Kennedy’s Address to the Greater Houston Ministerial Association
Kennedy’s speech primarily addresses the American cove values that should not be related to person’s religious beliefs. At the very beginning of the speech, the future Presidents states that the state and religion should be absolutely separated from each other because being Catholic, Protestant, or Baptist is each individual’s own business.
In this respect, Kennedy’s emphasizes that the President will never rely on church while introducing political, social, and cultural reforms to the United Stated. At the same, Kennedy’s assures that his religious judgment will never affect his attitude to people from diverse religious group because he focuses primarily on the idea of human equality and religious tolerance of the highest priority.
To underscore this position, the future Presidents highlights the controversial issues of people’s judgment who believe that religion can have an impact on government because he was the first Catholic president. However, his notice about people’s negligence of other Presidents’ religious beliefs showed that personal perceptions do not influence the objectivity of their policies.
To make the speech more persuasive, Kennedy refers to the idea of religious groups should not be connected to political and economic affairs in the country because religious diversity is more associated with personal beliefs. The candidate manages to explain that the U.S. Constitution does not uphold any religious oaths and, therefore, it is the President’s obligation to adhere to democratic and equality principles.
Presenting his objective and transparent views on the American social structure, Kennedy effectively expands on the concept of freedom, liberty, and loyalty to people, rather than to church. At the end, Kennedy addresses American people and makes them judge his actions rather his personal religious position.
Analysis of Introductions and Conclusions of Speeches
Introducing a specific topic should attract readers and provide them with the reason for listening to the speech up to the end. Therefore, the opening part of a speech plays an essential role. In this respect, most speech start either with a concrete story, or a provoking thesis that is unknown and intriguing and that generates more questions than answers.
Several speeches have been analyzed – Barack Obama’s Campaign Policy Speech on Iraq, Movie speech presented by Russell Crow in Beautiful Mind, and Abraham Lincoln’s speech on Second Inaugural Address. All the spokespersons applied to different strategies for attracting the audience. Hence, Obama’s speech starts his address to the audiences by referring to the historical facts and comparing those with present situation.
In such a manner, the President manages to establish credibility and review the main thesis of a narration (Obama n. p.). John Nash in Beautiful Mind starts his speech with asking a tricking questions which captures the audience and makes them focus on further narration. Finally, Abraham Lincoln hooks the listeners with a controversial and even negatively colored issue (n. p.). All these techniques are effective for gaining attention.
Similar to the opening parts of the narration, the concluding parts have also presented a logical continuation of the main idea. Hence, Obama makes use of a thematic frame and ends his speech with disclosing historical facts that have been mentioned at the beginning. John Nash provides an extensive answer to the question that he posed in the opening part (n. p.). Finally, Abraham Lincoln refers to similar sentence structure to bring in a concluding idea.
Language Choice and Its Contribution to the Effectiveness of Speech
Language reflects cultural and social context of a particular country and, therefore, the effectiveness of the speech heavily depends on this aspect. Specific attention is paid to the connotative meaning of words rendering the main idea of a narration. While reviewing the text of the speech delivered by Margaret Chase Smith, many stylistic and rhetoric devices can be noticed.
At this point, speaker refers to a number of metaphors like “national suicide”, “word of bitterness”, “congressional immunity”, as well as peculiar stylistic devices, such as anaphora presented in the following passage: “I speak as a Republican. I speak as a woman. I speak as a Untied States Senator. I speak as an American” (Smith 1).
The presented devices are used to intensify the main idea and highlight the seriousness of the described problem. Hence, Smith focuses on the national problem and reveals her discontent by introducing short repetitive sentence. In such a manner, her speech implies a calling for the American to take resolute actions.
Aside from stylistic and lexical devices, the spokesperson makes use of short paragraphs by transferring from idea to another. The approach allows to keep the audience focused on the main idea. Different viewpoints, as well as fluctuation in stylistic also captures the attention and interest.
Interestingly, mostly all adjectives and nouns presented in the speech are negatively colored, which also imposes a specific tone and idea. For instance, one can come across such words as “unworthy”, “restraint”, “frustration, “irresponsible”, “harm”, “selfish”, etc (Smith 2). Once again, the lexical meaning enhances the main argument of the speech.
Works Cited
A Beautiful Mind. John Nash: 1994 Noble Prize in Economic Sciences Acceptance Address. American Rhetoric. 2002. Web.
United States’ politics are shaped by the country’s 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. Roosevelt’s 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 19th 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 26th 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 country’s 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.
Elizabeth Warren is one of the most discussed figures in American politics, and she has been in the middle of public attention for a long time. The story of her life and political career provides a number of vivid examples of achievement and is interesting to study. Elizabeth Warren’s work in the office and the attention she has drawn to the problems of the American middle class and unprotected groups of society has made a substantial influence on public opinion.
Elizabeth Warren was born on June 22, 1949, and raised with three elder brothers. In her teens Warren became interested in debating and joined a debate team, and soon after that, she won the state high school championship and a debate scholarship at George Washington University. Elizabeth studied at University of Huston and got a degree in audiology and speech pathology in 1970, which made her the first member of the family who graduated from college (Freedman, 2017). Then Warren moved to New Jersey where she started to work with disabled children in public schools. Elizabeth attended a law school, and in 1976 she earned a JD at Rutgers University, after which Warren started her practice and became especially interested in bankruptcies.
