Category: American politics

United States politics are shaped by the countrys constitution. The constitution identifies the president as the leader of the country. The other pertinent arms of the government include the Judiciary and the Congress. The US government structure is quite unique from other government structures around the world.

The political party structure of the United States is an example of an area that is different from that of other countries around the world. The US utilizes a two-dominant party structure with all the other parties being referred to as third parties. Other democracies also use this third-party element in their political structure. Nevertheless, there are major differences between third parties of the US and those of other democracies around the world.

Commonly, third parties in the US have less power as compared to third parties in other world democracies. Third parties feature in several democracies around the world including Canada and the United Kingdom. A third party is basically a party that comes after the two most dominant parties. Sometimes a third party might refer to the third oldest party in a certain country.

Some countries assign the term third parties to all other political parties that exist concurrently with the two major political parties. On the other hand, some countries have only one dominant third party such as the Conservative Party of Scotland. Third parties are rarely successful because they usually lack some of the advantages that are accorded to the two major parties. Around the world, third parties have relatively less powers as compared to the main political parties.

The main difference between parties in the US and other democracies is the constitutional limitations that apply to US third parties. These constitutional-hindrances were designed by the framers of the constitution to ensure that the dominance of the two major parties was sustained. Under the US constitution, elections are conducted under the single-member-plurality system.

This system makes it hard for any emerging party to win any major seat because citizens usually doubt the survival of upcoming parties. Other democracies in the world usually provide upcoming parties with the same platform as the dominant parties. The US constitution also makes it hard for third parties to survive because of the Electoral College System. This means that even if a third party garners the popular vote, it will still have to appeal to the Electoral College that is usually dominated by the major parties.

Most democracies around the world only rely on the popular vote. Therefore, third parties only have to appeal to a single unit in order to be successful. The other difference between third parties in the US and other parts of the world is that the US usually excludes third parties from participation in presidential debates. Since 1960, only candidates from the two major political parties have had a chance to participate in a national debate.

The Supreme Court has upheld this system in several occasions. In other democracies such as the UK, third parties get a chance to participate in national presidential debates. In addition, third parties in the US have to meet stringent measures for them to have ballot access. Most times, third parties only manage to gain ballot access in a few states. Other democracies around the world rarely have strict ballot access requirements for third parties.

The most striking difference between third parties in the US and those in other countries is that there is no marginal or proportional representation of political parties in the US. The US political system is a winner-take-all system that disregards the efforts of third parties. When third parties in other democracies perform well in an election, they are usually rewarded with a few nomination slots in their houses of representation.

FECA

The Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA) is a law that was formulated in 1971 to facilitate regulation of campaign contributions. FECA only concentrates on federal elections and campaigns.

The law was amended in 1974 to include the formation of Federal Electoral Commission (FEC) and the regulation of campaign finances. The FEC works as an independent body whose role is to facilitate disclosure of campaign contributions and ensure all the regulations stipulated by FECA are followed. FECA also mandates FEC with overseeing the public funding of federal elections.

The first public figure to agitate for the formation of a law that governs campaign financing was Theodore Roosevelt. Roosevelts calls were followed by a series of legislations that were aimed at controlling the nature of federal campaign contributions. The main purpose of these legislations was to limit the dominance of the rich in federal elections, regulate campaign spending, and limit abuse of campaign contributions. All these concerns are addressed by FECA.

Apart from the 1974 amendment, FECA has been amended two more times. It was amended in 1976 as a result of the Supreme Court ruling in the matter of Buckley v. Valeo. In addition, a 1979 amendment allowed parties to spend as much money as possible when promoting voter registration. This law divided campaign finances into soft and hard money. The hard money is used in voter registration drives while soft money is viewed as a means of influencing federal elections.

Voting Patterns in the United States

Voting patterns in the United States are influenced by several internal and external factors. However, current statistics indicate that there are repetitive patterns that apply to US voting. For instance, the voter turnout in the US has been relatively low as compared to that of other democracies around the world. The issue of demographics also features in different election statistics. The Republican and Democratic Parties receive support from different portions of the population.

The first aspect of voting patterns in the US is voter turnout. Most elections in the US have registered relatively low turnouts. For instance, some elections like the 1996 and 1994 elections have recorded a turnout of less than 50%. The rate of voter turnout is usually unpredictable.

The election that followed the enactment of the 19^th amendment was expected to have a high turnout but that was not the case. It took a long time for the effects of this declaration to be realized. High voter turnouts are usually influenced by a single factor such as the Kennedy factor that resulted in a 62.8% turnout in 1960.

