Final Exam part 2 definition of a well-informed 21st century US Citizen

Way back in February when this project began I talked about what I thought was a definition of a well-informed 21st century US citizen. I talked a lot about technology, I mean as recent as two or three decades ago internet innovations as we know it, personal computers, hand-held apple products like ipods, ipads, other products like androids and black berries really didn't exist. Today we enjoy the benefits of all those products, so the world is at our fingertips.....literally. Newsprint and other paper products are going down in popularity, as a century ago they were at a much higher rate, and now with all the newstainment and other slightly biased, comical programs can give a skewed vision on our government and the issues, and what is truly going on. Essentially, now after a semester of government class I would actually say quite the opposite. I believe that people that rely on the abundance of products we enjoy today completely are not informed at all. With all the websites, the talk shows, the advertisements, how do we know what is real anymore? The well-informed 21st century citizen needs to go out and figure things out for themselves rather than relying on what people are saying. Things like getting out into the community, attending rallies, visiting the political parties headquarters or whatever, researching on their own different political parties, PACs, or common issues information, see whether or not these people are reliable. If you hear about an issue on the news and see who is reporting, could that have something to do with it? If you are watching.....i don't know.....let's say you're watching Family Guy, and it breaks to commercials and an advertisement for the government race comes on, a well-informed citizen knows better than to believe everything that's said because it's coming from a biased, opposing party. That's when why get out there and listen to the speeches, research what exactly is going on, what each candidate stands for, not abusing the powers we have.


It's been an immense pleasure to have taken this course, it has completely changed how I view our government, it has changed on how I approach an opinion. This class was just what I needed to get me ready for tackling the urban setting of Philadelphia in a large university. In one semester I am now able to start making educated decisions about what I believe rather than relying on how I was raised, what everybody else is doing etc, and begin viewing politics in a different, more personal way. Thank you!!

Final Exam part 1

“Mommy I want to be president, because he gets to do whatever he wants….”, “if you elect me president, I’ll give you whatever you want, whenever you want.” We have all probably heard these from kids we know today if either in a school election, or just in general. If you went into a classroom of third graders today and asked them “what do you want to be when you grow up” I would bet that many of them would say president of the United States. But why would a youngster today care about political ideas like social issues, economic plans, and foreign affairs? They probably don’t. Rather the glamour of the chief position carries over the responsibilities, and I feel that many American’s don’t realize quite what the president really does, how much is resting on his shoulders, but also what areas he is not absolutely powerful, where he is under the authority of other figures. What does job of the president really entail and how does this differ from other forms of government?

First let’s talk about the chief positions our president has. When Barack Obama was inaugurated on January 20, 2009, he took a lot more titles than just Mister President. Essentially, Mr. Obama became the CEO of the nation, the Chief of State, the Chief Executive leader of the Executive branch, the Chief Diplomat, the Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces, the Chief Legislator with Congress, the Chief of his respective party, in this case Democratic, and the Chief Leader of the economy.  That’s more chiefs than the Shoshoni Indian tribe! But how on earth does one person take on so many positions? Wouldn’t simply one of those be enough to drive a person mad? Well that is what the president’s job entails. The president is responsible for leading the federal government in national affairs, especially economic because that seems to be the largest area of concern. In addition, the president is the commander-in-chief of the military, serving as the fearless leader, also foreign affairs and world traveling is a large portion of the job description, and the list goes on and on. Let’s break this down into a typical American family. Let’s say you are the parent of a family with eight children. That’s a lot of kids! You have to lay down the law, along with your spouse. We’ll make your spouse congress. You can’t do anything without the approval of your significant other; you have to pretty much agree. You can veto anything but something tells me your spouse wouldn’t be happy about that! You have eight children and you have to balance your family’s budget, you have to lay down the law, and now let’s make this a step further; let’s say your nerdy, dorky neighbor accidentally backed into and knocked over your garbage can……before the garbage truck came…….and it was FULL! So everything from your youngest child’s dirty diapers to the rotten lasagna from last Tuesday spilling out into your front yard! Yikes! But this isn’t the first time he’s done something like this and worse yet….he called your wife FAT at the Memorial Day barbecue! That’s it, it’s time to go to war! You saddle up your family and it’s go time! However, right before you decide to TP his big oak tree or something, you realize that you have to be the bigger man here. You walk over and make amends, just like the president and other political leaders try to do in the Middle East. Just managing your own family is a full-time job, it’s a no wonder 4 presidents died in office and over a dozen had other stress-related problems (not including the 4 that were assassinated.)