Practice and studies of jurisprudence determined Elisabeth’s future political career. Warren started investigating the economic challenges of American society and was specifically focused on challenges of the middle class. When she studied the problem of high rates of bankruptcies, Warren discovered that the middle class is the most vulnerable in the face of this problem and the majority of bankrupt people come from this part of society. The reason for that, as Elizabeth suggested, was the fact that middle-class people were not protected. The persons who had lost their job suffered from an illness or encountered some form of financial hardship, were very likely to fall victim to bankruptcy (Freedman, 2017). Warren dedicated the following decades of her life to working with this issue and especially studied the impact the problem of bankruptcies had on low-income individuals, women, and the elderly.
Advocating for better bankruptcy laws, Warren moved around the country and worked at different universities of the United States. Later on, she was asked to become the chief advisor at the National Bankruptcy Review Commission, took the position and worked there protecting the interests of the middle class and working people (Mayhead, 2018). In 2010 Barack Obama appointed Elizabeth Special Advisor to the Secretary of the Treasury and Assistant to the President. The following year Warren dissuaded to run for office in Senate and started her campaign, during which she became involved in the discussion over her claims for Native American ancestry (Freedman, 2017). Despite this controversy, in 2012 Elizabeth Warren won the elections and became a senator from the state of Massachusetts. It made her the first female candidate who took this position (Freedman, 2017). During her years in Senate, she continued her work over better legislation regarding bankruptcy and protection of working people and the middle class. Warren has been using the internet and social media as a tool to draw public attention to these issues.
Thus, the main contribution Elizabeth Warren has made during her political career is the attention she has drawn to the problems of vulnerable citizens and the middle class. During her work in different government agencies and Senate Warren made efforts to improve legislation regarding these problems and thereby alleviate the problem. Studying her life and career provides a great example of how a person can use his or her talent and energy to make a difference.
References
Freedman, J. (2017). Elizabeth Warren: Democratic Senator from Massachusetts. Cavendish Square Publishing, LLC.
Mayhead, M. (2018). Giving the people ‘a fighting chance’: The discourse and ideology of senator Elizabeth Warren. Journal of Academic Perspectives Volume, (3), 1.
Whether to elect or appoint judges has had lengthy and disorderly history. The issue of judges being selected is because they have the ability as jurists and not just because of their political affiliations. They are given the power to infer statutes, evaluate administrative decisions, and pronounce legislative and executive actions unlawful. The fact that judges make decisions on issues of great importance to the public, therefore, means those publics have some control over the judiciary by voting for judges (Michael).
There are two basic methods used in the selection of judges which are election and appointment. In the elective method, the judicial either nominate a candidate who is supposed to run for with a party identification or a judicial candidate can be generally nominated by an independent primary and runs in the election without a party label. This will ensure that the public has a voice in the lawmaking process and that members of racial and ethnic minority groups have a chance to become judges. For an appointment, the responsibility rests on the governor, the legislature, or a judicial nominating committee. For one to be appointed Professional competence is required and the judicial advisory committees are responsible for assessing the qualifications of the lawyers to be appointed (Lawrence 94).
For the judicial review to be effective independence is important and is maintained mainly by life tenure which states that the federal judges should hold their positions during good behavior. They should only be removed from office only by prosecution and conviction of treason, bribery, or other high crimes. They receive no special training apart from their graduate program from law school and are respected for their learning, experience, and impartiality (Lawrence 98).
Appointed judges have life tenure and are less exposed to political pressure thus making them superior to elected judges who are elected for short terms. Appointed judges also write higher quality opinions than elected judges who are not less independent but because they write more opinions their quality is compromised by the quantity. On the other hand, elected judges are more attentive to the provision of services to the people thus they behave more like politicians, and appointed judges are more attentive to their long-term heritage thus behaving like professionals.
The elected judiciary leads to an out-of-control judicial system and unfair results while in the appointment the public has no power in the process which makes them not to be transparent because it does not allow for discussion and thus the judges are not scrutinized by the public. Judiciary is reactive and must wait for the cases to come before them and it cannot initiate lawsuits which acts as a coolant on provocative issues making it possible to make rational decisions (Clyde 27).
Appointing judges is good because it gives the president the responsibility of appointing the national judges and justices and requires that nominations be confirmed by the Senate unlike in electing where the idea behind electing the judges is that voters are able to choose good judges who reflect their ideals better than the elected officials.
The appointment is the best method of selection as it makes sure that judges maintain their independence and it makes them not submit themselves to the approval of the public. This is based on the argument that the public are unqualified and do not have the necessary background to know what qualities make a good judge.
In appointment, the President relies on sources such as the Department of Justice, the Bureau of Investigation, members of Congress, sitting judges, and justices to recommend suitable nominees for judicial posts. Also, the senator from the state in which the position of a judge occurs makes the decision and sends a nomination to the President who almost always follows the recommendation (Michael).
The president must consider some factors in making choices for federal judgeships such as experience where the nominee must have had substantial judicial or legislative experience either on the state or federal level. They should have the same political ideologies as the President which can be either liberal or conservative depending on the President’s position.
Because federal judges high court justices serve even long after a president’s term of office ends it should therefore be his or her most important heritage as these choices have an impact on future generations.