The 26^th amendment allowed youth as young as 18 years to vote. However, the voter turnout rate of this demographic has been below 50% in average since this amendment was passed. Most youth feel like outsiders in the US political system and they are not motivated to take part in national elections.

Voting in this country is dominated by the white, educated, middle class, and upper class voters. This dominance is mostly influenced by these demographics vested interests in the countrys political policies. The presence of hot issues in an election has been thought to influence large voter turnouts. However, the 2000 election that featured no foregone conclusions indicated no major changes in the voter turnout.

The US government has been designed to have three branches of power that have separate but related capabilities in terms of maintaining the country running. The governments Executive Branch is governed by the President of the United States who should implement and enforce the laws developed by Congress. The President is also responsible for appointing heads of federal agencies, including the Cabinet, for ensuring the execution of the legislation. The Legislative Branch is governed by the Congress, which is divided into the Senate and the House of Representatives, each of which is made up of members that have been elected from each state. Despite the fact that the structure of the Congress was widely debated, the intention behind its development was associated with the need to ensure that each state had a say in making federal decisions. The Judicial Branch is represented by the Supreme Court of the United States and includes nine members, each of whom is assigned by the President with approval from the Senate, which has to provide a majority vote.

It is imperative to understand that each participant of the US government can affect the changes in decisions made by other branches. For example, the President can veto the laws that are being passed by Congress. The latter, in turn, can confirm and reject the appointments made the President as well as remove the elected President from office in the case of exceptional circumstances. The Supreme Court Justices are also capable of overturning unconstitutional laws passed by Congress. Therefore, the interactions between the branches of the American government represent the framework on which the country was developed.

The structure of the government in the Russian Federation differs from the framework developed in the United States. The executive branch of the country represents the set of the most authoritative officials, the President of Russia, who is the Head of the State and the Prime Minister, who is the Head of Government. The executives have complete authority over overseeing administrative affairs in the country and are also responsible for law enforcement as per the constitution of Russia. The Legislative Assembly of the Russian Federation is the legislative body of the government and is made up of two divisions, both of which are located in the countrys capital, Moscow. The State Duma is the Federal Assemblys lower house that considers all proposals and bills and includes 450 members. The Federal Council id the upper house of the Assembly and has 168 members-senators. The main political party in the country is United Russia, while the communist party is the key opposition to the ruling party.

It is also important to mention the role of the Constitutional Court of Russia, which is responsible for solving any issues that may take place between the executive and legislative branches. The Court is made up of nineteen judges who are assigned by the countrys President, which means that he has a certain degree of influence over the judges. Noting the transformation from the Russian government from the Soviet era is also essential because in the past, the Communist Party ruled the country and was all-powerful, dominating all parts of human life. Today, Russia is a democracy, with the leader of the country being selected by its without pressure.

As a democracy, the United States government promotes the participation of citizens into the politics of the country. The right of the population to engage in decision-making and ensuring that governments implement those las that would be interesting and beneficial to people is an important principle of a representative government (Engagement in a democracy, 2019). Thus, the aim of voting and other forms of civic engagement is ensuring that the government serves people and not vice versa. The vote of informed citizens is expected to benefit the internal affairs of a country in which democracy is promoted and celebrated. Being informed is a fundamental way in which citizens can engage in governmental affairs, which means that people should make themselves familiar with the most important issues confronting their country as well as plans different political players have when dealing with the problems identified.

Voting, however, represents the main way in which citizens engage in political affairs. From members of city councils to Congressmen, important governmental players are chosen by popular vote. Despite the fact that the US President is not selected by popular vote, the decisions of the Electoral College are primarily based on how the general public has voted. Low rates of turnout on elections are therefore essential, and the lack of knowledge of the need to participate in elections represents the critical limitation of poor engagement in American politics. Citizens who are interested in participating in the political matters of the United States will inform themselves on the latest matters and will be dedicated to showing up at recent elections. In the latest Presidential election, 58.1% of voting-eligible citizens turned out based on the findings of the United States Election Project (2018).

In Russia, civic engagement and education represent a part of public politics. The modern society of the country is facing a challenge of determining what type of citizen is suitable for sustaining the political development of Russia. Because the country has a history of the totalitarian rule as well as the dominance of the Communist party, there was a tendency of citizens obeying the opinions and demands of ruling bodies. Today, the engagement of Russians into the political affairs of the population is characterized by the rising self-esteem of citizens and the increase of personal responsibility and autonomy. The increasing interest in the recent political issues in shown predominantly by young people, both by well-educated ones as well as individuals with high levels of material security. Social networking plays a vital role in increasing civic engagement in Russia because of its convenience and the ability to connect with citizens residing in distant parts of the country.

