these are the people who shape who you are and how you grow up. The religion in which our family decides to follow also makes up a big part of our political beliefs. Our textbooks tell us not only that our families make up our political views but also our genes do as well. In the article Homo Politicus it is stated “ even if genes may provide a blueprint for more liberal or conservative orientations, they are shaped substantially be one’s environment over the course of the development”. Children are going to be very impressionable through ages one to eight, and during this time kids are more with their families then they are out in the real world. This helping to prove that a person’s views and belief will be made through the influence of the family. -RC
Family vs. Outside Influences
Posted 9/4/2017 at 5:16:03 PM by [anonymous visitor]
Political identity is shaped over time in a person thru family and surroundings. In my case, When i lived in India my mom and dad were my only source that connected me with the ongoing political events in India. However when i moved to America my political identity influence shifted from my parents to that of the surroundings. The schools in India never spoke of the government in much detail and my highest education in India was only 6th grade(Classes weren’t too complex and didn’t teach about the government), therefore i never really learned much about the government from my friends or teachers outside of my family. However when i moved to America after finishing 6th grade, i realized in America my parents and i didn’t have any clue about the American constitution and therefore i only started to understand more about American government when i started going to school and i found out how people over here are very politically engaged in topics and everyone has their very own opinion and there is a very good reason for this difference because according to American Government book, “ public opinion and voting have been less determined by class in the United States” The opinions and voting rights are supported by the government due to political equality. However, in India only the High class people get their way and only their votes count as priority most of the times unless there is a good leader who is actually willing to change the ideologies of the people for example the current prime minister of India Narendra Modi. In our class notes sheet, political spectrum, the definition of a conservative is “ in favor of the status quo, for gradual change and preserving traditions and established tradition” this connects with the article HomoPoliticus by Hood who states that after conducting brain research they found that conservatives and liberals have very different and distinct links with their ideals. Many Indians are conservative and don’t like change and want to keep order and therefore there isn’t much change in India however in America there are differing views and people are modern, liberals or conservative who are influenced by people and surroundings. Therefore, in my opinion i would say that both my family and my surroundings have equally shaped and contributed in shaping my political identity. MP.
Family vs. Outside Influences
Posted 9/4/2017 at 5:15:54 PM by [anonymous visitor]
Developed countries are finding new, innovative ways to use technology every year, and it’s not without consequences. It’s clear that technological advances change a country’s way of life, but they can also change the way people view the government. With the internet at our fingertips, and media sources badgering in our ears, we now have access to much more information than before and we’re exposed to all political views. This is why family isn’t the only thing that now shapes our political views, but the world around us influences opinions more than ever. Good parents take the values and morals they believe are important and pass those onto their children. However, most kids don’t just have parents who are raising them anymore. They have a million voices coming at them from all different angles, and it’s all coming from their smartphones. On any given day, I can open twitter, and I can guarantee there’s a post about a controversial politician, a social movement, or an internet argument that results in nothing but a bad mood for everyone. Andra Brichacek from the school of Journalism and Communication at the University of Oregon quotes how, “the biggest thing that drives elections is simple name recognition”. We’ve all heard about Hillary’s email scam, as well as Trump’s racist and misogynistic comments. Journalists jobs are to grab people’s attention, and they have been more successful than ever. It’s come to the point that unless someone takes the time to research each candidate on their own, they may never know all sides of a story other than what makes the headlines. When my parents were growing up, they had the same religion and political identity as the rest of their family. Today, all of my siblings (including myself) have different political views, and none of them come close to what my parents believe. Family is becoming less influential and is being outweighed by the bombardment of exposure to news sources and social media. Soon enough, presidential elections may be almost entirely controlled by journalism. J.P.
Nature v. Nuture
Posted 9/4/2017 at 5:15:46 PM by [anonymous visitor]
Most people develop political views from various ages some younger than others, however the most influential factor to this development is family rather than outside sources. Some reasons are the bond between family itself , and impact they have growing up. For example in the activity in class we did called “Agents of Effect” was a worksheet that we did for class that detailed the impact on a person’s political views as they grew up on a one to four scale with one being the highest. For the most part the number one spot on each section was family since almost everyone in class agreed that family came first regardless of age. Furthermore the only thing that changed throughout the ranking were the outside influences and where they placed, the only two that were close were peers and media. Another example is the article entitled “How Divided Are We?” which explores the polarization of the United States politics. A quote from it says “People who have proceeded beyond college seem to be very different from those who stop with a high-­school or college diploma.” from this quote it can be broken apart into people who are “educated” and “uneducated.” the reason that it could be broken apart into this is because typically people who don’t attend college for a higher education tend to have more a connection with family since they aren’t out at college away from family, allowing the person who doesn’t attend college develop a stronger bond with them. After all most have influences from family since they should be the first in each person's life and in addition are the driving force for a person growing up and succeeding early in a person’s early life through school and childhood. WS
Family vs Outside Influences
Posted 9/4/2017 at 5:15:35 PM by [anonymous visitor]
In the aftermath of the 2016 United States Presidential Election, one of the most controversial issues that was brought to light was the subject of “fake news.” Even as its paradoxical name suggests, the division among some Americans have become significant enough to overcome people’s tolerance to listen to others’ viewpoints. This example precisely illustrates how when diverse factors may be at work to influence one’s political identity, Americans nonetheless hold true to their established, family-instilled beliefs and utilize them to respond to opposing ideas. From a critical age, family is the single most influential factor in shaping how people view politics. The effects are seen in everyday choices parents make including what media program to expose their children to, whether CNN or Fox News on television or NPR or another talk radio program. When these choices accumulate, it may seem like it is outside factors that are shaping people’s views, but it is nevertheless the family that selectively directs children to what messages they become accustomed to and how political views are aligned. While some may claim that the force of mass media is a prevailing influence (How Divided Are We), it is in fact the influence of family that gives people the lens of what information to intake and what to rebuke as “fake news.” Ultimately, it is the upbringing of a child that shapes him or her to think in either traditional ways that rely on routine, or in ways that accommodate to changing circumstances, which establishes either conservative or liberal values, respectively (Homo Politicus). While outside factors may challenge individuals’ beliefs over the course of their lives, people rely on the tools given to them by family to intake and respond to such information. Overall, family is the single most important determinant of one’s political identity. IY
Family vs. Outside Influences
Posted 9/4/2017 at 5:15:27 PM by [anonymous visitor]
Starting at a young age kids are highly influenced by their parents as well as other family members. When discussing how one decides their political identity that fact doesn’t change, most people are influenced by their family more so than outside sources when deciding their political identity. People are influenced by their family about this subject in multiple ways. First off the genetic factor plays a role. In the article Homo Politicus it states that the brain neurons of liberals vers conservatives fire differently as well as differing in personality traits. Because of this there is a higher chance for children to become the same political identity as their parents because they are passing down their personality traits and genetics making them similar to each other. Also in the textbook it talks about certain trends determined by race, demographics, religion, income etc. and chances are that kids will have the same view or are the same thing in these areas as their parents. Because kids have the same qualities like race as their family then it will increase their likelihood to have the same political identity because it shows the more similarities others have with each other the more likely they will identify themselves as the same and vote for the same candidates. With this being said, family plays a big role in a kids life including their political identity. Family shapes kids identity more than anything else. Family has such a big impact because they share their opinions with their kids and puts ideas of who the “right” person to vote for is. Of course kids will eventually be impacted by other things like the media, peers and school but these outside sources won’t shape one’s identity as much as family does. B F.