The advantage of appointing is that higher quality judges who have greater independence are selected since their qualifications are reviewed comprehensively by a panel whose members have the necessary knowledge of evaluation of characteristics of a good judge.
The chances are that lawyers with excellent judicial expertise are likely to seek the office through the nomination process than through the election process (Michael).
It will ensure that Lawyers will not spend most of their time asking for political support to obtain the judicial nomination, political influence will be minimized and the judiciary will be saved from the stress of going to look for the support of the party.
The appointive method results in the selection of better judges as it avoids the inappropriate aspects of the involvement of the candidates in contested elections.
Works Cited
Michael J. Brodhead, David J. Brewer: The Life of a Supreme Court Justice, 1837-1910.
Lawrence H. Larsen, Federal Justice in Western Missouri: The Judges, the Cases, The Times 93-112 (Mo. Press 1994).
Clyde Edward Jacobs, Law Writers and the Courts; The Influence of Thomas M. Cooley, Christopher G. Tiedeman, and John F. Dillon upon American Constitutional Law (Cal. Press 1954) 23-45.
Michael J. Brodhead, David J. Brewer: The Life of a Supreme Court Justice, 1837-1910 (So. Ill. Press 1994) 145-167.
History of the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota 11 (West 1989) 2-19.
Since the creation of the American constitution, religion has been a part of American politics. In the few years after the constitution was created, many tried to keep it out of politics but without any success. One can say, therefore, that religion has always been part of politics in America since it’s founding. The importance of religion in American politics has always been controversial and has elicited a lot of debate.
Lambert (Lambert, 2008) demonstrated the relationship that has been there between politics and religion since the founding of the nation until the 21st century. Religion has shaped American politics in different ways and influenced how people have made political decisions. It has reached a point wherein politics; religious agenda is always combined with nonreligious agendas. During major elections in America, many people’s decision on who to vote for is guided by the religion of the contestants. There are others though a whose decision on who to vote for is not determined by faith. Religion has influenced many political decisions regarding issues like stem cell research, abortion, the Iraq war, and abortion. Religion has also influenced political views on immigration, and equality.
A demonstration of the importance of religion on politics in America is the fact that in elections for the posts of senate or congress, evangelicals have had a substantial role. The impact of religion is reflected by the increase in evangelicals who are elected to congress. The shift in the power held by different religions has shifted; the conservative religions have grown in power while the liberal has weakened.
The religion with the most influence on American politics is protestant, followed by catholic then other religions come behind. This is because this is the decreasing order in terms of size in America. In terms of importance, religion has more influence on politics than states. American politics is deeply interwoven with religion; it is what formed the foundation for the creation of the country. Its importance is seen in how it shapes the political identity and values. It is the most determinant factor in the American voters for the decision they make while voting and the party they support. A politician’s views on different issues that are pertinent in the country, for example, gay marriages, will determine whether religious people vote for him or her (Stephen, 2009).
The importance of religion in American politics has been evident in the current presidential campaigns. This shows that it has always been a major factor in politics even though issues raised by politicians and tactics used have changed. An example is seen in the elections of 2004 where evangelicals are said to have contributed to forty percent of President Bush’s total votes. Politicians have always used religion to rally huge support for themselves or discredit their opponents.
This has been a tactic that has been employed time and time again by politicians. An example is in 1928 and 1960 where Al Smith and John Kennedy respectively had to deal with the existing anxiety among voters about their religions. A lot of debate has been raised over the current president’s religion; this shows how heavily religion influences peoples’ opinions and how they will vote. Politicians recognize the role that it plays in politics and their campaign trails usually raise issues that are deemed sensitive by various religious outfits.
Values that are expressed by different religious outfits are usually the main issues of debate among politicians and are what usually determine who will win the day. Religion has shaped the character of voters and politicians; it has influenced how the country responds to political events within and outside the country (Lambert, 2008).
Religion has influenced how Americans respond to political issues that arise at home, and how the government deals with political issues in other countries. It has shaped how the government deals with both domestic and foreign issues, those elected to different posts voice their opinions on different government agendas based on their faith. More and more Christians are being encouraged to participate in the election process and vote; this is done at the church where they go for services (Stephen, 2009).
Christians in America have always had firm stances about issues affecting the nation like immigration, poverty, abortion, gay marriages, and war. The stance that politicians take on these issues usually determines their political success or failure. They have come to understand the magnitude with which a choice they make to support or be against an issue has in determining who will be next to enter an office. Many have experienced political suicide by engaging in activities that are deemed immoral by different religions and have had to back out of elections or relinquish their seats. A thing like sexual promiscuity among married politicians or major public servants has led to them being reprimanded by the whole nation.
This eventually has led to them leaving the political arena in which they dwelled. As much as many’s voting decision is not influenced by religion, religion has clear evidence, which demonstrates the magnitude with which it affects American politics (Lambert, 2008).
References
Lambert, F. (2008). Religion in American politics a short history. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Stephen, B. (2009). Understanding American Politics. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
In more than one way, Canadian political culture resembles the European and North American political culture in that it emphasizes the freedom of religion, personal liberty, constitutional law, and regional autonomy (Alston et al.1997). These political concepts are not innate to Canada but stems in various degrees from the French civil law traditions, the British common law, the English civic traditions, and the North American aboriginal government. Just like in America, peace, order, and good governance are the objectified goals of the Canadian government. The Canadian political culture is characterized by a strong tradition of tolerance, compromise, and loyalty. There is no time in history where Canadian politics have undergone swift, revolutionary changes. Infact, the political landscape of Canada have slowly changed through the various stages, necessitated by the interested parties, the government of the day, and regional consultations (Cummins & Christopher, 2005).