It is noteworthy that 26% of Russians believe that their participation in public and political life would not change anything while 31% of surveyed individuals cannot explain the reasons for them being politically passive (Civic engagement in Russia, 2017). Also, 43% of respondents mentioned that they have never participated in public activities and would not participate in the future. Being a post-Communist country, it is imperative for the population to be more active in educating themselves as well as turning out to vote (Civic engagement in Russia, 2017). According to the latest reports, the turnout at the latest Presidential elections was unprecedented; however, there are some doubt regarding the accuracy of governmental estimations because population surveys showed a significant extent of disinterest (Hille, Foy, & Seddon, 2018).

When comparing American and Russian politics, it essential to mention that the US is a constitutional federal republic while Russia is a semi-presidential federation (Central Intelligence Agency, n.d.). The Prime Minister governs the executive branch of the Russia while in the United States, it is led by the President and Vice President. While both countries promote the pluralist theory of government, democracy, there are some vital differences in the political frameworks of the states (Who governs? Elitism, pluralism, and tradeoffs, 2019). Given the fact that Russia had had the same President for full four terms and has had his authority for the most extended period of time (not including the term serving as Prime Minister when Dmitry Medvedev was the President between 2008 and 2012), Russia can be considered predominantly authoritarian. In addition, the President has gained intense support from rich businesspeople, thus promoting the oligarchical rule. According to Martins (2018) article, Russias democracy can be characterized as managed or fake, especially given the considerable pressure that the government put on the press and private businesses (para. 4).

While the leaders of the United States can also be accused of actions pertaining to the control of the population and the media, which is inherent to oligarchy, the country has more characteristics of a democracy compared to Russia. Because of a unique distribution of power between Legislative, Executive, and Judicial branches that interact and affect the decisions made by each other, the United States can maintain a degree of fairness and transparency that Russia has not been able to reach yet.

References

Central Intelligence Agency. (n.d.). Central Asia: Russia. Web.

Civic engagement in Russia. (2017). Web.

Engagement in a democracy. (2019). Web.

Hille, K., Foy, H., & Seddon, M. (2018). Russian election officials report high voter turnout.Financial Times. Web.

Martin, M. (2018). Is Russia a democracy?Web.

United States Election Project. (2018). 2016 November general election turnout rates.Web.

Who governs? Elitism, pluralism, and tradeoffs.(2019). Web.

Introduction

When watching the debate, it seems to be one between two strong candidates and three others who fade into the background due to being relatively unknown and the fact that they cannot directly compete with Clinton and Sanders when it comes to sheer public popularity. For instance, in this fracas of different opinions comes Jim Webb, who is a pretty surprising candidate due to the fact that he is even there in the first place. He is a relative unknown among the different candidates and it is unlikely that he will drum up sufficient support from the democratic party to gain even a sliver of a chance for candidacy.

Domination by Sanders and Clinton

This debate, and the likely representatives for the Democratic Party, are Hilary Clinton and Bernie Sanders, both of which have considerable support. One of the reasons behind this is due to the fact that their opponents dont seem to take into consideration the implementation of relevant policies that are at the heart of many contested issues among the American public. For instance, candidate Martin OMalley explained that he was the only candidate on stage that had plans to implement a cleaner electric grid for the country by the year 2050. He even mentioned that he would be making it his first priority should he assume office.

The main issue with this sort of proposition is the fact renewable energy technology is still in its infancy and is lacking in sufficient reliability (ex: no sun and no wind equates to no power). When taking into consideration the fact that less than 10 percent of the power generated in the U.S. comes from clean energy sources, it is unlikely that this plan can come to fruition by 2100 let alone 2050. On the other end of the spectrum is another candidate that you cannot help but scratch your head and wonder why he is there in the first place. Lincoln Chafee had the shortest speaking time at roughly 9 minutes and was barely able to make any points across regarding implementing the necessary changes to help safeguard the economy and territory of the U.S. from external threat.

Same Goal, Different Methodologies

The two true opponents in the debate (i.e. Sanders and Clinton) had opposing issues when it comes to both gun control, economic policy and foreign policy directives. In the case of Clinton, her experiences as Secretary of State definitely shows through as evidenced by her stance of having America have a greater role in international affairs as opposed to that of Sanders who advocated for a more reserved approach. On the other hand, one common theme that can be seen in the case of Clinton and Sanders is that they do agree on a vast majority of points regarding the need for changes to be implemented; however, they disagree on the methods in which such changes are to be brought about.