Family vs Outside Influences
Posted 9/4/2017 at 5:15:10 PM by [anonymous visitor]
One’s political views can be influenced by a wide range of factors present in everyday life. These can be family, media, peers, school, community, and other factors. Each factor has a different impact on one’s life. One’s political views change over time because a person interacts with different social groups with different political views. For example, a high school student has many more friend groups with different political views than a 60 year old women talking to other people in a retirement home or the young people have teacher’s views, media views, and family impacting them, while older people might have views that haven’t changed in many years, making them harder to influence. Even though in school we learned that family was the number one influence of political views, I think that all the other outside factors together draw a greater influence on one’s ideas. I believe that family has the biggest influence (up to 49%) when a person is looking at just one factor. However, I think that all the other outside influences combined together have the bigger influence (51% and higher) depending on the person. In the “HomoPoliticus” reading, New York University political scientist David Amodio said in an interview, “ ‘But even if genes may provide a blueprint for more liberal or conservative orientations, they are shaped substantially by one's environment over the course of development.’ “ This means that even if your parents were favored one political party, later on in life, a person’s views can be influenced by the media, friends, the community, nationality, and where in the U.S. they live. From the textbook and the class discussions, we talked about how almost all of the common citizens were moderate, while only the politicians who only focus on their party’s interest and not focused on trying to compromise with the other party to get work accomplished. This means that the common folk don’t really have a specific political party affiliation assigned to them. Their views change depending on different factors such as the personalities of the candidates or what they have read in the newspaper available. In the “How Divided Are We” article, it talks about how the news was a 30 minute non-bias media, which turned into a 24 hour liberal biased media source. This means that news is now available everywhere from a computer to the T.V. to a smartphone, and people are constantly bombarded with political ideas. This can influence people by just having them watch the show, and they don’t realize how much the show has impacted their political ideas without them realizing it. Like you said in class, your young daughter fell in love with the talkshow host because she watched the T.V., and she became a fan of the host. Adults who are this connected to TV figures may eventually start to agree with the famous person’s political ideas views. So I believe that when considering only one factor, family has the biggest impact on political views. However, I also believe that the other factors added together influence a person more than their family. This is not always true for everyone, there could be some people out there who always agree with their family on all political issues. There are also people who change their political views depending on who they are with at the time. Most people have get their political views from a wide range of sources from family to media to peers/friends, each making their own mark on his or her political views. JJG
Family vs. Outside Influences
Posted 9/4/2017 at 5:15:00 PM by [anonymous visitor]
A person’s political identity is influenced more by outside sources. In younger stages of life you may constantly learn about your parents political viewpoints. However as you age you learn more about politics and learn the meanings of what a Democrat and Republican are. There onwards you will be influenced by many outside factors such as the media, friends, school, and etc… So as you age you become more influenced by outside sources rather than your family. In the article “Homo Politicus” by Marlowe Hood, it states, “ But even if genes may provide a blueprint for more liberal or conservative orientations, they are shaped substantially by one's environment over the course of development.” It explains how as you gain experience over time your genes are no longer the main influence for your political views. On page 159 in the textbook it states,” Roughly one-third of the differences among people about political beliefs come from our genetic make up, but only one-tenth of these differences come from family influences.” This shows how small family influence is when compared to other sources that you will be exposed to in your life. In “How divided are we by James Q. Wilson, it says, “At one time, our culture was only weakly affected by the media because news organizations had only a few points of access to us and were largely moderate and audience­ maximizing enterprises... Once the media talked to us; now they shout at us.” Media is one of the many influential sources in modern society, and as it increases the more influential the effect will be. Family influence declines in as you become older and the effect of outside sources increase. No matter if it is media or your friends, they will have a bigger impact on your political viewpoint than your family, because you have a personality and you have personal experiences that differ from your family. Therefore you perceive everything differently from your viewpoint than from your family. N.N
Family vs. Outside Influences
Posted 9/4/2017 at 5:14:52 PM by [anonymous visitor]
There are many influences in our daily lives that take part in helping us decide our stance in politics. However, the two most influential groups are our family and any outside influences such as our peers, school, and the media. Although, our main influences may change and vary, I believe that family will always be the biggest influence in our political beliefs. In recent discussions in my government class, we were asked to rank family, media, peers, and school on a scale of 1 being the most influential to 5 being the least influential on our political views during different periods in our lives. After completing this survey we shared our results with the class. The majority of my classmates had voted their family as their number 1 influence in all stages of their life ranging from 6 years old to 16 years old. In my own survey i had voted my family as number one for all stages of my life. I think I myself and many others tend to agree with this because our family is what makes us up. We are around our family the most and take part in all discussions in the household. From a young age our family teaches us what is right and what is wrong and i think this later develops into our political beliefs as well. We use our family as a reference for most things and come to them for help. Similarly, in my American Government textbook it also explains that “only a tiny majority of children support a party opposite that of their parents.” I have also done some research on the gallup poll website where it was stated that “7 in 10 teens (71%) say their social and political ideology is about the same as mom and dad's. While a fifth of U.S. teens (21%) say they are "more liberal" than their parents and 7% say "more conservative.” Conclusively, we can say that many tend to agree that family influences our political ideology the most. This is proven not only by personal beliefs and classmates opinions, but is also proven by textbooks and poll websites. It is easy to say that family will remain the biggest influence on our political ideology because of the close bonds we share with our families. -ND
Family Vs. Outside Influences
Posted 9/4/2017 at 5:14:41 PM by [anonymous visitor]
The 2016 presidential election has come and gone, and now President Trump resides in the White House for the next few years of his life. What go him there? Votes. Who voted for him? Americans. Why did they vote for him? A simple answer: their family. Family is a major factor in shaping one’s political identity and plays a bigger role than other outside influences. A person’s family is, in most cases, with them from the moment they’re born and guides them through life as they grow up. As the family guides the individual, they may not do it directly or intentionally, but they pass along their political ideals to that person. For example, the excerpt ‘What Factors Shape Political Attitudes?’ explicitly states that “Despite family disagreements and generation gaps, children tend to grow up and vote the way their parents do. Families are generally the first, and often the most enduring, influence on young people's developing political opinions.” Family is the first and greatest influence in one’s life. They are constantly with the individual, and because of that, their political ideals are bound to spread to him/her. Children pick up on what their family believes in and feels that they too should act in that certain way. In addition, in the article ‘Homo politicus: brain function of liberals, conservatives differs’ it describes, “The affinity between political views and ‘cognitive style’ has also been shown to be heritable, handed down from parents to children, said the study, published in the British journal Nature Neuroscience”. Studies have shown that political views and ideals can be and have been hereditary. Ideals such as conservative or liberal thinking have been passed amongst families, affecting how one may act towards a specific political issue or vote for a specific candidate. Conservatism and liberalism are major factors that make up one’s political identity, and since studies have shown them hereditary, it proves that family plays a major role. Family is the most important factor in shaping one’s political identity. They are with the individual from the beginning of their life and instill their beliefs in them without even realizing. Children grow up learning about the political world through discussions with their parents and other family members, and it’s hard to not be biased when doing so because parents want their children to be like them. Likewise, political ideals are passed along hereditarily, affecting one’s way of thinking and political behaviors. The family therefore, I believe, is the most influential factor in one’s political beliefs. CD
Family vs Outside Influences
Posted 9/4/2017 at 5:14:30 PM by [anonymous visitor]
While both family and outside influences help to shape your political identity, I believe that family has a greater influence. Your family is the first group of people you are exposed to when you are born. The very first political opinion you hear comes from your family. You are raised by your family, and they somewhat raise you to side with their political beliefs. Although peers and the media also contribute to your political identity, the pull to have approval and support from your family overpowers what anybody else believes. The political influence from your family comes from both genetics and the environment you are raised in. In "Homo Politicus", Hood states that cognitive processes differ between liberals and conservatives when it comes to conflicts. Your cognitive thought process develops from both your genes and your simulated environment. Political scientist David Amodio says, "but even if genes may provide a blueprint for more liberal or conservative orientations, they are shaped substantially by one's environment over the course of development.” Therefore, whether our parents are biological or not, they play a key role in determining our political identities. Biologically, parents contribute their genes, but non biological parents have the same effect since they are a child’s one and only environment when they are born. Additionally, from generation to generation there is not much change in political ideology. As we discussed in class, the percentage of people who consider themselves as either liberal, conservative, or moderate, has not changed the last few decades. This is due to generation after generation of children being raised a particular way. Overtime, more youths are considering themselves as moderates, but they still carry core political beliefs from their families. In the end, family will always be there for us, whereas our peers and other interactions will fade. Because of this, I believe that a person’s political identity is influenced more by their family than outside influences. When we rated what influences our political ideologies in class, almost everybody said their family was their number one influence. Our genes, as well as our home environment, impact the way we think and view the world, and I believe this to be true on both a broad spectrum and on a political spectrum. -MA
Family vs Outside Influenes
Posted 9/4/2017 at 5:14:21 PM by [anonymous visitor]
Undoubtedly, the most important factor in determining one’s political views/ affiliation is their family. This is because “family” can often be an ambiguous term, yet still one that encaptures the most vital influences on political identity. “Family” includes one’s biological heredity as well as who raised them, and this is why it is the most important factor. Family influences political identity through hereditary influences as well as social influences by being the first views introduced to young minds. As seen in Homo Politicus by Marlowe Hood, one of the most influential factors on one’s political identity is one they don't even consciously realize is affecting them. According to multiple studies, liberals and conservatives differ all the way down to their brain function. Hood explains that different neurons fire in reaction to dealing with conflict in conservatives and liberals. Hood also explains that this difference is likely hereditary. Another way to see the effect of heredity on political identity is through twin studies. According to a study by Pew research center, the majority of identical twins raised apart still have the same political identification. This classic “nature vs nurture” study clearly shows that despite different environmental factors, people with identical genes have virtually identical political ideologies. Heredity covers half of what “family” means, and it seems clear that there is a link between it and political identity. The other half of family is who actually raises a given person. Throughout the early, most impressionable years of life, the majority of children’s morals and values are directly shaped by those raising them. These morals and values the, in turn, affect one’s political values and identity. According to the American Government textbook, “only a tiny minority of the children support a part opposite that of their parents.” Additionally, parents play a vital role in educating their children about politics. The textbook also says “the great majority of high school students know the party affiliation of their parents”-indicating that children are in fact being educated about their parent’s political parties. It is no secret that family is one of the most important aspects of anyone’s life. Their influence extends well beyond the obvious however, as they also play an integral part in defining one’s political identification. Whether this be genetic or taught, the broad term “family” captures all the most important defining factors of a political identity. -YS
2- family vs outside influence
Posted 9/4/2017 at 5:14:11 PM by [anonymous visitor]