Liberalism, a concept borrowed particularly from the United States has also been deeply entrenched in the Canadian political landscape. As demonstrated by the support for the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, individual rights have risen to the front position of legal and political importance for most Canadians. The Canadian political scene now allows for women rights, liberal attitudes towards homosexuality, a relatively free economy, and other egalitarian considerations. Nowadays, the Canadian political culture boasts of a great sense of collective responsibility as demonstrated by the general support of the universal care, foreign control, as well as gun control social programs (Gershenfeld, 2007)
However, as already mentioned, many of the concepts that the Canadians have internalized in the political culture are foreign, and many have been influenced by the United States (US) and its close proximity to Canada. Precisely put, the Canadian political landscape has been Americanized. This Americanization is perceived warmly by right-wing political heavyweights, while being carried with a lot of contempt by the left-wing political conduits. The left-wingers argue that Americanization has left Canadians with no image of their own as they are unable to separate themselves from the Americans. Infact, Canadian prime minister, bending to pressure from the perceived Americanization of Canada proposed a creation of a sub-ministerial cabinet position with the title of Canadian identity in January 2007 (Mattaine, 2008)
But what is Americanization? Plainly put, it is the process through which people and cultures are assimilated into the American culture. In respect to this paper, the Canadian political culture has been assimilated by the political landscape of their American neighbors. To many Canadians, this is uncomfortable as it makes many to view themselves as part of a larger American national family. Some political analysts believe that Canada’s close proximity to the US is causing many Canadians to acquire or conform to American political culture. The term political culture is used in this paper to refer to a sum of expectations, beliefs, and attitudes constituting particular orientations towards the Canadian society in general and Canadian politics in particular (Gershenfeld, 2007).
Background of Americanization of Canadian politics
To start with, it should be noted that the US and Canada are two nations with their own diverse cultures and heritages dating back to many years ago. But the two also share many similarities, thereby strengthening the bilateral relations of the two countries. In the course of history, some Canadian prime ministers such as Sir Robert Borden, Pierre Trudeau, John Diefenbaker, and Sir John Macdonald have struggled to reasonably distance the political culture of Canada from the United States to focus on its own self-sufficiency while preserving good relations (Mattaine, 2008). But others such Brian Mulroney, Louis St. Laurent, and Sir Wilfred Laurier have attempted to integrate Canadians and the Americans both at the political and economic levels so as to enlarge markets. The two lines of arguments have had their successes and drawbacks, with the Canadian people getting worried about too much integration while at the same time trying to avoid the straining of US-Canada relations (Heath & Vasquez, 2001).
Canada’s open immigration policy and its large geographic size have led to a tremendous diverse society, including a large set of immigrants and First Nations from the US, Asia, Europe, the Caribbean, as well the free blacks who arrived from the US before 1860. Its diversity can also be attributed to periods it was under the rule of the British and the French, and also on the two wars it has fought with the US – the war of 1812 and the American Revolution (Mattaine, 2008).
In modern times, Canada as a country is defined through its government policies, which are often thought to contain deeper cultural values. But no amount of denial by anyone can erase the fact that these historical linkages have contributed largely to the present day Americanization of Canadian political culture. According to a political philosopher by the name of Charles Blattberg, Canada today can only be conceived as political community containing many other communities within it. Not only does this political community include ethnic, religious, regional, civic, and civil associational communities, but it also includes national communities. Therefore, Canada is seen as a multi-national country, consisting of at least four nations within it: The US Canadians, the Aboriginal nations, The English Canada, and the Francophone Canadians (Gershenfeld, 2007).
The above formed the basis of Americanization of the Canadian political culture. Perhaps another fundamental background of Americanization comes from various Canadian political parties. There is a diverse range of reaction to the US amongst individual members of the political parties within the Canadian political setup. This has its basis in the early 20th Century when the Canadian conservatives depicted themselves as loyal to the empire and hostile to the hazardous American takeovers. This made them to decisively win the 1911 elections. But in World War II, Liberal William Mackenzie developed close relationship with the US under President Franklin D. Roosevelt. In 1957-63, John Diefenbaker, a Canadian conservative defiantly took an anti-American position in defense issues. The Vietnam War of the 1960s widened the political differences between the two neighbors, thereby making Pierre Trudeau to take political advantage by moving the Liberals to a more anti-American position (Mattaine, 2008)
This political machination of the 1960’s still commands a resounding influence in the political landscape of Canada in recent years. The left-wingers, particularly the New Democratic Party and the Liberal Party of Canada have tended to back a more distant relationship with the US, particularly when the conservatives are in office in Washington D.C. In their minds, they view Americanization as counterproductive to the interests and aspirations of the Canadian people.
The extent and Implications of Americanization on the Canadian political culture
There are those who argue that the concept of Americanization of Canada is just a construct of the mind that cannot be justified in whatever terms. But to others, this Americanization is real and disturbing as it is threatening to dilute the Canadian identity. In the political scene, the term Americanization is frequently used by officials of the Canadian political wing, including the New Democrats and the Liberals to refer to the policies that they don’t like. For example, the government came up with a two-tier or private healthcare but people not in favor with the system simply described it as an American-style healthcare in political circles. The two-tier health care is a system that guarantees public health care for citizens while allowing a private healthcare system to operate in parallel competition (Alston et al., 1997).