For instance, in the case of 2008 financial crisis and its subsequent impact on the American people, Sanders advocated for greater levels of separation between investment and commercial banks via the re-implementation of the Glass-Steagall Act while Clinton advocated more on implementing more fees for overly large banks, breaking them up into smaller enterprises and addressing issues related to unregulated banking. What these policies show is that while Sanders and Clinton both believe in the need for particular changes to occur, the way in which either candidate will accomplish this would be far different.

George W. Bush was an avid patriot and demonstrated an aggressive stance after the September 11th terrorist attacks, pledging to find those responsible. It began a significant shift in US foreign policy which would define its path for more than a decade. The ideology of patriotism and national defense was prevalent in the US society, offering support for Bush and the Republican leadership.

After the attacks, Bush obtained a UN resolution and founded an alliance of major countries in the world in support of an attack on the Taliban in Afghanistan. After military assaults by Britain and the US, the Taliban-led government collapsed and a gruesome guerilla war began in combination with a civil war in Afghanistan. Meanwhile, the US abandoned its dedication to the Geneva Convention and began to use torture on captured terrorists in the attempt to find actionable intelligence on Bin Laden.

As the war in Afghanistan went on, Bush sought to expand the national policy to include his doctrine of preemption which sought to identify other countries that were supporting terrorist groups that targeted the United States. This national security strategy was utilized to justify the invasion of Iraq, which the Bush administration believed was developing weapons of mass destruction along with strongly supporting terrorist organizations such as the Taliban and Al-Qaeda (Moss and Thomas 2012, 324).

The preemptive policy adopted by George Bush significantly redefined US foreign policy as pushed the first-strike doctrine as a mechanism to both deterrence of terrorist attacks and elimination of US enemies.

Bush believed the US had the right to get involved in places such as the Middle East if it felt necessary that its direct national security interests could be protected abroad. This is based on actionable intelligence of threats, both direct and indirect against the US. The US began to be perceived as militaristic throughout the world. With this doctrine, came drastic changes in both internal and external security apparatus (Stanton 173). It is also important that this national security approach affected American politics and way of life as extreme oversight was criticized in later years.

George W. Bushs view of Americas place in the world was unprecedented. It is referred to as Cowboy Liberalism, a foreign policy that is based on ideological beliefs and gut instinct. There are also elements of unilateral nationalism and universalism in his approach, as he focused on competition and held an almost certain belief that he was correct (Genovese 2016). His description of Iraq, Iran, and North Korea as the Axis of Evil was naively simplistic and failed to represent the complexity of global politics.

Bibliography

Genovese, Michael A. 2016. The Gulf: The Bush Presidencies and the Middle East. President Studies Quarterly 46, no. 2: 480-481.

McCarty, Nolan. 2014. What We Know and Dont Know About Our Polarized Politics. The Washington Post. Web.

Moss, George D., and Evan A. Thomas. 2012. Moving on: The American People Since 1945 (5th ed.). London: Pearson.

Stanton, Martin N. 2016. Cant Anybody Here Play This Game? Americas Post-Cold War Leadership and the Bush Doctrine After 9/11. In The Bush Leadership, the Power of Ideas, and the War on Terror, edited by David B. Mcdonald, Dirk Nabers, and Robert G. Patman, 173-192. London: Routledge.

American politics, especially their early version, are linked to the philosophies pioneered in England. Before the establishment of the United States as an independent republic, its movement leaders pondered the ideas of liberty and civil rights. However, the law was not transparent enough for ordinary people to understand  it did not have a structure or a logical flow. This trend changed after William Blackstone, a British lawyer, published one of his most famous works, Commentaries on the Laws of England. This collection of comments and discussions highlighted the role of the citizen in the country and greatly influenced the formation of the American ideas of the common law.

In his Commentaries, Blackstone outlined four sets of rights for persons, things, private wrongs, and public wrongs. The books were innovative in that they systematized and explained the basis of common law, which made the idea of ones rights understandable to the reader without a law degree. Published in 1765-1769, the Commentaries reached America by the 1770s, several years before the establishment of the US.

Apart from being easy to read, the texts also contained ideas that aligned with Americans arising philosophy of liberty. Blackstone wrote that political or civil liberty is the very end and scope of the constitution, which one can see in the founding documents of the US. For example, the Declaration of Independence states that such rights as Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness are unalienable. At the same time, the Constitution posits that the goal of the people of the US is to secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity. Thus, one can see the influence that Blackstone had on the Founding Fathers, providing a template on which they could establish the new countrys common law.