Well the president certainly has a lot of responsibility; however he is not the absolute power. The president does not have the power to declare war like many people believe, that is for congress. Also the president does not have the power to make a law. If a congressperson writes a bill the president does have the ability to approve or veto it, but Congress essentially has the final say because they can vote on it again and if two-thirds majority approve, they can basically veto the president’s veto. The president is not immune to impeachment either. In fact, two presidents have been truly impeached, Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton. The president has to be 35 years old, have lived in the United States in a permanent residency for 14 consecutive years, and be a natural-born citizen. However, the president is still a human being, he or she is still a regular American who grew up and lived like you and me, and had the same dream of success and importance we all share. Every president had leisure activities they enjoyed do de-stress from all of their duties; in fact each president today receives $19,000 in an entertainment fund for their pleasure. For example, George W. Bush loved to watch Sunday Night Football with his family on the White House big screen TV while munching on pretzels, Bill Clinton enjoyed running, President Eisenhower enjoyed golfing so much he had a putting green installed outside the oval office so he could practice during breaks, and Ronald Regan and his family enjoyed a quiet dinner with his family and friends while watching a movie rather than those elaborate balls and banquets. Each president has their preference, and was at one point a regular US citizen. They weren’t born into royalty, they earned their position by election and democracy. Presidents like Bill Clinton and Ronald Regan especially showed their humanity and connection to the people. Often we perceive the president as this absolute, powerful deity when he is simply a regular guy who has a big job.

But how does the role of the president differ from that of a British Monarch, a dictator, how is the position unique? In Great Britain their primary form of government is a monarch that is crowned based on the royal line and the heir to the throne, and then appoints the Prime Minister. Obviously in a dictatorship, seen in a generally communist or fascist region is a single absolute power who assumes the throne, often with violence as seen with Stalin and Hitler. Let’s break it down for a second. The president serves as the executive leader in the economic, military, social, and diplomatic issues as well as maintaining the highest possible level of morale otherwise as we saw in our own state, the people may take action. He or she cannot potentially set off too many people otherwise the job is in jeopardy and no matter how the issues would have potentially helped the nation, they may not be carried out anyway. Obviously on a state level this would be easier to maneuver than on a federal level, but the principle remains the same. Now monarchies because of their impact on the heir, the family genealogy, the people do not elect, nor do they really have power to eliminated unless like Marie Antoinette and King Louis XIV when the guillotine is used. Two very different kinds of government one by the people of the people and for the people, the other enforced upon, all essentially are trying to accomplish the same goal, which his unity, social and economic prosperity and a productive government.

Ok, let’s back up a second and re-evaluate. Today we enjoy a free, democratic, people-voiced government. Abraham Lincoln himself said “the government of the people, by the people, and for the people shall not perish from the earth,” one of my favorite quotes in existence from who I believe is to be our truly greatest president. Abraham Lincoln was assassinated in 1865 shortly after the end of the American Civil War, but on those grounds of Gettysburg he gave that powerful statement, not long before he died. The fact that this occurred less than a century after we won our independence from Great Britain, is I believe historically significant. We can enjoy a government of the people, by the people, and for the people, while other countries struggle each day from a ruthless dictator, or have to abide by a monarch they didn’t elect, that was crowned by their genealogical history. The point is, we take for granted way too much the democracy we have. The fact that we can elect by popular vote (usually) who we want in office, is one of the key foundations that make this country great. The president doesn’t have absolute power as we see, but the point I’m trying to make is that the president was at one point a regular person, wasn’t a monarch, wasn’t born into the family. The president is a citizen of the USA most importantly, because he or she represents this government that Lincoln dictated, is representative of we, Americans.

United States Government Final Exam Question

What is the true role of the president, and do you believe this is overplayed or underplayed by the media today? How is the role similar and different from the monarchy governmental system of britain or a dictatorship in other regions?

How much is too much?

How much is too much? How far is too far? Do the current Federal Financing Laws create a more capitalistic government? Have they crossed the line? I believe the answer is yes, plain and simple. First of all, money plays too large of a role in politics I believe. Even though Mitt Romney and Barack Obama certainly don't their $1.3 Billion or however much out of their own pocket, but you certainly have no change to run if you are even middle class or lower, probably even in the "rich" category. Let's say there's a guy living on a corn farm somewhere in Kansas, happy as can be, but he's smart, he has great ideas to run this country, he has great ideas for the nation, because of his corn business he can balance a budget, he has the qualifications. Just one problem, he's poor. He lives in a small farm house and makes $30,000 a year but he's content because he has his family, his farm, and the great outdoors. Ok, let's say that an agricultural PAC or something like that thinks "gee, this guy is really smart, he's organized, he does what he says he will, he has great ideas, I want to support him." Even with the maximum amount they may ask for it still won't him in the door. Secondly, why should there be a limit? If people or a company desire to give more money, why should that stop them? One may argue that would be unfair, but hey it's already unfair! An Finally, I don't necessarily think it's a bad thing that we are going to a more capitalistic government, that I'm perfectly fine with, but the intentions made about the financing laws I believe may have worked better 100 or even 50 years ago, when economy was different. Now days economy is all over the chart, money is everything. I believe that money essentially equals speech. Taking away that option is essentially taking away their voice, their speech. If a company wishes to vocalize their idea but are limited, that is a hindering their first amendment in a way I believe. Money is huge, perhaps too huge, and unfortunately in politics, it often is the deciding factor.