Many of the criticisms of Americanization of Canada’s political culture ostensibly arise due to a widely held belief that the US and its government, is essentially more conservative than Canada. The term ‘Americanize’ is therefore used as a campaign tool in Canada, and is used synonymously with the right-wing reform movements. Still, many Canadians believe that that the frequent use of the term ‘Americanization’ in the Canadian political discourse has nothing to do with the quality of life issues or the American politics but is rather used as a tool to frighten the Canadian constituents who portray part of their identity as Americans. To this school of thought, Americanization has no known negative consequences and it is only used as propaganda by the left-wing political parties to frighten the people that their interests and needs will never be taken care of when their country takes the path of Americanization. This is ostensibly done to win elections (Cummins & Christopher, 2005).
The Canadian rightist political groupings, essentially led by the Conservative Party and other right-wing interests groups such as the Fraser Institute have comprehensively denied that Americanization is happening in Canada. By contrast to the left-wing political orientations, they have tended to favor closer ties with the US in all fronts – political, social, and economical. The have been in the forefront in supporting some US political decisions such as the Kyoto Protocol , perceived to be unpopular among majority of other stakeholders. To the conservatives, developing closer ties with the American government is an inescapable reality and also good economically. Canada has been accused by the proponents of Americanization for “copying” the American federalist system that concentrate executive powers in the provinces. It has also been accused of aping republicanism, a concept that has its inherent roots in the US. The only difference is that Canada lacks the historic dedication to the concept of republicanism that has consistently dominated American political values (Gershenfeld, 2007).
Overall, both countries have a very similar system of social, cultural, and political values that are frequently been confused as Americanization. More or less, this concept of Americanization has also been brought forward by influential Canadian historians who sought to underscore a single climate of opinion which was anti-American and antidemocratic and entirely approved by the conservative values of the social and political elite. But it should be remembered that the US and Canada shared numerous similar political responsibilities and rights before the antidemocratic elites obstructed republicanism in Canada through the suppression of the revolts in 1837. Therefore, following some political orientations which are perceived to be American but which infact may have its roots in Canada should never be misconstrued to be Americanization (Alston et al., 1997).
There are very many similarities between the politics of the US and the politics of Canada that proponents of Americanization would want to use to stress their point. But it should not be lost on us that there exist many differences that give Canada enough ground to stand as a sovereign country regardless of the Americanization claims. For example, the US uses a congressional system while Canada makes use of a parliamentary system. In Canada, the head of government is the prime minister while in the US; the head of government is the president. These are some of the fundamental differences in the separation of powers (Alston et al., 1997).
Competing positions about Americanization
Many policy makers and politicians especially from the right-wing political orientations argue that there is nothing like Americanization of the Canadian political culture. They argue that what the leftists are calling ‘Americanization’ is only aimed at spurring greater economic growth in Canada as well as establishing closer ties that could mutually benefit the two countries. To them, there is nothing wrong in internalizing some beneficial American concepts as they have helped the country to move forward in achieving economic and political independence. For example, contrary to popular belief that the two-tier health system was basically an American concept, it has helped rejuvenate the health sector in Canada as patients can now have a choice visiting a public or a private doctor. To them, useful political concepts must not matter as to where they come from but should be internalized in Canada for the benefit of the constituents (Alston, 1997).
Another position is that all the reasons that contribute to Canadians feeling Americanized are at their best false. According to Peacock (2005), Canadian leaders may want the citizens to believe that they are different from the US citizens whereas they are not. Although the nationalists may like to instill a concept of cultural difference between the Americans and the Canadians, citizens of both countries still listens to the same music, the same television, enjoys the same sports, magazines, cuisine, and vacations at the same destinations. They all seek the same things in life. The concept of Americanization should never be tied with the idea of converting Canada’s welfare and healthcare systems from government-run to privately run. It should be understood that changing the systems is not meant to Americanize Canada but to make them more beneficial, efficient, and cost-effective to the Canadian people.
The evaluation of Americanization of Canadian political culture
In his retirement address, the premier of Saskatchewan, Mr. Roy Romanov expressed deep concerns about the future independence of Canada in the face of Americanization of politics. As he said, politics in America is all about money and this is what was replicated in Canada in the 2001 elections. Important issues and policies were shoved aside and newspaper front-pages were filled with trivial content and wild accusations. This, according to Romanov is the gist of Americanization that is threatening to tear up the political setup of the country. But a recently conducted research revealed that indeed most Canadians (68.5%) would like to be Americanized and associated with the US. These are two conflicting views of Americanization of the Canadian political culture (Mattaine, 2008).