Tocquevilles writing, Democracy in America, supports Blackstones position about peoples rights. Tocqueville considers people within a social system, putting peoples actions in circumstances and laws that surround them. This is a practice that is central to the common law described by Blackstone. Thus, in the US, the position of equality, based on the Commentaries foundation of liberty, leads to a particular set of laws that people have to uphold in democracy. Notably, both authors connect their understanding of democracy to the will of God, returning to the philosophy of revealed law.

Thus, Americas philosophy is firmly rooted in the idea that people exist under the law and the rights that were given to them by God. The same idea is present in the Bible: All who sin apart from the law will also perish apart from the law, and all who sin under the law will be judged by the law. The first documents of the US describe peoples rights as given to them by Nature and Natures God. The connection between law and scripture is direct in all legal works represented in this paper.

Overall, one cannot overstate the influence of Blackstones Commentaries on the Laws of England on the formation of American political philosophy. The lawyer made the principles of common law accessible to all, providing a succinct description of most existing legal issues. Moreover, Blackstone put the person in the role of a citizen who was guided by Gods law and was granted freedoms that should be entrenched in the countrys documents. In particular, the right to liberty was ascribed to each person, serving as a foundation for the central belief described in the American Declaration of Independence.

Bibliography

Darsie, Heather R. Our English Legal Forebearers and Their Contributions to the Practice of Law and American Jurisprudence: Sir Thomas More, Sir Edward Coke, and Sir William Blackstone. Northern Illinois University Law Review 40 (2019): 227-237.

Declaration of Independence: A Transcription. National Archives. Web.

Jolly, Richard Lorren. Expanding the Search for Americas Missing Jury. Michigan Law Review 116 (2017): 925-943.

Miles, Albert S., David L. Dagley, and Christina H. Yau. Blackstone and His American Legacy. Australia & New Zealand Journal of Law & Education 5 (2000): 46-59.

Strauss, Leo, and Joseph Cropsey, eds. History of Political Philosophy. 3^rd ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1987. PDF e-book.

The Constitution of the United States: A Transcription. National Archives. Web.

The idea of natural law is one of the oldest law systems that exist in the world. While its roots go back to Ancient Greece and Rome, natural law has remained a part of modern history. [1] In particular, the rise of Christianity contributed to the evolution of natural and revealed law and their influence on civil society. [2] Some scholars argue that, under the influence of Christian philosophers, natural law at least partially shaped the major pillars of American political philosophy, which can be seen in such documents as the Declaration of Independence and Constitution.

To analyze the role of natural and revealed law in American political thought, one must understand these law systems main concepts. Natural law postures that people possess a set of intrinsic values that form according to human nature. [3] Therefore, by interacting with one another, people eventually determine particular human rights that they wish to uphold. Christian philosophers expand on this idea and argue that people are unable to form such natural laws perfectly due to the consequences of the Fall. [4] Revealed law, guidance from God delivered through scripture, complements peoples nature and strengthens their understanding of the law. [5]

The Ten Commandments is an example of revealed law; they have such statements as You shall not murder, You shall not commit adultery, and You shall not steal.[6] Thomas Aquinas, a Christian philosopher, wrote that more than all other animals man is a political and social being.[7] Thus, civil society is a natural progression of ones inclination given by nature, and natural and revealed law are what allow one to exist with other humans in peace and prosperity.

At the same time, civil law is a type of human-made law that is not intrinsic but can be changed and revoked. It is a contract that ensures that the person lives for the good of the city, while the city supplies that person with resources that one human cannot obtain on their own. [8] While civil laws are not explicitly based on natural laws, many official documents make assumptions about what is inherent to human nature, thus finding connections to natural (or revealed) law.

In the Declaration of Independence of the United States, one may read, [all men] are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.[9] The natural right to live and let live is undisputed by civil law, which upholds the idea that God has guided people not to infringe on others fundamental rights. At the same time, the Amendments to the US Constitution give people rights to free speech, and ensure that one will not be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.[10] Here, one can see the same idea that peoples lives, property, and certain freedoms are sacred  a belief that mirrors the original Ten Commandments. [11]

One can see that civil law is intertwined with the idea that people, regardless of what the legal process may be, are entitled to some indisputable rights that have roots in natural and revealed law. In the case of the Declaration of Independence, the link to the revealed law is transparent. Although other documents do not mention natural law or Christian philosophy, they value the same principles that were explored by Aquinas and other Christian philosophers. Thus, American Political Philosophy heavily relies on the ideas of natural and revealed law, assuming that people have certain rights that cannot be challenged but must be enforced by civil law.