A person’s political identity is influenced by different aspects, at different ages, family often being the number one influence. At a younger age, family is more influential, than outside influences. If a younger person hears parents talking about political issues, and they lean more to one side, often the person will also lean to that side due to the influence family has on young minds. As a person ages, different aspects come into play, such as social media, school, religious aspects, and even gender has a part in one's political identity. Also political identity can be determined based on someone’s race, ethnicity, social class, and even geographical location. Certain regions of the US tend to be split, north and south, mid-west, east coast, west coast. States within the same region, usually majority of that area have similar political views. In past elections, the New England states often lean more democratic than places like the south who tends to be more republican, when looked at as a majority. Another large aspect that shapes a person’s political identity, is school. In today’s education curriculum, students are often required to go through different types of history courses, starting in elementary school, and all throughout high school. The topics talked about, and the lessons taught are oftenly very controversial, and a student can take either side, depending on what they believe. Whether it be related to our country’s past, with the division of the north and south which caused a civil war, or more recent topics like gay rights. In today’s day and age, social media has a big say in what people believe, and support. Especially with the younger generations. As big as social media has become in just the last decade, opinions are easily based off of what someone is saying in the media. With younger generations, people often follow the trends, if a group supports certain political aspects, and a person likes the group, that person might also support that groups beliefs. Our world today has so many different ways of hearing news, and being able to share opinions, that it makes it easy to develop political identities, no matter how young or old someone might be. However, when listed most people would put family first, despite the different influences people encounter on a daily basis. Family is the one thing people are often around the most, it’s a comfortable setting where, people can share their views on topics, and issues that rise on a daily basis. Which easily can form one’s political identity. Can it vary? Yes, but as a majority, family is the biggest influence in today's world when it comes to political ideology, and identity. MC
Political Identify
Posted 9/4/2017 at 5:13:58 PM by [anonymous visitor]
There are many influences to a person’s political identity, including family, the media and school. But a person's political identity is influenced mostly by their family, not outside sources, the media or school. The first people a baby sees as it enters the world is their parents, and for the first few years, all the baby would see is their parents. So naturally for their first few years filled with important discoveries and learnings, the parents are the whole world to the babies. And often the views of the parents are passed down to the offspring. No one is born with particular political views, prejudice, or hatred. They are all taught this. It has been discovered in many different studies that communication is an extremely important component in the family environment, and that it influences political attitudes and behaviors greatly. This is mostly fact since, as I already aforementioned, during the crucial learning period of one’s life, from birth until their first day of school, a person is usually only in the company of their parents. Therefore it would be natural for kids to pick up their parent’s tendencies, as they wouldn’t have any of their own at that young age. Once they start school, they are still much too young to understand or be taught about the political climate. Besides schools don’t usually have these political classes for 1st graders, although as of recently it appears many schools are in fact teaching their young students much more mature matters much earlier than in the past. I remember back in 2008, when I was 7, and we were polled in 3rd grade for who we wanted to win the presidency. Having little to no knowledge on politics, everything I knew came from my parents, I wrote down who I wanted. Or should I say, who my parents wanted. I simply wrote the name of the person my parents were planning to vote for and wouldn’t stop talking about around the house. I hardly understood anything about politics but still had my political beliefs and identity completely shaped and influenced by my parents and family. Since kids are too young to understand political ideology at that young of an age, and won’t for another few years, they believe and identify with their parents. A notable example is the notorious Westboro Baptist Church known for their crude ideology. Nearly all the church is one family, as the offsprings have been taught these crude beliefs from an early age. A small few of the family have defected, and seemingly, they were disowned for it. The media has little to no effect on the kids at that young of an age since most kids don’t spend their time watching the news, rather they watch cartoons, most of which don’t convey any political messages, at least that the kids would understand. By the time they are old enough to think for themselves and make their own beliefs, their parents’ ideology is already ingrained in their head. Although a change could happen at a later time, it is unlikely, but definitely not impossible. Due to these main reasons that family is all a child knows for most of their early life when they enter the world, and that their beliefs at the time are the only beliefs a child will have, it is evident that family is the most influential factor in shaping a person’s political identity. -JB
Family vs Outside Influences
Posted 9/4/2017 at 5:12:44 PM by [anonymous visitor]
Hair color. Height. Eye color. All these things are determined by your family, more specifically, the genetics of your family. Family, however, determines more than just if you have fast metabolism, but characteristics that are not necessarily tied to biology. Family shapes other things as well, such as, what you consider “comfort food”, how you demonstrate respect, and your political identity. While outside influences still play a role in developing someone’s political identity, family is the biggest influence. One way to examine this link between family and political views is through the lense of science. For instance, Marlowe Hood explains how the “‘ neural activity’” of liberals and conservatives differ when faced with a conflict (even a hypothetical one). Liberals showed greater neural activity, being able to adapt more rapidly, while conservatives were less likely to change their ways, even in the face of an obstacle. The especially interesting component of this study is that these “‘neural mechanisms’” engaged during conflicts are formed in early childhood and are based in one’s “genetic heritage.” This is a very concrete way that your family, specifically your parents, shape your beliefs. Even if you are not aware of it, your brain is hardwired to lean one way or the other, and that genetic makeup comes straight from your parents. While these “mechanisms” are still “shaped substantially” by your environment, most of your environment is shaped and controlled by your parents. Many of the other “outside” factors, like friends, school, and adult experiences, are also, in fact, influenced by your family. Where you go to school, what kinds of people you are drawn to, and what kind of adult you grow up to be can be traced back to the influence of your family. Moreover, James Wilson discusses “media bias” and how which news channel you watch affects your political identity. While at first this seems like an outside influence, growing up your parents are the ones watching the news, and whatever channel they watch, you will most likely watch it too. From what news channel you watch, to the people you are friends with, to the way your brain works, your family has a huge impact on your political identity. You spend, especially as a child, most of your time with them, it only makes sense that your family would have some influence. So next time you argue with your parents, remember you share a lot more in common, or similarities,than just eye color. -MZ
2- family vs outside influence
Posted 9/4/2017 at 5:12:18 PM by [anonymous visitor]
A person’s political identity is influenced by different aspects, at different ages, family often being the number one influence. At a younger age, family is more influential, than outside influences. If a younger person hears parents talking about political issues, and they lean more to one side, often the person will also lean to that side due to the influence family has on young minds. As a person ages, different aspects come into play, such as social media, school, religious aspects, and even gender has a part in one's political identity. Also political identity can be determined based on someone’s race, ethnicity, social class, and even geographical location. Certain regions of the US tend to be split, north and south, Midwest, east coast, west coast. States within the same region, usually majority of that area have similar political views. In past elections, the New England states often lean more democratic than places like the south who tends to be more republican, when looked at as a majority. Another large aspect that shapes a person’s political identity, is school. In today’s education curriculum, students are often required to go through different types of history courses, starting in elementary school, and all throughout high school. The topics talked about, and the lessons taught are often very controversial, and a student can take either side, depending on what they believe. Whether it be related to our country’s past, with the division of the north and south which caused a civil war, or more recent topics like gay rights. In today’s day and age, social media has a big say in what people believe, and support. Especially with the younger generations. As big as social media has become in just the last decade, opinions are easily based off of what someone is saying in the media. With younger generations, people often follow the trends, if a group supports certain political aspects, and a person likes the group, that person might also support that groups beliefs. Our world today has so many different ways of hearing news, and being able to share opinions, that it makes it easy to develop political identities, no matter how young or old someone might be. However, when listed most people would put family first, despite the different influences people encounter on a daily basis. Family is the one thing people are usually around the most, it’s a comfortable setting where, people can share their views on topics, and issues that rise on a daily basis. Which easily can form one’s political identity. Can it vary? Yes, but as a majority, family is the biggest influence in today's world when it comes to political ideology, and identity.
Family vs. Outside Influences
Posted 9/4/2017 at 5:12:05 PM by [anonymous visitor]
There are several factors that contribute to forming a person’s political identity, including family, the media, ethnicity, education, and gender. But, based on the readings and our class discussions this week, I believe that a person’s family has the greatest influence on his/her political identity. During this week’s class discussions, we said that family is always the most important factor in shaping a person’s political identity and I completely agree. Throughout one’s life, parent’s instill their morals and values in their children’s lives. These values shape an individual’s character and therefore influences their political beliefs. I personally think that my parents have had a great impact on how I view politics and various issues. My parents have never steered me wrong and I understand and agree with most of my parents’ opinions on issues. For me, my parents and family have had the greatest impact on my political identity. Research also shows how one’s family has a large influence on political identity. In Homo Politicus, Marlowe Hood credits an individual’s political views to his/her brain function. Hood researched how people’s neural impulses differed when faced with a conflict. In general, he found that conservatives tended to be less likely to deviate from old habits, and liberals had more conflict related neural activity. These neural impulses are formed in early childhood: a time that one spends surrounded mostly by family. My own experience and scientific research proves that family has a large impact on a person’s political identity. Although other factors can change someone’s view on a particular topic or issue, I believe family generally has the greatest overall influence on shaping a person politically. JR
Family vs. Outside Influences
Posted 9/4/2017 at 5:11:54 PM by [anonymous visitor]
The United States runs on the opinions of the people and what they believe is best for the country. Citizens can be considered liberals, conservatives, or moderates on political issues. Their beliefs on these issues can sprout from a variety of factors such as school, religion, media, social class, region, and gender. However, the type of family and environment they are raised in is more influential in shaping political ideology.     A person’s family greatly impacts their political views. The constant relationship between children and their family makes it inevitable for kids to develop the same attitudes and habits as their parents. If parents instill certain values in their children when they are little, chances are they will stick to those beliefs and choose the political viewpoint that coincides with it. For example, if a person’s family is very religious and conservative, the child will most likely grow up to have conservative views as well. This further proves the fact that people tend to lean towards the same political views as their parents. In Homo Politicus, it is shown that the brain function of conservatives and liberals is different. The main cause of the difference in conservative or liberal orientations is “one’s environment over the course of development”. For instance, the article states that conservatives crave order and structure in their lives. This habit of consistency by parents would greatly influence their children to be the same way. Even though other factors such as school and media have an influence on shaping political opinion, family is still the most prominent because children are always around their family- much more than they are exposed to peers at school or the news networks. Overall, family influences trump other factors that shape political opinion because children take away attitudes, habits, and opinions from who they spend the most time with- their parents. The variety of views that are passed down from parents to children account for the differences in opinions on the country’s political, economic, and social issues. -KN
Family vs. Outside Influences
Posted 9/4/2017 at 5:11:41 PM by [anonymous visitor]