But on a closer look, one would realize that some of the concepts that Canadian political leaders accuse the US of are inherently Canadian or they do need to be learnt from anyone for them to be performed. The use of money in political systems to get political support is not inherently American as it is used in other countries that are not in any way associated with America and are not in close proximity to the country. Also, the idea of changing Canada’s healthcare systems, political systems, as well as social welfare programs was done in the hope of benefiting the Canadian constituents rather than Americanizing Canada. In my own evaluation, I can say that both countries have very different views of the purpose, nature, and evaluation of their political institutions. Even in history, the English Canadians remained very loyal to the British crown and never developed an antagonistic view of government and its related institutions thereby developing a bundle of values that centered on elitism and collectivism. Social collectivism is still rampant in Canada today and is one of the reasons as to why some efficient government policies such as the policy on two-tier healthcare system are seen as Americanized. The Americans by contrast rejected the British rule and developed a more universal and egalitarian values, thereby bringing out the differences in perception. Therefore, it can be argued that Canada is a country of political counter-revolution while America is a country of political revolution (Heath & Vasquez, 2001).
Recommended solutions
In more than one way, Canadian political culture resembles the European and North American political culture in that it emphasizes the freedom of religion, personal liberty, constitutional law, and regional autonomy (Alston et al., 1997). These political concepts are not innate to Canada but stems in various degrees from the French civil law traditions, the British common law, the English civic traditions, and the North American aboriginal government. Just like in America, peace, order, and good governance are the objectified goals of the Canadian government. The Canadian political culture is characterized by a strong tradition of tolerance, compromise, and loyalty. There is no time in history where Canadian politics have undergone swift, revolutionary changes. Infact, the political landscape of Canada have slowly changed through the various stages necessitated by the interested parties, the government of the day, and regional consultations.
Many are the times when the US and Canada are depicted as having a marriage- like relationship in which the US plays the role of an arrogant world-conquering cowboy while Canada plays a more traditional role of a cautious housewife. But these are only perceptions as both the US and Canada have their own unique cultures and heritages that are centuries old. The two countries have many similarities which have gone a long way in helping to strengthen their relationships.
One of the solutions to this perceived threat of Americanization of the Canadian political culture is to come up with ways by which the Canadian independence and self-sufficiency is maintained and preserved at all costs. This can only be achieved by strengthening the already existing Canadian democratic institutions of constitutional law, personal liberty, regional autonomy, and religious freedom. These institutions, which are of utmost importance for any democratic country, need to be strengthened to appear inherently Canadian. The population also needs to be educated on the importance of these institutions to the identity of the Canadian people (Alston, 1995).
Thirdly, political leaders, mainly from the leftist wing should be dissuaded from associating some good political concepts to Americanization for political gain. The importance of the country and its people need to be looked into before any political considerations. On numerous occasions, many left-wing politicians have been caught live tarnishing some of the policies that can uplift the lives of the Canadian citizens as Americanized for political gains. This need not be the case. A good policy should be implemented for the sake of the nation regardless of whether it originated from America (Heath & Vasquez, 2001).
Fourth, it is high time that the government thinks of tightening immigration laws to siphon off some thought systems which may not necessarily be American but which may prove disturbing to the Canadian citizens. The immigration policy of Canada is very relaxed to date and this might encourage some negative cultural as well as political shift to take root. Canada must never be allowed to be subservient to negative political cultures of the US or from any other country in the world due to its relaxed immigration laws.
Conclusion
Resemblance of political cultures of Canada and the US should not in any way be confused or associated with Americanization. Good political concepts and ideas need to be internalized in Canadian political system no matter the fact that they may appear to be inherently American. As one scholar noted, Americans and Canadians are basically human beings with the same tastes and preferences. It should be the function of the Canadian authorities to develop mechanisms that will ensure that only important American political concepts are assimilated into their culture, while leaving concepts that may have negative implications such as voter buying (Alston et al., 1997).
It should be the function of Canadian leaders to educate their citizens on how the world is changing both economically, socially, and politically. As such, it may be difficult to still hold on the principle of collective responsibility that most Canadians takes pride in. They should understand that individualism, though inherently American cannot be wished away by any regime in the world today. It is here to stay and should never be seen in any way as Americanization.
References
Alston, J.P., Morris, T.M., Vedlitz, A. Comparing Canadian and American Values: New
Evidence from National Surveys.” American Review of Canadian Studies, vol. 26. (1997).
Cummins, T.G., and Christopher, G.W. US and its Americanization Strategies. London: Routledge. 2005
Gershenfeld, J.C. The implications of Americanizing the world: Canadian case study. IRC
Heath, R.L., Vasquez, G.M. The Canadian and US political Cultures: Similarities and differences. London: Routledge (2001)
Mattaini, M.A. (2008). “Political effects of Americanizing Canada.” Journal of Politics. vol. 17, (2008)
Omrad, J.E. (2003). American politics and its effects on neighbors (4th ed.). Prentice Hall. ISBN 0130941998
Ten years prior to George W. Bush was sworn into office as the US President, there was hardly a common position on matters related to foreign policy.
In other words, most of the officials who were later absorbed as part and parcel of president’s advisers had separate views on delicate and sensitive foreign issues should be handled.
According to Mazaar, the policy window that was opened immediately after George W. Bush got into office was a major step towards establishing strong foreign policy of the United States (12).
The author asserts that the new regime had a deep desire to establish its authority in foreign nations that were particularly defying international law and order. There was also need to enhance the state of global peace and co-existence due to the weakening relations between the East and the West.
The Post Cold War era was undergoing difficult times and therefore, the Bush administration wanted to create a new face through which the world would be a secure place.
One of the top agendas for the Bush government was to out Saddam Hussein from power. The Iraq president was deemed to be a real threat to US interest abroad and also to the world at large.