1. Benjamin Fletcher Wright, Jr., American Interpretations of Natural Law: A Study in the History of Political Thought (New York: Routledge, 2017), 157.
2. Justin Buckley Dyer, Reason, Revelation, and the Law of Nature in James Wilsons Lectures on Law, American Political Thought 9, no. 2 (2020): 265.
3. Thomas G. West, The Political Theory of the American Founding: Natural Rights, Public Policy, and the Moral Conditions of Freedom (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2017), 37.
4. Dyer, 278.
5. Russell Kirk, Natural Law and the Constitution of the United States, Notre Dame Law Review 69, no. 5 (1993): 1036.
6. Ex. 20:13-15, NIV.
7. Leo Strauss and Joseph Cropsey, eds. History of Political Philosophy, 3rd ed. (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1987), chap. 10, Kindle.
8. Strauss and Cropsey, chap. 10.
9. Declaration of Independence: A Transcription, National Archives, 2020.
10. The Constitution of the United States: A Transcription, National Archives, 2020.
11. Philip A. Hamburger, Natural Rights, Natural Law, and American Constitutions, Yale Law Journal 102 (1993): 910.

Bibliography

Declaration of Independence: A Transcription.National Archives. 2020.

Dyer, Justin Buckley. Reason, Revelation, and the Law of Nature in James Wilsons Lectures on Law. American Political Thought 9, no. 2 (2020): 264-284.

Hamburger, Philip A. Natural Rights, Natural Law, and American Constitutions. Yale Law Journal 102 (1993): 907-960.

Kirk, Russell. Natural Law and the Constitution of the United States. Notre Dame Law Review 69, no. 5 (1993): 1035-1048.

Strauss, Leo, and Joseph Cropsey, eds. History of Political Philosophy. 3^rd ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1987. Kindle.

The Constitution of the United States: A Transcription.National Archives. 2020.

West, Thomas G. The Political Theory of the American Founding: Natural Rights, Public Policy, and the Moral Conditions of Freedom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2017.

Wright, Benjamin Fletcher, Jr. American Interpretations of Natural Law: A Study in the History of Political Thought. New York: Routledge, 2017.

Accountability and transparency are important phenomena for every American politician, and the President is no exception. That is why significant attention is devoted to Bidens 2023 State of the Union address. This speech is informative and valuable for people to understand what the Biden administration has achieved and what plans it has for the future. Joe Biden comments on issues that are central to American domestic and international contexts. In particular, the President advocates for bipartisan cooperation and democracy, acknowledges the lowest unemployment rate and emerging jobs, and explains the importance of American supply chains (Washington Post, 2023). Biden additionally focuses on taxation, medical costs, high suicide rates, inflation, and other fundamental phenomena that directly influence Americans (Washington Post, 2023). In the speech, he expresses hope that all politicians will unite their efforts to make life in the USA better.

Joe Bidens speech has a few notable strengths and weaknesses. On the one hand, advantages refer to the content because the President delivered important information. It is good that Biden highlighted the achievements of his administration, which included the lowest unemployment rate in history and efforts to minimize the consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic and the Ukrainian crisis (Washington Post, 2023). Simultaneously, Biden commented on establishing fair taxation and economic safety in the United States (Washington Post, 2023). On the other hand, weaknesses refer to how the President presented his speech. He stammered, made minor mistakes, and kept speaking while the audience applauded (Washington Post, 2023). All these issues resulted in the fact that listeners should have made some effort to catch Bidens point.

Irrespective of the identified inefficiencies, I believe that the speech is valuable and informative. Today, the United States is facing many internal and external issues, and the President should be sufficiently confident and knowledgeable to explain how the nation withstands and overcomes them. I think that Joe Biden coped with this task because he covered the important issues and demonstrated that the US could succeed in fighting against all the possible challenges.

In his speech, Biden additionally highlighted the targets that his administration wants to achieve in the upcoming year. Firstly, the President offered to ban assault weapons to reduce the spread of mass shootings (Washington Post, 2023). Secondly, Biden admitted the problem of illegal immigration and its consequences. That is why he emphasized the importance of securing the US southern border and providing border officers with better equipment (Washington Post, 2023). Thirdly, Biden respects human rights and promises to ensure that every person will have the right to have an abortion (Washington Post, 2023). This information demonstrates that the President wants to make the US better and safer for Americans.

It is possible to convey the main message of the speech through a single quote. Biden said: Democracy must not be a partisan issue; it is an American issue (Washington Post, 2023). This idea is central in Bidens speech because the President highlights the importance of bipartisan cooperation. Since various problems affect the United States, politicians should join their efforts to cope with all possible difficulties.