As little kids, we worship our parents. We don’t interact with anyone more than them; we learn how to do everything from them. We may not know it then, but everything they do and say is shaping our opinions and values. Included in these opinions and values are our political identities. While it may not come directly from having political conversations at the dinner table, it can come from reactions to certain events. Therefore, a person’s political experience is influenced more by family than other outside factors. Our families shape our initial and basic political identities. How much our family affects our political beliefs depends on how extreme the family is. For example, if your parents are extreme conservatives/liberals, they are most likely going to press their extreme opinions onto you, but if they are moderate conservatives/liberals, they probably won’t pressure you to think a certain way, but you will still pick up some of their beliefs from observing and talking to them. The textbook states, “Presumably, deeply conservative people come disproportionately from families that were also deeply conservative. This transfer of political beliefs from one generation to the next reflects both heredity and, to a lesser extent, family teaching.” It would be hard to not pick up our families’ political beliefs, since we spend all of our early life with them. Even if they aren’t extreme, they slightly push us in one direction over the other, which allows us to then polarize to that side, adding onto the problem of political polarization in the United States. According to James Q. Wilson in his article “How Divided Are We?,” “By polarization I mean something else: an intense commitment to a candidate, a culture, or an ideology that sets people in one group definitively apart from people in another, rival group.” Our family sets us up for picking a side to support. Whether it is extreme or slight, our family shapes our political beliefs more than any other factor. While other factors may play a big role in shaping our political identity at different points in our lives, the only constant is family. Whether we are 5 or 25, we listen and talk to our families often. With this comes the transfer of ideas and opinions about what is going on in the world today. It would be hard to not have a similar perspective as them. As we learn our political identities from our parents, our kids will learn theirs from us, and so on throughout the generations in a family. -MM
Family vs. Outside Influences
Posted 9/4/2017 at 5:11:30 PM by [anonymous visitor]
Everyone has their own view on almost any particular subject. In the case of politics, there’s a certain split between the mindsets of conservatives and liberals. Conservatives tends to “crave order and structure in their lives, and are more consistent in the way they make decisions,” says Marlowe Hood in the “Homo Politicus” article. “Liberals, by contrast, show a higher tolerance for ambiguity and complexity, and adapt more easily to unexpected circumstances.” Clearly there are two opposite mindsets in the political world, but how to individuals obtain such different outlooks? Is it dependent on an individual’s family and their experiences of political response throughout their childhood, or is it because of the outside influences that guide them throughout their life? It could be either variable affecting the way that individuals think politically, but I think it may have to do with the former. Parents and adults that a child grows up alongside have a large impact on the way they act and behave in their later lives, and their political views can easily be one of those factors. “The neural mechanisms for conflict monitoring are formed in early childhood, but even if genes may provide a blueprint for more liberal or conservative orientations, they are shaped substantially by one’s environment over the course of development,” says David Amodio. As a child, you are in your most mentally sensitive state, and they way your family treats you can really impact your way of thinking, beliefs, self esteem, etc, in your later life. If your family teaches you work ethic and how you have to work in order to get what you want as you grow up, then you grow up understanding that nothing comes easy and that you must work in order to achieve. In an experiment that my AP Government class participated in, we had to fill out which factors (family, school, peers, media), ranked from 1 to 4, influenced us from ages 0-6, 6-12, and 12-18. Almost everyone who participated kept family at rank 1, simply because they believed their family has affected their political views basically throughout their entire lives -- my outcome was similar. It is almost common sense to know that the experiences you have throughout your childhood will affect you as you grow up, including the way your parents/guardians behave. You listen to what they have to say, see what they do in certain situations, and therefore learn from their choices. Almost everyone strives to be just like or better than their parents, so it’s clear to see that their political views will stick to their children like glue. -AG
Family vs. Outside Influences---MD
Posted 9/4/2017 at 5:11:16 PM by [anonymous visitor]
Parents act as teachers to their children as they grow up, showing them how to view the world around them. Their views are reflected into their children, and the morals and beliefs they instill in their child are the basis for their view of the world. As Urie Bronfenbrenner, a Cornell Psychologist says, “The family is the principal context in which human development takes place.” This is true in the beginning of a child’s life, though as they grow older and mature, they quickly develop into their own unique and individual person. They soon begin to take in their own opinions that can digress in a different direction than their parent’s. With the help of outside factors they experience growing up (friends, community, media, and school), a person’s beliefs, specifically their political identity, is overall influenced more by these outside factors than by their family. Our political identities are constantly changing over our whole life, shaped by many contributing factors. School is the first step towards shaping our political identity. Teachers instill knowledge about our government and instill basic civic values. The communities of people and friends we surround ourselves with shape how how we feel about different issues, and gives us a forum to discuss them. For example, if a person is friends with people who have more liberal views, they tend to be influenced and look at things with the same perspective. Lastly, our media (newspapers, radio, television, broadcasting, internet, social medias, etc…) is a great influence in shaping how we feel politically. In the recent creation of smart phones and our rapidly advancing technology, the media is as strong as ever, our lives tending to revolve around what the they bring to light. In the article, How Divided Are We, the author, James Wilson, describes the strength of media in our lives nowadays. He says, “Today the media have many lines of access, and reflect both the maximization of controversy and the cultivation of niche markets. Once the media talked to us; now they shout at us.” He then continues to describe how the media can create polarization, which is a significant part of our political identity. He describes how the media doesn’t deal with facts anymore, and how they are eager for stories to tell, no matter the truth, which can fuel the expanse of polarization. As we discussed in class, the political elite also have a big part in “raising and framing” the political issues that are in the spotlight, and Wilson describes polarization as increasing through their efforts. All of these factors contribute to what a person believes in politically, and what they stand for. According to the textbook, the family is the original basis for shaping the political identity, but in my opinion, as people break away from their families and become more independent, they begin to explore life and create differing opinions from their family’s.
Family vs. Outside Influences
Posted 9/4/2017 at 5:11:03 PM by [anonymous visitor]
A person’s political beliefs can be formed from many factors. However, the most influential factor in shaping one’s political identity is family. When compared to other influences like school, religion, media, and the gender gap, family is considered the strongest factor that shapes a person’s basic political attitude. Although other platforms, like media or school, follow close behind family influence, it makes the most sense that political beliefs are largely based on what we learn from family. It has been scientifically found that a person’s political beliefs can be linked to genetics. The article “Homo Politicus” revealed, “The affinity between political views and ‘cognitive style’ has also been shown to be heritable, handed down from parents to children, said the study, published in the British journal Nature Neuroscience.” A person’s family can directly impact their beliefs simply through the passing of genes. Genes do not automatically guarantee a person’s beliefs, but they are definitely an influence. For many people, family surrounds them for a large, and very important chunk of their lives. The article “Homo Politicus” also states, “‘But even if genes may provide a blueprint for more liberal or conservative orientations, they are shaped substantially by one's environment over the course of development,’he added.” Although environment can include things like media, peers, or religion, a person’s environment from the time they are born to young adulthood is a constant relationship with their family. The basic ideas that a family raises a person with can then translate to their political beliefs because those values are what have shaped them their whole lives, they could not just turn on those. Family makes up both a person’s environment and genetics, so there is no denying how strong an influence it has on a person’s political identity. Other influences have shown to make an impact on a person’s beliefs, but nothing hits closer to home than the influence of family. -AP
Family vs. Outside Influences
Posted 9/3/2017 at 5:10:53 PM by [anonymous visitor]
Family plays an important role in life and can be reason for change or continuity. When talking about a family’s influence on political identity I believe more goes into an individual’s identity then their family background. Family is responsible for the early years and beginning of a political identity but outside factors like religion and the media shape political identities greatly. In the article Homo Politicus the author mentions a statement made by Aristotle, “...man by nature is a political animal.” This statement has proven to be fairly truthful when studied by Universities and political scientists. The brain is hardwired to follow a certain path, those looking for my traditional solutions of keeping the “old way” generally fall under the Conservative category. While on the other hand those who deter from the norm are generally Liberals. Within life there are some outside influences that can change political views, for example the media. In the article How are we Divided the author states, “Today the media have many lines of access, and reflect both the maximization of controversy and the cultivation of niche markets. Once the media talked to us; now they shout at us.” Media covers controversy and delivers what used to be private or hard to reach stories to the mass public. Family doesn’t have as big of a reach as media making media play a bigger role in creating a political identity. Younger people who have little access or need of access to media use family to determine what their political status will be. Once they grow and find there is more to the world then family and with the help of easy access to media their political identities begin to switch not in terms with family. Outside influences play a major role in political identity as they continue to increase in accessibility to the public. -AF
Family vs. Outside Influences
Posted 9/3/2017 at 5:10:40 PM by [anonymous visitor]
One’s political identity, including both its expressions and its foundations, is vital to one’s individuality. Expressions are easier to interpret, but the foundations of one’s political identity is difficult to understand because it is shaped by a variety of factors. I believe that family has a larger effect on political identity than outside influences. For me personally, my parents raised me with certain beliefs and morals that I have translated into political discussions when making decisions. My political identity comes from the lessons and values that I learned as a child. The article Homo Politicus argues that the brains of liberals and conservative actually function differently, and cites a study about different reactions of liberals versus conservatives in breaking an established routine to prove this. Political scientist David Amodio mentions, "the neural mechanisms for conflict monitoring are formed early in childhood,” and are probably rooted in part in our genetic heritage. This suggests that some of the basic differences in how liberals and conservatives think come from our DNA and how we are raised. The textbook points out how identical twins are “much more likely to have similar political views than fraternal twins,” because of how they share more of their genetic code. Our genetic makeup is the biggest determinant of out political identity, followed closely by parental influences. On the other hand, life experiences can influence political ideology but one’s interpretation of any event is framed by the composition of their mind, which we know differs between liberals and conservatives. Genetic and familial backgrounds shape how outside influences affect our political views because everybody experiences an event differently. Family has a larger influence on political identity than outside influences because our family and genes shape our moral code, which determines how we react to life experiences and think about political issues. AR
Purpose of Government
Posted 8/29/2017 at 5:10:28 PM by [anonymous visitor]
The Purpose Of Government is to keep people in order. The purpose of government is to keep people feeling safe this is mentioned in “Second Treatise, of Civil Government” by John Locke. Government has the ability to regulate people because we let it, we want it to. Without government people will easily step out of line for their own survival. Government is essentially was means for surviving together, regulating food and shelter and how much food goes where. But nowadays the government is facing issues beyond just survival, but a way of living, deciding whether this way or that way is more moral. People are dangerous without rules and we always keep each other in check. Therefore to clearly state where our Government’s principle should lie is to keep our people in check and at the same time we, the people keep it in check as well. To keep our people alive and their well being high so that they don’t have to worry about surviving until tomorrow; to have them worry only of little things such as morality and good times. This doesn't mean Government is always everyone’s favorite as some things may have to be done for the greater good but may hurt as well because it’s not easy.
Family vs. Outside Influences
Posted 8/29/2017 at 5:10:17 PM by [anonymous visitor]
Over the past week or so, we have been learning about the structure of our government in terms of the parties that it consists of. We have learned what these parties believe, as well as how these parties came to be. As time has gone on, the political beliefs of many in the U.S. have grown further and further apart. Why this happens is likely due to influence by family and outside influences as well. Is a person's political identity influenced more by family or outside influences? Starting with family, everyone grows up with a family. Whether, parents, siblings, grandparents-almost everyone has some family to exert political beliefs upon them throughout their lives, starting with birth all the way up until death. Family is undoubtable a big role in political identity. As seen in the article, How Divided Are We?, there are so many different political identities that can form, not only family is responsible. The ratings on the Agents of Effect worksheet also display how many sources there are for political ideologies. Outside influences such as media and friends are also large factors as one grows older. Although people are born with their family, usually staying with them until death, the independence of one as they grow old turns them to face the opinions of others, and in a lot of cases adopt them. Outside influences influence a person’s political identity more due to the fact that there are so many more outside influences than their are opinions from family. -CA
Post A Reply
1 - Purpose of Government
Posted 8/18/2017 at 2:00:36 PM by Ryan Pubentz [staff member]

1 - Purpose of Government

 

Based on what you have read this week, why is there a necessity of government, and under what principles should it be based?