The US authorities under President George W. Bush claimed that Saddam Hussein was actively manufacturing chemical weapons that could be used any time to launch attacks to suspected hostile nations (Woodward, ‘Plan of Attack’ 26).
While the above foreign objectives were crucial in the working agenda of the Republican officials, it is imperative to mention that there had been plans to execute these agendas even ten years before George W. Bush came into power.
Mazaar is quite emphatic that the Defense Policy Guidance of 1992 mapped out the Iraq war in a broad manner (16). Therefore, the 2003 invasion of Saddam’s government was not anything new among the Republicans.
Before the invasion of Iraq, the military prowess and funding of the American army was probably given priority by the congress since such a choice would deliver the most desired consequences on the US foreign policy.
The 1992 war plan document was considered to be rather abstract in some sections because some details were not comprehensive. Nonetheless, it depicted the zeal for the Republican government under president George W. Bush to establish a strong military power over its international affairs.
It also demonstrated that the US government was ready to go an extra mile in securing its interests both locally and overseas (Woodward ‘Bush at War’ 32)
The United States stamped its authority by attacking Iraq in 2003. Mazaar observes that the notion behind removing Saddam from power was driven by the incessant call by the Republicans who were keen in ensuring the Iraqi regime was brought down (2).
President Saddam was considered to be a dictatorial leader especially in regards to complying to the wishes of the western powers (United States in particular). Some political scientists have argued that chemical weapons were used as mere scapegoat in order to invade Iraq.
Apparently, this argument has been substantiated by other scholars who assert that chemical weapons were not found at the armory manufacturing site in Iraq (Rycroft par.2).
In retrospect, it is pertinent to underscore the fact that nuclear arsenal was the key weapon that Saddam Hussein was closely associated with during the entire period of the 1st Gulf War.
It was believed that he was the major supplier of the most lethal chemical weapons that were used to stage combat against the allied forces of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO).
Saddam had demonstrated that he had aggressive regional ambitions as the Gulf War was progressing. This caught the attention of the western powers in seeking revenge.
Several key members of the US security were fully convinced that Saddam Hussein was indeed harboring weapons of mass destruction and that the main target was United States (Van belle 57).
In any case, the Gulf war factor paved way for bitter relations between Saddam’s government and that of President George W. Bush.
It is interesting to note that even though the US authorities vehemently pointed out the presence of WMDs in Iraq, they had no single evidence to support their claim.
Their only hurdle was to persuade the Congress in supporting the 2003 invasion. Perhaps, some abstract information provided about the presence of WMDs in Iraq was not very accurate as expected (Seib 44).
In the case of Libya, President Muammar Gaddafi was ousted from power by the western powers on the grounds that he had stalled the progress of democracy and human rights in that country (Rochefort and Roger 96).
Claims of corruption and lack of adherence to international standards were rife to an extent that the international community was compelled to seek urgent redress.
There are some who believe that the anti Gaddafi movement was spearheaded by the United States and its allies with the sole reason of ousting him from power in a similar way like Saddam (Taylor 381).
When the civil war expanded in Libya with government forces on one side and rebel forces on the other camp, the allied powers (United States and its cronies) took the centre stage.
Basically, Gaddafi was required to step down voluntarily from authority so that the country could get back on peace. Nonetheless, he was adamant to comply with the demands of his opponents. Unfortunately, he was finally overpowered and gunned down by the US forces.
This is quite similar to the case of Saddam Hussein who never surrendered until he was captured and eventually executed by the United States.
The United States government took the Libyan case as the responsibility to protect the civilian population who had been caught between two wrangling war camps (Morayef 29).
Samantha Powers has also been a keen advocator for human rights. She has spoken widely against acts of terror and genocide across the world. In particular, she at one time emphasized the urgent need to address the Darfur crisis that had lasted for some decades (Suskind 65).
On the same note, she was angered by the manner in which Israel was adamant to end the gruesome conflict with Palestinians. She noted that thousands of lives were being lost every year because Israel was not ready to give peace a chance.
In summing up, it is also crucial to mention that the current crises in most of the Arab world are being approached by the western powers in the same manner.
For instance, the US government has managed to send troops to Egypt in a bid to avert civil crisis that may arise out of the political turmoil. The conflict in Syria is yet to be taken head-on by the western powers because a common agreement has not been reached.
Works Cited
Mazarr, Michael. The Iraq War and Agenda Setting. Foreign Policy Analysis, 3 (2007): 1–23. Print.
Morayef, Heba. Truth and Justice Can’t Wait – Human Rights Developments in Libya Amid Institutional Obstacles. New York, 2009. Print.
Rochefort, David and Cobb, Roger. The Politics of Problem Definition: Shaping the Policy Agenda. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas, 1994. Print.
Rycroft, Matthew. Iraq: Prime Minister’s Meeting. 2002. Web.
Seib, Gerald. Campaign Query: Who Will Act to Oust Saddam? The Wall Street Journal, 4.2(2000): 43-46. Print.
Suskind, Ron. The Price of Loyalty: George W. Bush, the White House, and the Education of Paul O’Neill. New York: Simon and Schuster, 2004. Print.
Van belle, Doug. New York Times and Network TV News Coverage of Foreign Disasters: TheSignificance of the Insignificant Variables. Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly 77 (2000):50–70. Print.
Woodward, Bob. Bush at War. New York: Simon and Schuster, 2002. Print.