Media

After the watching the Election Night media coverage and the Newstainment media coverage, what are the differences between the two? (Consider purpose, delivery and intended outcome)




Ok, I love a good debate as much as the next guy, but even I know that debate equals opinion, which equals NON-concrete evidence and arguments. While watching the Election Night media coverage from 1960 with JFK vs. Richard Nixon all the way to the Obama McCain of 2008, I noticed that generally the facts, statistics, and projections based on those facts and statistics were dominant throughout the entire program. Typically you had two people sitting and chatting with interviews with other reporters or reliable sources. Generally speaking, they talked about the background of the candidates, the votes, where the votes were coming from, the statistics, the objective results. Most of what they said on Election night was fact or projection based on fact. While watching Bill O'Relly, the Ed show and programs like that, I saw lots of debate, lots of opinion, very little actual fact. It was mostly the ideas and conceptions and opinions of several people all shouting at each other to get their idea across, often delivered in a more comical way rather than dry and monotone like a lot of the Election night announcers. Newstainment reporters tend to be charismatic, energetic, very dramatic and their purpose I believe isn't to relay the facts, but to show their spins on the issues and how the candidates are presenting those issues.

Running with Romney

I believe that the most important traits Romney should look for are whether the candidate will enhance his status in the eye of the public, whether he or she will appeal to young people, the future of America, and as much as I absolutely hate to admit, I truly believe that the attractiveness of the person adds as well. Romney does not seem like a very charismatic person especially compared to Barack Obama so I truly believe that he should look for someone who can get the people excited and bring some charm to the election in his favor, also the young people, the future, those that may be their first time voting, or the first time in the job force, the backbone of America’s future, I believe he should consider greatly because these are people that are most likely going to be affected directly, and finally America is a very vain country, they go a lot by visual, and I hate to admit it but I have always felt that American goes by the sight too much, even while deciding a position of office.

After closely reviewing all of the potential candidates, I honestly feel that the best option for Romney, is the young, 40-year old Florida Senator Marco Rubio. Here you have a young, energetic, intelligent, highly respected young man. He appeals to the ultra-conservative Tea Party voters and the Latinos as well. Romney instantly has a rock-star kind of Vice President, you have a well-loved guy, he will add pizazz to the campaign, the kind that I don’t believe that Romney will ever have, and plus he will appeal to the Latino culture and the young people which I feel will help his campaign very much. On the flip side, I’m not saying he is a bad choice at all, I just don’t think he’s the right one, and that’s Bob McDonnell. Romney already has issues with his “gender gap” and with the apparent “ultrasound issue” that McDonnell, the Virgina governor dealt with, would probably already take Romney out of the women’s favor, which is about half of the voters right there. He doesn’t seem to add to Romney’s character, and I don’t believe that he will compliment Romney’s campaign well at all.

Bob McDonnell: http://www.bobmcdonnell.com/

Marco Rubio: http://www.rubio.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/biography

Electoral College

Today, Electoral College I believe is actually set up rather well. I believe that it is set up in a way that the larger states get more say because they have more people. If it was set up like the US Senate, then that wouldn't be fair. Also, It is run by the majority, just a majority, not two-thirds, or three-fourths or something. And lastly, Electoral College is educated representatives that understand politics and what is going on rather than people from the local districts that are pulled at random like a jury duty. However, I also believe that there could be even more accurate and true representations. In addition, it appears that only the very wealthy, the top 1% have even a shot at the presidency. What if there was the next Abraham Lincoln or better sitting in a corn field in Medicine Hat, North Dakota or halfway to Timbuktu living a comfortable but simplistic rural lifestyle, but he has better ideas, he knows business because of his crops, and relations because of his excellent customer service? What about people like that? Should we really shun even middle class people from running because of costs? This is how I believe we should elect the president.

I believe the election should be like the stock market. Here is how it works, anybody that wants to be president stands on the market, there could be hundreds of thousands even. They post all their ideas on a website and people can search based on what they want to know. Social issues, Health Care, foreign affairs, industry, environmental concerns, and have their biography with education, experience, religion, etc. Each profile stands on the market. People then click "like" or "dislike" as if it was a youtube video. (They can vote as many as they want) At the end of the voting period, they take all the people and take their likes and subtract their dislikes and that becomes their score. Campaigning is not allowed except for what they put on their profile. People don't pay extra to get their names higher on the list, it is all in a database and people can scroll through and search by any category they like. The person at the end of the voting period with the highest score is our new president, assuming he meets all the legal responsibilities. I believe that this is better because literally every person's vote counts but they also can say whom they dislike, also it gives opportunities for everyone to run if they choose and everyone has equal opportunities, and there are more options, if there are only two options then you many not like either but feel obligated to vote for someone. This method is cheap, you can do it from the comforts of your own home, people may argue that not everyone has a computer, true, but not everyone has a way to get to a voting booth, and there are no lines, and if you are impartial, you just don't say anything. But this way you can speak out if you dislike someone also rather than just like.