Reply Posts
2- Political Identity
Posted 9/4/2017 at 5:16:53 PM by [anonymous visitor]
Political Identity From the day we are born up until the day we die, there are situations and ideas that shape how we think and act politically. As young children, we look up to our parents for everything, including their political beliefs and values. The way our parents raise us is why we act similarly to them, vote similarly to them, and speak similarly to them, and I do not believe that ever changes. Our family puts us in an environment that helps create neural networks which can have greater effect in these situations than even our genes can. Our family, more than anything else, is the greatest component in how we identify politically. In the article Homopolitics by Marlowe Hood, he states, “"But even if genes may provide a blueprint for more liberal or conservative orientations, they are shaped substantially by one's environment over the course of development." Here, Hood is agreeing with my statement that the environment our family creates for us is stronger than any other influence. There is no denying that there are multiple influences that shape us as individuals, but how we are taught early in life will stick with us forever. If someone's parents raise them in a loving, conservative, christian home, there is an extremely good chance that they will grow up to be a conservative as well. In class we were given a handout titled “Political Socialization,” and on it there is a clearly noted section that family is the number one influence. There are other outside influences in action such as gender, religion, schools, race, and income, but a lot of those aspects come from our family as well. For example, My father was raised a catholic and my mother a protestant. As they grew older they still stuck to their christian roots but also morphed it into their own by following the evangelical faith. They act politically in favor of these christian influences, and this all stems back to their family and how they were raised… it's the same way they are raising me. This is not to say people do not sway and grow away from their families ways, but for the most part people tend to stick to their roots. Our political identity can be influenced through many ways such as our religion, our genes, our income, our race, and our gender, but the most important factor has always been and will always be our families and the environments they raised us in. -RR
Purpose of Government
Posted 8/27/2017 at 7:58:28 AM by [anonymous visitor]
The government is the backbone of a country without the government a country may not suffice it would go into ruin or shambles (specially if the country always had a form of government which governed it’s people without any problems ), without the government people would not have their representatives(which they voted for) to bring their views to the forefront of the country, without the government the country would have no governing body to decide the best course of action, it also help to keep people co-operating with each other so riots or any form of protest would be suppressed, the government also helps people by giving them the sense of protection which in turn keeps them calm and make them a valuable asset to the country. The government basically helps the country function efficiently by keeping it organized and to promote health,welfare and social economy.
Purpose of Government
Posted 8/27/2017 at 7:58:15 AM by [anonymous visitor]
The government is the backbone of a country without the government a country may not suffice it would go into ruin or shambles (specially if the country always had a form of government which governed it’s people without any problems ), without the government people would not have their representatives(which they voted for) to bring their views to the forefront of the country, without the government the country would have no governing body to decide the best course of action, it also help to keep people co-operating with each other so riots or any form of protest would be suppressed, the government also helps people by giving them the sense of protection which in turn keeps them calm and make them a valuable asset to the country. The government basically helps the country function efficiently by keeping it organized and to promote health,welfare and social economy. -HS
Purpose of Government
Posted 8/25/2017 at 7:24:38 AM by [anonymous visitor]
The government maintains societal stability. Its ability to regulate, tax and mandate things from citizens and companies drives our economy. Having a structured government is the only way to keep a large group of people cooperating with each other. Our government should be based under the values of its people, in our case, liberty, democracy and political equality. With no government, there is chaos. Nothing to keep people from acting without judgement. The knowledge that there are consequences for one's actions is based in the concept of the law and without government, there is no law. Without government, we leaved the less privileged helpless and free to discriminate against. For the government to successfully do its job, it must protect the rights of its citizens who's rights are based in their values. ~SS
E.B.
Posted 8/22/2017 at 7:08:17 AM by [anonymous visitor]
Government is necessary for several reasons. Without government there would be chaos and no control. There would be no rules or laws that people must adhere to and no one to enforce them. This would create fear and people would feel unsafe. Humans need a sense of security and the government offers them protection which in turn creates a social contract. People obey the government and the government looks out for their well-being in return. Government should be based on trust and a genuine desire to do right by its people. Laws should only be put in place and enforced if they are constitutional and protect the people and their rights. Citizens want to know that their government is looking out for their best interest and protecting their basic rights and freedoms.
Purpose of Government
Posted 8/21/2017 at 7:19:52 AM by [anonymous visitor]
In my opinion, the purpose of government is to create order. As humans we want to be free but we need someone to keep society functioning. According to John Locke, people always gravitate towards structure. Locke talks about how people always want some sort of balance and ruling. Everyone gains the security of knowing that their rights to life, liberty, and property are protected. According to Locke, the main purpose of government is to protect those natural rights that the individual cannot effectively protect in a state of nature.Government is like a catalyst that moves society along. The ‘Family Guy’ clip indicates how government is needed. In all that chaos, although they were free, people were interested in in the thought of government. WIthout government, the world would be in total chaos.
purpose of gov
Posted 8/21/2017 at 7:19:43 AM by [anonymous visitor]
AP Government in a sense is a safety net, for the citizens, to protect the fundamental rights and freedom of people. As a society we naturally crave government to prevent chaos and atrocity. Aristotle dissected the meaning of citizen, and said “ a state is a body of citizens sufficing for the purposes of life”. These words Aristotle said to me, mean, that we are our government, in a sense when we elect each other we control each other. Many laws have been put in place by our very own governments to protect us, and reap the full benefits of humanity. In a world without government we may not have these rules in place, no one to enforce them, and no one to write them. In homeless government and founding amateurs it has a underlying sense of under appreciation and citizens fed up with politicians. Many people would like to change this, but change this to what? We will always have government to maintain a common order in the world, and to regulate our progress as a whole. All in all government is to improve our lives. And so when we create government and follow the rules we create we have a better quality of life.
Purpose of Govornment
Posted 8/21/2017 at 7:19:34 AM by [anonymous visitor]
Government is in place so that people and societies can be organized. Governments establish rules and set guidelines for the punishment of wrongdoing. This effectively gives people a rulebook by which to live by and "play" the "game" of life. People are willing to give up some of their freedom for this feeling of security. Now society can function on a shared, concrete, established moral compass, as opposed to everyone's individual one. PY
Purpose of Government
Posted 8/21/2017 at 7:19:25 AM by [anonymous visitor]
Based on the reading, Second Treaties of Civil Government, we join governments for protection. Governments make sure that the punishment fits the crime committed. There should be laws that settle disputes over what's right or wrong. It also mentions that any judges appointed should be indifferent and has the authority to determine all differences. Based on Aristotle- The Politics, the governments should be made of citizens. The government should also make decisions on behalf of the citizens in any state. According to the Founding Fathers article, the government should mediate instead of mirroring the public views. - NM
Purpose of Government
Posted 8/21/2017 at 7:19:17 AM by [anonymous visitor]
Even if a government is not put in place people will create structure and someone will take the place of a leader. The reason no one will continue to live in a society where there is completely no government is because it's anarchy. With no government people are not protected and neither is their stuff. People want protection and safety for themselves and their property and will therefore gravitate towards a government. Another reason people will gravitate towards a leader that creates structure is so that everyone is not equal. When it's complete anarachy everyone is equally as able to take control over everything therefore it's complete chaos. When a leader steps up they create structure that leads people to safety and security and eliminate the open ability to take control. Once a government is put in place the majority of the people chose to follow it for many reasons. People will follow the rules to prevent going back to an anarchy, to avoid consequences or gain rewards, out of respect for their leader and/or to follow their morals. Therefore the purpose of a government is to prevent complete chaos and create structure, safety and security within a society. M.Mc
Purpose Of Government
Posted 8/21/2017 at 7:19:03 AM by [anonymous visitor]
According to Dan Barry, the purpose of government is to make the situation of a group better through rules. In Barry's story, there are homeless people living under a bridge. Without the rules they adopt, that's all they can be. With rules and government they become a community. Rather than just being the bums under a bridge, something more meaningful is made and the lives of those homeless people are made better because they have rules in place that keep them anarchy.
Purpose of Government
Posted 8/21/2017 at 7:18:54 AM by [anonymous visitor]
The purpose of government is to have order in society. The sane human race craves order. When faced with chaos and anarchy they will come together for a sense of democracy. Democracy is a system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives. There is a necessity of government to prevent anarchy and uprisings in society. It should be based under principles of leadership with reason and order. -AB
purpose of government
Posted 8/21/2017 at 7:18:46 AM by [anonymous visitor]
the purpose of government is to maintain order in society. People crave order to avoid chaos and confusion. Having an elected leader helps to resolve problems within the society. A leader is able to keep control of the society. In a government people can ave a say which will also help keep control because people will not get upset over things they disagree upon. government can also ensure and provide rights for citizens. It is also a necessity to keep people safe because without laws people can do whatever they please which may not always be in good intent.
Response to Question-MD
Posted 8/20/2017 at 2:44:53 PM by [anonymous visitor]
Why is there a necessity of government? As we discussed previously in class this week, without an established government system, our society would collapse. There would be chaos and anarchy, though it wouldn’t last long. We as humans are predisposed to crave order and stability as a society, and eventually someone would step up and be a leader. Under what principles should a government be based on? A government should function collaboratively, with the citizens having a say in the way it is run. In the text Founding Amateurs, the author describes how when the founding fathers of America created a government after their separation from England. They “drew upon a system of self government” in order to create a successful system, and also the citizens also had more of a say in voting than England. Similarly, this self-run government is seen in the article, Homeless Government, as it describes how a society of individuals collectively led their community with a voting system, a council, a chief, and a set of rules. This way of government is seen today as a democratic government, which constitutes that citizens have a voice and a say in the decisions being passed for our country.
Purpose of Government
Posted 8/20/2017 at 12:19:38 PM by [anonymous visitor]
Government has a very strong impact on what goes on everyday although it might not seem like it. The government upholds laws that people should follow. By this happening it conflict. Along with that, these rules and regulations that are set up for everybody help create balance in the economy and also equality. If we did not have a government there would be no rules to follow, violence/crime would increase and we would not have basic services.With all this being said, the government protects the rights we have. -BF
Purpose of Government
Posted 8/20/2017 at 7:23:34 AM by [anonymous visitor]
There is a necessity for government in order to establish unity among a group of people. People crave order in a community and a government can provide that fairly. A government can establish a set of rules or laws for all members of a community to obey in order to create a fair environment. A government can create trust between its members by punishing those who go against the laws in a justifiable way. People need a government because they feel safer knowing that people will be held accountable for their actions. Having a government helps to avoid situations in which everyone acts as by their own individual rules which could ultimately cause chaos. The principles that a government should be based on should follow what the people both want and need. A government should build off of what people have learned in the past and create new principles that seem fitting now. If a government were to not be in place, a large lack of unity would exist. -AP
why is there a necessity of government, and under what principles should it be based?