In conclusion, Joe Bidens State of the Union address is powerful and valuable. The President commented on topical issues that affected the domestic and international politics of the United States. Even though Bidens speech included a few weaknesses, the President highlighted his administrations achievements and explained its future plans. That is why it is possible to consider the speech an informative summary of the American political sphere.

Reference

Washington Post. (2023). Bidens 2023 State of the Union address  2/7 (full live stream) [Video]. YouTube. Web.

An interest group is characterized as a collective of people with common concerns who strive to promote the interests of its members in the government. Examples of such groups include labor unions, professional associations, and the representatives of the business community. It is a widely known fact that the interests of non-governmental members have a significant influence on American politics. The current paper reckons that interest group politics should be regulated and describes some reasons for this opinion.

Thinking about the consequences of unregulated factions politics, the first idea that comes to mind is that the weaker groups will always be outsiders that are unable to promote their interests. According to Cigler et al., pressure groups naturally evolve in democratic regimes, and it is expected that individuals unite for the sake of the promotion of their interests (2). Still, political equality is one of the principles of a democratic regime. This principle implies the impossibility of disparity among the citizens. Nevertheless, in my opinion, the absence of regulation in interest group politics leads to the discrimination of the minority. Wealthy organized interests possess more resources that could be used to lobby their concerns in the government. Therefore, the minority groups become deprived of a chance to be treated in the same manner as bigger ones. This point of view could be proven by Cigler et al., who claim that the control over organized interests helps to elaborate on the system of checks and balances (4). Consequently, this reduces the power of a single strong group.

It is essential to note that in American politics, there already exist some regulations on factions activities. For instance, the state government proscribes such actions as gifting lawmakers and receiving compensations for voting in a manner that a group wants. These regulations signify that the government realizes the value of limitations of interest groups in the process of taking policy decisions. Regulations are aimed at the promotion of transparency in lobbying activity. From my point of view, it is necessary to be sure that the promotion of the interests of some faction is honest and happens behind locked doors. This, in turn, helps to increase the responsiveness of politicians to the public and minimizes the possibility of corruption. At the same time, one could claim that regulations violate the freedom of interest organizations actions. Nevertheless, I assume that these limitations are an imprescriptible part of an efficient policymaking process.

Finally, I do believe that the government should make decisions thinking, foremost, of the interests of the citizens, not any interest group. This assumption drives the contradiction because these groups are comprised of individuals, concerns of which the government should take into consideration. However, politics could not be entirely based on the attempt to please only a particular union. I suppose that policymakers should make decisions depending on the outcomes of the whole community.

In conclusion, I would like to emphasize that interest group politics should be restricted. The major reasons for governmental regulation lie in the governments obligation not to be corrupted and to be concerned with the interests of all unions and citizens in the same manner. The existing regulations are non-violent and leave significant space for factions to influence politics. In addition, rules and restrictions are essential because they discipline and equate the competing interest groups.

Work Cited

Cigler, Allan, et al. Interest group politics. 9^th ed., CQ Press, 2015.

Introduction

Americans are proud of their country and they believe the political system of the USA is almost perfect. Of course, there are some controversies, but it is possible to note that the political system of the country does work. The country manages to address some of the most serious issues concerning equality, religion and freedom. More so, many people think that political culture of the USA is also almost perfect as it unites Americans. It is necessary to take a closer look at the most controversial issues like religion and minoritys rights to consider whether political system of the country is that perfect and whether the US political culture does unite Americans.

Minorities Rights

The affirmative action has been seen as one of the most controversial laws in the country. This law is aimed at defending rights of minority groups. This law is especially associated with people of colour. In terms of this law, some employers are forced to have certain quotas for minority groups. Higher educational establishments often have such quotas.

On one hand, the law is very democratic and positive as minority groups can obtain equal rights with the so-called alpha people (Sander, 2004). On the other hand, many argue that affirmative action is still unfair as people pertaining to minority groups are often evaluated in terms of their underprivileged status rather than in terms of their qualifications and skills. In other words, people argue that existing quotas add inequality and tension between different groups. Some groups of people feel neglected due to their race or gender.

Notably, the Supreme Court makes quite controversial decisions in connection with the affirmative action. Thus, Sander (2004, p. 390) notes that the two cases Grutter v. Bollinger and Gratz v. Bollinger suggest that racial preferences were permissible under some circumstances but not others. In the first case, the Supreme Court agreed that the university could have quotas to ensure representation of all groups of students which positively affected diversity within the US educational system.

In the other case, the Supreme Court agreed that the university had the right policy concerning racial equality, i.e. students race was not even taken into account as only their skills and ratings counted. Therefore, even the Supreme Court made quite controversial decisions which can be an illustration of the fact that affirmative action is still quite controversial.