Posted 8/20/2017 at 7:23:20 AM by [anonymous visitor]
Government is necessary to create an environment which is safe and controlled. Without government there is no rule of law nor is there any sort of greater power to effectively handle crisis. People use and need government as a sense of protection. The main purpose of government is to protect people's natural rights. It should be based under the principles of equal protection and representation under the law to ensure no one group in society becomes dominant over another. In order to achieve this, we have the separation of powers in our government and the rule of law. -ND
IC
Posted 8/20/2017 at 7:23:12 AM by [anonymous visitor]
In today's world, there is a necessity for government for many reasons. All governments are run differently. In some governments people do not have rights. The main purpose of a successful government is to protect peoples rights and also to ensure the proper use of force in order to get things done. It helps to maintain order and in some cases allows us to give up some of our freedom to assure safety. Everyone is born with basic rights and the government should work to make sure these rights are preserved. The most effective government is when those in charge are chosen by the mass population and given the power to make decisions representing the voices of the people. Without a proper government we face the possibilities of anarchy along with chaos. Although the citizens and the government have different needs, they still cooperate together to make one functioning body. They have reciprocal rights and duties they must fulfill in order to run things smoothly. IC
Purpose of Government
Posted 8/20/2017 at 7:23:05 AM by [anonymous visitor]
Government is- whether we believe so or not- necessary for the protection of our rights as human beings. Governments are put in place to create a sense of security, a sense of feeling safe from a world of absolute anarchy. If we were to not have a government people would most likely behave like animals since there would be no laws to keep them in check. The government creates rules to protect, as John Locke would say, our life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. We are able to have property that is protected and lives that are safe from harm. Government is absolutely necessary, but only under certain principles. The government must be run by the people for the people. All citizens above the age of 18- male or female- should have the right to vote and elect a representative for everyone. The elected representative should have a certain amount of time allowed in office (for example, the president has 4-8 years) before they are replaced by someone new to avoid the formation of a dictatorship. Voters should also be allowed to pass or reject the formation of any new laws, tariffs, or anything else put into action since the government is run by the people for the people. -RR
Purpose of Government
Posted 8/20/2017 at 7:22:51 AM by [anonymous visitor]
There is a need for a government because if not people will have to much power that they won't know what to do with. When this happens people seek guidance anyways and end up forming a government. They base it off of the principles of equality, freedom-to a certain point and representative of their thoughts as well as others. -BF
Purpose of Government
Posted 8/20/2017 at 7:22:43 AM by [anonymous visitor]
The purpose of the US government is to prevent chaos, promote unity, and protect the natural rights of its citizens. This can be seen in the reason for its inception: the US was created because Britain infringed upon the natural rights laid out in John Locke’s “Second Treatise of Civil Government.” In fact, the Declaration of Independence’s famous “Life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness” line are actually just the natural rights from the original essay with “pursuit of happiness” swapped for “possessions.” The fact that the country itself was created because Locke’s natural rights were being infringed upon speaks volumes about the correlation between them and our government. A government’s purpose is also to promote the unity of its citizens. This can be seen in “Homeless Government” by Dan Barry, where an interim government is formed to protect and nourish unity amongst a group of homeless people. This shows that even in this odd situation, governments function to create unity. Finally, governments must prevent chaos. This can be seen in “Founding Amateurs” by Gordon Wood, where Wood notes that the reason the American Revolution didn't spiral into chaos like the French Revolution is because it was led by experienced government officials. If proper government hadn’t been formed, it is very likely that the US would have spiraled into chaos like the French. -YS
Purpose of Government
Posted 8/20/2017 at 7:22:34 AM by [anonymous visitor]
There needs to be a government to maintain the order of any state. If there is no order, anarchy is bound to happen, as there will be no more rules restricting anyone from doing anything they want. Also if there was no government in a state, people's property's would be in danger because there would be no army to protect it. A government was made for the people, so removing wouldn't make sense. The type of government should be the people of the state, where there is a council that serves the people. The principles should be based on the safety of everyone in the state. An army is need to keep the state safe from foreign dangers and a force inside to enforce the laws that the council has created. In order to keep the state safe, taxes are needed in order to fund the forces that are used. Basically, a democracy would be the ideal government to have. N.N
Purpose of Government
Posted 8/20/2017 at 7:22:25 AM by [anonymous visitor]
Government is a necessity of life. Without it, the world would be in chaos because there would be no order, as everyone would feel empowered and try to use that power extensively. Stability would decrease dramatically without government, and the world would be unsafe. For example, in the article "Living in Tents, and by the Rules, Under a Bridge", Dan Barry describes "By late June the camp had about 50 people. But someone questioned the role of Mr. Freitas as chief, so he stepped down. Arguments broke out. Food was stolen". The result of a cheif of a small settlement stepping down from power, leaving the people with no government, resulted in negative effects immediatley. If that were to happen on the larger scale and the country's government dismatnled, citizens would abuse their individual power. Government is a necessity because it holds a country together. It takes everyone's individual power and turns it into one, unified body. By doing so, this helps maintain stability because laws are estblished and people have a voice in the government, yet it is not too powerful over anothers.
Gov Necessity + Priciples
Posted 8/20/2017 at 7:22:18 AM by [anonymous visitor]
Without government, chaos and anarchy would ensue. There would be no consequences for vandalism, stealing or murder and society would be incapable of functioning. Government should be founded upon the principle that everyone gets equal representation. This cannot be perfectly realistic of course, however, is nearly achieved through a representative democracy where citizens elect officials they deem fit to govern. Ideally, these officials are not corrupt, however, given the circumstance that they are corrupt, re-elections are crucial in keeping officials in check. Furthermore, political resources are to be shared among a vast scope of institutions such as cities, states, school boards, ect. J.P
Purpose of the Government
Posted 8/20/2017 at 7:22:01 AM by [anonymous visitor]
The Universal purpose of the government in my opinion is to protect the rights of the people and unite the people under one roof, in which all the people have the right to life, liberty and property as the famous philosopher John Locke stated in his opinion of the state of nature. The government also serves to carry out the wishes of the people, for example, our wanting of a safer environment the government takes a little of our liberty to ensure our safety. Similarly not everyone's wish can be satisfied and therefore there are different divisions in our government that allow for people individually to ask for certain rights. The government also creates basic rules that the citizens have to abide by such as speed limits or littering rules. without the government anarchy and war can take place and in order to avoid war, we place our trust in the government to ensure that all our rights are made in a way to avoid an anarchy and maximize our living.-MP
Purpose of Government, AC 7th Period
Posted 8/20/2017 at 7:21:46 AM by [anonymous visitor]
The United States Government is necessary because it ensures that each man has ability to live with natural rights as long as they do not break the laws and follow the democratic structure. When Thomas Jefferson wrote the Declaration of Independence he derived most of the opening statements from an English philosopher John Locke, who believed that these natural rights were God-given and should never be taken or given away. John Locke stated in “Second Treatise of Government”, that everyone is entitled to "life, liberty, and property." In order for each man to live with the rights the Government must be made up of citizens who have earned rightful power to be in charge of a large population of citizens, this is representative democracy. When one wishes to obtain formal authority they need to be supported by citizens who will determine if the candidate deserves rightful power. Having everyone involved creates a Government that is by the people and for the people. This provides structure for a mass amount of people, which if not enforced would result in chaos. If our Government did not function and there was no consequences for your actions the country would turn into anarchy and would fall apart. Thanks to our founding fathers and other great enlightenment thinkers the power of people in the United States is legitimate and maintained in an equal fashion.
Necessity of Government
Posted 8/20/2017 at 7:21:39 AM by [anonymous visitor]
Based on everything we talked about this week, Government is a necessity. According to Locke's Second Treatise of Civil Government, when there is no ruling government, every individual is there own judge jury and executioner. In our natural freedom, we descend into chaos, so we need a government, laws, and leaders to help keep order. However, our government needs to be set up in a certain way. According to Aristotle, citizens should be involved in the government in order to be citizens. The people should be part of the government and should be elected into different positions. Also, the actual set up of the government needs to be balanced. According to Locke, government needs to have different branches (legislative, executive, judicial) and there should be balances between different branches. -JM
J.J.G
Posted 8/20/2017 at 7:21:31 AM by [anonymous visitor]
It is necessary to form a government in order to protect the citizens of that state. The citizens want liberty, happiness, and the ability to own property. The government should be formed to be in the best interest of the citizens. The government should be able to protect the state, if attacked and recover successfully if in an economic recession. In the homeless government article is talked about when the chief stepped down, that arguments broke out and that food was stolen from one another. This relates to if each person had their free will, the state would be attack other states because of simple disagreements. The citizens feel like that the leader has the power, but if he uses it wrong, the citizens can boot the leader because he fail to lead the state the way the citizens would like to be lead. There is always something that the citizen gives up to be part of the government, either small or big, but they understand it is a small price to pay for protect from the enemy. There is always a leader who will step up to organize the group to work towards the a greater good. The government is created to benefit the citizen the most, today in the U.S. the government protects the citizens with the armed forces, protects with police and fire, provides medical care, and the upkeep of public facilities.
1 - Purpose of Government
Posted 8/20/2017 at 7:21:23 AM by [anonymous visitor]
The reading over this past week has done a lot to emphasize both the necessity of government, as well as the principles that government should be based on. After reading the articles of the past week, I, as well as others, may begin to wonder why government always seems to prevail. This is due to the necessity that government has to everyone. As explained by John Locke, government provides order, which is a desire embedded into human nature. On top of this, government provides safety and efficiency, as seen in the Homeless Government article. Government is necessary, however, whether or not people want to live under government depends on the principles that government is based on. In order to make people live under any government peacefully, the government should be based on principles that appeal to the desires of as many people as possible. These principles may vary from person to person, but generally people consciously seek safety, freedom, as well as some say in the rules that they will follow. -CA
Purpose of Government
Posted 8/20/2017 at 7:21:17 AM by [anonymous visitor]
Government is a necessity to life. Without it, the world would be in utter chaos, as individuals would abuse their individual power extensively. For instance, in the article "Living in Tents, and by the Rules, Under a Bridge", Dan Barry describes, "By late June the camp had about 50 people. But someone questioned the role of Mr. Freitas as chief, so he stepped down. Arguments broke out. Food was stolen". As a result of the dismantlement of the small settlement's form of government., disorder ensued. If that were to happen on the larger scale and our country's government diminished, no one would be safe. Individuals would take advantage of their own power, and all order would be lost. Therefore, government is necessary because it helps to maintain stability, and it keeps individuals safe. It ensures people's safety by centralizing everyone's power, creating one, unified body opposed to loose factions of individual power. It establishes rules that people must abide to, and consequences for those who do not. Overall, government helps to maintain order and stability within a country, therefore allowing people to live happily and freely. Government must be based on specific principles in order for it to be successful. The most important principle is freedom. John Locke, in his article "Second Treatise, of Civil Government" states that "The state of Nature...teaches all mankind who will but consult it, that being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions". These are the the basic principles that a government should be based on-the protection and freedoms of life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness. A government should protect those individual freedoms and ensure safety within a country. It should be based on the powers and freedoms that every person has and their own voice that must be heard, as each individual has the right to participate in a government. Overall, government is necessary for the continuation of humanity and should be based upon the freedoms that each person seeks to preserve. CD
P.P. Importance of gov. response
Posted 8/20/2017 at 7:21:07 AM by [anonymous visitor]
Based off the four supplemental readings, all have stated one consistent point. Two sources used in this blog that state a consistent point are: the second treatise, of civil government, and living in tents, and by the rules, under a bridge. Whether, through the natural law or the organization of a small community. The consensus point is that government is a necessity. Though governments nowadays are much different compared to the ones of the past. Nevertheless, governments still hold the fundamental keys to a successful lifestyle, and the keys to a successful lifestyle is to be governed, which is stressed in both pieces. Power deeply affects the lives of people, and if it is used correctly it can be the most beneficial thing to society, and the people involved. That is why without notion people tend to float towards a central holding system (creating a government), in order to keep laws/ rules in place, because without order, power can easily be abused. An example of the necessity of a central holding system no matter the size of a population can be found in the piece: “Living in Tents, and by the Rules, Under a Bridge” When leadership is non existent, the community suffers. For example, “Someone questioned the role of Mr. Freitas as chief, so he stepped down. Arguments broke out. Food was stolen...So everyone voted him back in”. (Barry, 2). Clearly even with an implicit leader, the leadership provided to the community is still very impactful, to help create a stable, and much better run government. Now in past tense taking into account John Locke's thinking. The state of nature is brought into fruition. Locke claims that “The state of nature has a law of nature to govern it...That being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty or possessions” (Locke, 5). Locke states that human society is meant to be governed leading to the protection of one another, only if no one steps out of line in the means of harming another individual. Though if some individual steps out of line there may be consequences, as locke continues to mention: “Every offence can be committed in the state of nature may, in the state of nature, be also punished equally” (Locke, 5). So with the state of nature to govern one another, it would be equally acceptable to keep one another in line, and with any rule breaking according to the society, reasonable actions towards fixing the problem may be pursued. Just to restate, without a proper government to keep individuals in line it leads to an anarchy, an environment with disorder. Simply, no one wants that, individuals would much rather prefer a system that helps lead the majority of the population down the right path in the law of nature, protecting one another.
Purpose of Government
Posted 8/20/2017 at 7:21:00 AM by [anonymous visitor]
The government is necessary to have because it creates order that allows for a sense of security and safety for the people. If there is no government then there would be anarchy and people wouldn’t feel safe. The article Living in Tents, and By the Rules, Under a Bridge showed us an example of this because when they didn’t have someone setting rules chaos broke out and they began stealing from one another. At some point though self-governing was new and in Founding Amateurs we see that during the French Revolution because there was lots of violence and dictatorship. Although Aristotle tried to say that the only way to be apart of the government was to be citizen and be in some form of power, but a true government will allow all it’s citizens to be apart of it government by allowing voting opportunities. Laws are needed to protects a person's right to life, liberty, and possessions and this can only happen when there is order by a government. This is the idea of a social contract that John Locke said, and if a person wants to be protected and at peace then they must obey the government's laws. Although if the government were to not follow the laws then the people can fight against them and try to overtake it. -RC
Purpose of Government
Posted 8/20/2017 at 7:20:52 AM by [anonymous visitor]
Dating back to the late 1700s, government has ruled the American society. When the Articles of Confederation proved fragile, the United States’ Founding Fathers formed a new, secure American government in 1787. A system of government is necessary to ensure order, safety, security, and protection of property in society. Without government, John Locke’s state of nature would prove pitiful to communities. Based on John Locke, the state of nature entitles men to a “perfect freedom to order their actions and dispose of their possessions…without depending upon the will of any other men” (4). Under the state of nature, humans are granted a tremendous amount of independence and equality with no universal guidelines. However, Seinfeld’s Cosmo Kramer illustrates this anarchical system, “A rule is a rule. Without rules, there’s chaos.” In order for society to run efficiently, men must not have complete independence. Men must sacrifice some freedom which allows the government to mandate laws and keep order in society. A government forces men to unite into commonwealths to preserve their property and to create standards for citizens to follow (Locke 6). Governmental laws such as criminal laws (traffic/road, public order) and civic laws (employment, family) ensure safety and security for America’s citizens. Illustrated by Dan Barry, when sanitation and violence compacts are broken, a government must punish those involved in order to sustain order and safety in a community. Government should be based under the principles of equality and respect. A government must grant all men a right to equal protection and representation under just laws; ensuring a unified society. –SB
Purpose of Government
Posted 8/20/2017 at 7:20:45 AM by [anonymous visitor]
There is a necessity of government in order to give everyone a say in how things are run in the country. If there was no form of government, everyone would do crazy things because there are no consequences to their actions. With a government, we are able to peacefully vote and have a say in our laws. These laws keep us safe from each other and other countries. The government should be based on the principles of the people. We are the ones who live here, so we should be the ones who decide how the country runs. The United States does this by letting the people vote for representatives who they believe will do what is best for the country, based on their own beliefs. -MM
Purpose of Government
Posted 8/20/2017 at 7:20:38 AM by [anonymous visitor]
The purpose of government is to create order and stability among a community of people. Many non-theocratic governments tend to base their laws and such on morals and protection of citizens. John Locke as well as Aristotle detailed these in their pieces titled "Second Treatise of Civil Government" and “The Politics” respectfully. In John Locke’s piece the first example of a moral sense to laws is “If man in the state of Nature be so free as has been said, if he be absolute lord of his own person and possession [...].” Locke’s determination to have a person become and control their person fits nicely as he continues by saying “Why will he part with his freedom.” These were some of the reasons why people wanted to break away because they had a person in control and didn’t feel like their rights were being infringed on. Aristotle elaborates on this in his pieces by stating “The citizen…of necessity differs under each form of government; and our definition is best adapted to the citizen of a democracy [...].” His understanding of democracy was obviously vastly different than Locke’s since Aristotle was living during the infancy of democracy. However the twos views still hold a similar aspect as in they both want the person to have the say rather than the government making the choices. WS
Purpose of Government
Posted 8/20/2017 at 7:20:31 AM by [anonymous visitor]
By definition, the verb to govern means to control, influence or regulate a person, action, or course of events. And this is precisely the reason for government: to regulate society by establishing order that all citizens must adhere to in order to ensure protection. Even out of tribal societies, a form of government nonetheless emerges to control the chaos that would result without it. As seen in the “Homeless Government” article, even the homeless outcasts from mainstream society still had need for a “chief” to give them direction as to where to place their tents and in other vital aspects of living with one another. As enumerated by John Locke, the reasons for government include the mutual protection of its citizens by protecting their basic rights to life, liberty, and property, and in doing so providing essential social services for its citizens. A government should be based in the principle of providing for its citizens the needs that individual citizens could not independently attain, and in doing so treating all citizens equally under its law. Under the social contract that is government, citizens relinquish their nature-bestowed ability to do as they please in exchange for the guaranteed security of their rights and estates and to have a basic sense of safety in society. While the ability of government to fulfill its duty of protecting the rights of its citizens may be subject to the sheer quantity of citizens there are to govern, it is therefore necessary to delegate greater responsibility to fulfill this duty upon a small group of individuals who will best represent the interests of citizens before the law, avoiding the challenges of managing direct participation from large numbers of citizens. And in the instance of democracy, it is also necessary to uphold the rule of the people by having periodic transition of power to reflect the ever-changing attitudes of citizens over time. Only in accordance to these principles can order be maintained within human societies and the existence of governments be justified. IY
Re: Purpose of Government
Posted 8/20/2017 at 7:20:23 AM by [anonymous visitor]
There is a necessity of government because of the significant advantages that a government itself gives. As stated by John Locke, the state of nature is completely and utterly free, allowing for all possible actions to occur. This may include giving and lending resources and helping others that surround us, but also encompasses harming and looting of those same people. With the establishment of a government, individuals forgo aggression towards others and band together in pursuit of a common interest. They could choose to accomplish the goals of a single person such as a king in a monarchy or dictator in a dictatorship, or those of any number of individuals, such as those in a democracy. Even then, these people could explicitly participate in a direct democracy, or they could influence the decisions of chosen leaders in a representative democracy. Whatever the case may be, any action to develop the government makes them a citizen, according to Aristotle. Where the government needs citizens to continue thriving, citizens also need the government to protect them from the possibility of harm coming from within the establishment. Without government, chaos ensues from the lack of order, and it really is “every man for himself” in that instance. J.C.