Religion

Religion is another controversial issue in the US society. Thus, the First Amendment ensures freedom of religious expression. The free exercise clause ensures peoples freedom to practice any religion. The establishment clause ensures that the state will not pose any standards concerning religious practice and will not establish a state religion. These two clauses protect peoples freedom in different ways as people can be sure that the state will not make them practice a particular religion. On the contrary, people can practice any religion.

However, some controversies surrounding the two clauses have become transparent. Thus, Weaver and Lively (2009) mention the case of Employment Division, Department of Human Resources of Oregon v. Smith which can be an illustration of the controversy concerning the free exercise clause. Thus, the court considered that the use of drugs during certain ceremonies should be prohibited. Thus, the wall between the church and the state proved to be rather transparent. Basically, the state interfered in the religious practices.

However, on second thought, it is possible to note that the wall between the church and the state is still untouched. Even though the state may impose some laws and rules, it is the right of a person to decide whether he/she can live in the community where certain practices are prohibited. Thus, the individual can choose to leave the place where some religious practices are prohibited. Of course, the state will not ban just any practice as the state only prohibits practices involving drugs use, violence, abuse, etc.

Political Culture

Admittedly, there are still some controversies concerning religion and equality. However, there is something that still unites Americans even in their disagreement. Thus, political culture is what unites Americans. A political culture is a patterned and sustained way of thinking about how political and economic life ought to be carried out (Wilson et al., 2012, p. 80). Americans believe that democracy is the most rightful path to follow. They also tend to use common sense when addressing various problems (Wilson, 2012).

Therefore, the entire judicial system of the USA is based on the use of common sense. Americans tend to use experience of previous generations. References to legal cases can be regarded as examples of such trend. More so, the cases mentioned above can also be regarded as illustrations of the use of common sense.

As for the democratic orientation, the cases concerning equality mentioned above can be regarded as examples of the trend. Thus, Americans strive for equality and equal opportunities for all citizens. Thus even though there are some controversies, the major ideas are shared by all stakeholders involved.

Conclusion

It is necessary to note that the political system of the United States is really sophisticated and can be regarded as almost perfect. There are various controversies concerning such serious issues as religion or equality. However, the US political culture unites Americans even in their disagreement. Americans share the same ideals which can help them the right decision to address the most serious issues.

Reference List

Sander, R.H. (2004). A systemic analysis of affirmative action in American law schools. Stanford Law review, 57, 367-483.

Weaver, R.L. & Lively, D.E. (2009). Understanding the First Amendment. New York, NY: Lexisnexis.

Wilson, J.Q., Diiulio, J.J. & Bose, M. (2012). American government: Institutions and policies. Boston, MA: Cengage Learning.

The effects of racial discrimination and the resulting segregation echoed in every area in the late 19^th and early 20^th century, causing the debate concerning the need for integrated schools to become rather polarizing even within the African American community. Whereas the concept of integrated education supported extensively by W.E.B. Du Bois was prevalent, the approach developed by Booker T. Washington also represented several valid points such as the necessity for a strong, self-directed effort in learning as the basis for gaining a platform in the community (Aiello, 2016). Despite the fact that the concept of integrated learning remains the only valid approach toward an inclusive and non-discriminatory environment, the plight of both philosophers could be understood given their background and the struggles that they faced.

Indeed, Washingtons perspective on education, as well as the area of education on which he focused, namely, an industrial one, suggested the development of practical skills geared toward gaining competence in farming and different types of manual labor. The described approach to learning stemmed directly from Washingtons background, particularly, his childhood experience as the son of an African American mother, who was a slave at the time (Aiello, 2016). In turn, Du Bois, who was born to a family of African American landowners and had the opportunity to graduate from Atlanta University, understandably insisted on the importance of higher education.

Thus, even though the present-day interpretation of social justice allows viewing integrated education and the acceptance of diversity as the only possible solution, the ideas that Washington proposed were justified by the sociocultural background in which he was born and raised, as well as the atmosphere of hostility, hatred, and ostracism by which African American people were surrounded (Aiello, 2016). Furthermore, Washingtons focus on industrial education as opposed to Du Bois emphasis on higher education restricted the opportunities of African American people to advance within the U.S. community, which could be explained by the restrictions that Washington himself faced as he grew up in the 19^th-century U.S.

Reference

Aiello, T. (2016). The battle for the souls of Black Folk: WEB Du Bois, Booker T. Washington, and the debate that shaped the course of civil rights. ABC-CLIO.