Necessity of government
Posted 8/20/2017 at 7:20:15 AM by [anonymous visitor]
There is a necessity for government in our world because it’s our nature, our minds desire order, and they always have. Even in early years of human activity, people created different types of order that worked for their people. We desire rules, and punishment when those rules are broken. All people are born with natural rights, whether they are stated or not, our instinct is to protect and stand for those rights. Government, in whatever form it may be is what, as humans we desire. Under the principles of natural rights that all humans should be given, is how it should and always should be based. Government assists in handling conflicts that people around us don’t agree with. Government draws the line between legal and illegal, or essentially okay and not. Without the principals of legal and not, people would have no moral compass directing them to do good things. Government is desired by everyone, it’s essentially built in and mapped in our minds to have a form of government, in which different people desire different things from the government. In the end all people, desire order, in which government is a necessity. - MC
The need for government & the principles it should be based upon
Posted 8/20/2017 at 7:20:08 AM by [anonymous visitor]
All throughout history, it has always been a natural part of humans to create rules and govern. This innate need for a government reveals human’s reliance on security and order. For instance in the article, “Homeless Government”, in the homeless community of Camp Runamuck, John Freitas naturally seemed to exhibit the qualities of a leader and was eventually titled the camp’s chief. However, as soon as someone questioned the authority of Freitas and he decided to step down, chaos became rampant among the community as arguments broke out and food was stolen. This unlikely example exhibits one of society’s biggest reasons for government- the need for security. This same point is reiterated in John Locke’s Second Treatise of Civil Government. He explains that people leave the state of nature and join a political society because it’s more secure for them and having an established system helps protect their liberties and freedom. As Locke has also said, a government should work towards the best interest of those it serves. If said government abuses their power or is deemed to be unfit for the needs of the people, the citizens should have the right to revolt. Furthermore, in order to prevent this abuse of power, the leader should have only a limited period of time to rule, such as that of the precedent set by presidents Jefferson and Washington which are discussed in the article “Founding Amateurs”. -RO
Purpose of Gov.
Posted 8/19/2017 at 7:25:39 AM by [anonymous visitor]
Based on my readings this week, I think the purpose of government is to create order and keep peace in a nation. John Locke’s Second Treatise of Civil Government explains that living by only “nature’s law” can cause chaos. Without government and rules to follow, people would be living solely off of their own morals, which vary widely from person to person. Without government, conflict between individuals would be difficult to resolve. Locke also says that people give up their freedoms given to them by nature to protect their possessions. Although the freedom and equality of nature seems ideal, people seek the order that society and government provides. A tent community in the Homeless Government article shows the importance of government even on a small scale: in one of the tent communities, the leader decided to step down when his role was questioned. But, when he did this, crime and arguments increased, and government was soon restored instead as a council. Humans naturally need government to keep peace between the people, and based on Locke’s opinion, live a happier life. JR
Purpose of Government
Posted 8/19/2017 at 7:25:32 AM by [anonymous visitor]
There is a necessity of government because without government there would be no order. Without laws, there would be chaos since everyone would do whatever they please to. This is evident in Living in Tents, and by the Rules, Under a Bridge (Homeless Government.) In the beginning, Freitas assumed the role of chief, there needed to be somebody in charge of the camp. Until, he was questioned by a citizen and stepped down. Without anybody in charge, arguments erupted and food was stolen. There were no consequences for actions, and no authorities to do anything to the rule breakers. Structure and government was needed to bring the camp back to normal. There is an innate pull in us to have some kind of structured system. Founding Amateurs? states that long before the Declaration of Independence, the founding fathers were all a part of Colonial legislation. Thus, there was government before our government was even formed. Government should be based on the citizens. The United States government was created for the people, by the people, and that’s how it should stay. According to John Locke, in order to have safety and protection from our government, we have to make some sacrifices, which seems like a fair trade. Locke also mentions that the government must implement certain laws, to make sure that the citizens are in a fair deal with the government. These laws pertain to agreeable taxes, the balance of power in the government, and the justice system, which are all very important principles of government. Additionally, Aristotle states the importance of who runs the government--the citizens themselves. Every citizen has the opportunity to be a part of the government, and who’s better to run the people than the people themselves? Citizen participation is a necessity in government and ultimately determines the country’s state of being, making it the most essential principle of government. -MA
Purpose of Government
Posted 8/19/2017 at 7:25:24 AM by [anonymous visitor]
I believe that government is a necessity because it gives humans comfort and relief. With the current population, there is no way that we could all thrive peacefully without order. Most people are not leaders and would much rather have protection from a higher power rather than live in fear for their safety. Although even with order, civilians will continue to doubt their leaders or believe that the government is actually working against them. In a perfect society, the government listens to all people and reassures them that every minority and opposing view will never be left behind. No one will always get their way, neither will everyone like each other, but it’s the government’s duty to keep these issues under control. Instead of focusing on mobilization and world affairs, we must keep our own people in peace with each other. Running a democracy with a set of fair laws and compassionate leaders is the only way to govern and prevent chaos and hatred. J.P.
1 - Purpose of Government
Posted 8/19/2017 at 7:25:15 AM by [anonymous visitor]
The purpose of government is to allow for order and protection of the citizens within it. If government is not visible anarchy will overtake our lives and chaos will ensue. This is the necessity of government, however, government needs to based upon freedoms that will allow for no deprivation of freedom. Locke states in his piece that the important freedoms a human needs are life, liberty and property. This will later be developed into the Declaration of Independence allowing for citizens to maintain their natural rights. Aristotle’s piece goes onto describe how the state is a body of citizens and that each citizen is guaranteed the right to hold office to ensure that their rights are being secured. Governments need to be based off freedom and citizens because without them we wouldn’t have government and order would be lost. -AF
Purpose of Government
Posted 8/19/2017 at 7:25:07 AM by [anonymous visitor]
There are so many sayings and concepts in everyday life reflecting the belief that community creates prosperity. For instance: two heads are better than one, safety in numbers, and the buddy system. This idea of coming together for security is why government is necessary for humanity. In the words of Locke, government and community is needed for “mutual preservation” and protection of property. This trend can even be seen in the homeless community today, where Mr. Freitas founded “Camp Runamuck” due to his long “search for shelter”. At the camp, the citizens all agree to a “compact,” in exchange for a community with family dinners, access to clothing, and even a hair dresser. While Locke wrote in a more general sense, Camp Runamuck is a concrete example of how the need for safety and stability turns into a need for government. It is also important, however, that this government is based on the principle that the power comes from the people. Locke, for instance, writes about the importance of the “consent of the people”, and Aristotle describes how citizens must be involved and have a role in government. This principle of Locke and Aristotle can be seen in the homeless government, where when the people questioned the chief’s legitimacy, he stepped down. While the chief was later voted back into office by the community, the fact that the people are able to chose and reevaluate their leader shows how the power of the government is truly derived from the people.
Purpose of Government
Posted 8/19/2017 at 7:25:00 AM by [anonymous visitor]
There are so many sayings and concepts in everyday life reflecting the belief that community creates prosperity. For instance: two heads are better than one, safety in numbers, and the buddy system. This idea of coming together for security is why government is necessary for humanity. In the words of Locke, government and community is needed for “mutual preservation” and protection of property. This trend can even be seen in the homeless community today, where Mr. Freitas founded “Camp Runamuck” due to his long “search for shelter”. At the camp, the citizens all agree to a “compact,” in exchange for a community with family dinners, access to clothing, and even a hair dresser. While Locke wrote in a more general sense, Camp Runamuck is a concrete example of how the need for safety and stability turns into a need for government. It is also important, however, that this government is based on the principle that the power comes from the people. Locke, for instance, writes about the importance of the “consent of the people”, and Aristotle describes how citizens must be involved and have a role in government. This principle of Locke and Aristotle can be seen in the homeless government, where when the people questioned the chief’s legitimacy, he stepped down. While the chief was later voted back into office by the community, the fact that the people are able to chose and reevaluate their leader shows how the power of the government is truly derived from the people. -MZ
Purpose of Government
Posted 8/19/2017 at 7:24:53 AM by [anonymous visitor]
Government is necessary to ensure order in a society. Without set rules there would be chaos because there would be no repercussions for any actions. People would feel free to hurt others in order to get what they want. When someone’s property is violated, the victim could punish the offender too harshly because there are no set punishments either. Government should be based on the will of the people. The only purpose of government is to protect the people, so when politicians worry about personal gain and interest and use logrolling tactics, it brings the government away from its original purpose. Direct democracies are best if there is a small population of citizens, like in ancient Greece, but only if the citizens are educated enough to understand policies and the effects of their decisions. Politicians should be easily and quickly removed and replaced if their performance does not satisfy the people, and the same goes for the system of government as a whole. The main qualities that an effective government needs are equality, trust, and protection. -AR
Purpose of Government
Posted 8/19/2017 at 7:24:45 AM by [anonymous visitor]
There is a necessity for government because chaos and anarchy would rise without one. It helps to maintain peace and order within a group of people so they can work together towards the same goal of security. People need to follow laws, in exchange for the protection of their life, liberty, and possessions. The unruliness of the homeless community in Living in Tents, and by the Rules, Under a Bridge was solved by establishing a compact or agreement that everyone in the community would obey to avoid conflict. With these laws in place, people will not harm each other because they know they will be punished for any violations. In Founding Amateurs, the author states how the French Revolution resulted in lots of violence because they weren’t used to any self-government. However, this wasn’t the case for the American Revolution because the Founding Fathers had already experienced and practiced self-government before breaking away from the British. Governments should be based off the principles of the social contract: the people have to obey laws and they will get safety and protection in return. If there is any violation of the social contract, then the people have the right to overthrow the government and form a new one. This idea was addressed in John Locke’s The Second Treatise of Civil Government and was the basis of the Declaration of Independence. -KN
Purpose of Government
Posted 8/18/2017 at 7:25:48 AM by [anonymous visitor]
If there were no such thing as government, then there would simply be anarchy. People would live without safety, for there would be no set laws on what to do and what not to do. Government is important, because with it, there is control among people. With government, there is a say in what people can or cannot do. Government should be based off of reasons in which people can be and stay happy. There should be leaders to lead people and have them follow set rules; almost as if giving them a purpose in life. People can make up governments by helping others, not just simply by BEING apart of the government, but by following the set of laws and becoming a doctor, police officer, firefighter, or even a fast food employee; they all help people and make the government work. With the government, there is order among the ranks of people, and equality should be placed. -AG
1 - Purpose of Government
Posted 8/17/2017 at 6:54:23 AM by [anonymous visitor]
This is a test. This is a test of the BLOG system. If this were a real response it would have information pertaining to the prompt. -RP
Post A Reply
© Copyright2017. Mayfield City Schools. All Rights Reserved. Non Discrimination Policy School CMS Created by eSchoolView
View text-based website