Woodward, Bob. Plan of Attack. New York: Simon and Schuster, 2004. Print.
The process involved in the transformation of a bill into a law is quite intricate. Initially, legislation is introduced by any member of the Congress, received by the clerk and then passed on to the Senate/House which acknowledges its launch. Through the Speaker of the House, the bill is then referred to a suitable committee which acts on it.
Whatever transpires on the floor of the House is that the bill is placed on a calendar upon approval by the Speaker cum Majority Leader, debated on, and ultimately voted on. If both houses, the Senate and the House, approve it, the bill is passed onto the President who may assent to it to become a law.
The contrary happens when the duo disapproves a bill. In case a bill gets approval by one house, the bill is passed on to a Conference Committee, an amalgam of members from both houses, which works out their differences to reach a compromise.
It is from this point that the bill is passed on for presidential assent, but this should be within ten days. Nevertheless, the President may decide “to veto the bill; however, this may become a law upon approval by two-thirds majority member” (Martins, 1983).
The process steps involved in transforming a bill into a law in the House can be summarized as follows. First, the bill is drafted then launched in the House. This is then sent to the Committee who executes a Committee Action. If the action is positive, the bill qualifies for debate and hence goes to the Rules Committee to determine the rules for debate. The bill is then debated on the floor of the House in what we refer to as a Floor Action.
A majority approval gives a green-light for the bill to proceed to the Senate. As for the Senate, the procedure is the same; however, the Rules Committee in the House is substituted with a Bill Call Up in the Senate. The ensuing procedure is what has been explained in the preceding paragraph when the houses approve or disapprove a bill.
The difference in process step pitting the Senate and the House is that, while the entire Senate decides on whether to consider a bill, in the later house, this is decided on by the Rules Committee.
The members of the Senate and the House of representatives are less likely to be responsive to public opinions since they hold the committee’s business at the greatest stake.
For a law to effectively be implemented, the president and the bureaucrats ought to work in tandem. While the Congress makes laws, it is the duties of the bureaucrats that the law can, effectively, be enforced. As such, the bureaucrats make the rules which ought to equally be obeyed by the public. It is the president’s duty to lobby and convince the bureaucrats to implement these laws. Of note, the judiciary determines the constitutionality of a law.
The main proposals of the Virginia Plan were that a national government be formed which would be composed of the judiciary, the executive, and the legislative. Moreover, the pioneers proposed for “the formation of two houses, the lower house, elected by the citizens, and the second chamber, elected by the lower house” (Martins, 1983). Furthermore, the plan proposed that the Congress would choose the executive.
On the other hand, the main detail of the New Jersey Plan was that each State receives an equivalent representation in the Assembly. Against this background, the ‘Greatest Compromise’ was reached following a stand-out pitting the populous States and the less populous ones.
While the later embraced the New Jersey Plan, the Virginia Plan was a reserve for the populous States who proposed for representation based on the population index. Consequently, a compromise was reached when a two-pronged legislative house, the Senate and the House of Representatives, were formed.
As such, while “the former represented the interests of the less populous States, the later represented the interests of the populous States” (Martins, 1983).
The formal powers that the US’s president has vital in developing foreign policies are the powers to negotiate treaties, and those fundamental in appointing ambassadors. On the other hand, the informal powers vital in developing foreign policies is the one that emanates from the president’s character that enables him to influence the Congress.
Even with his powers, the Congress provides the checks and balances to the president’s powers. As such, the Congress may override a veto or impeach a president. Moreover, the Congress controls the budget.
A federal system of government is one in which the government’s powers are decentralized between the federal government and the State governments. As such, at each government level, a State enjoys sovereignty in a number of facets but share common powers in others.
The trend of federalism portrayed over the past 100 years implies that the national government is slowly encroaching into the roles of the State and local governments. As such, the federalism is transforming from ‘layer-cake federalism,’ where the government functions are distinct, to a cooperative federalism, where the individual functions are intertwined.
The common law tradition is a jurisdiction that is made on the contesting parties based on a precedent decision made in a synonymous case done before. Stare decisis is basically a common law legal code that emphasizes the fact that the precedents of a higher court ought to be obeyed by a court, “and should follow its own prior decisions (horizontal stare decisis)” (Bremner, 2011).
Ideally, the American legal system operates under this doctrine. As such, this is vital in portraying its legal system as stable and predictable. Fundamentally, a lower court’s decision on a constitutional matter mirrors what is expected of a Supreme Court’s decision on the same. A Supreme Court’s decision to hear a particular case is dependent upon three of factors.
First, it establishes the origin of the case and whether its decision conflicts with the other circuit courts. Second, it determines the gravity of the case; whether it holds a fundamental constitutional issue. Finally, whether the Supreme Court holds a contrary opinion to that of a lower court’s ruling.
Courts come in handy in policy making when they clearly interpret a constitutional law, and basing on a case before hand, makes an appropriate amendment to a law that was initially biased. One such amendment typified in the Roe Ruling “discovered the constitutional right to abortion” (Martins, 1983). The judicial branch is mandated to interpret the framed laws.
This body checks the legislative since it has vested powers to render legislative acts unconstitutional. Similarly, it checks the executive since they can’t be controlled by the executive. On the other hand, the legislative branch checks the judiciary in the sense that they approve judges’ appointments and it can impeach a judge.
Similarly, the executive checks the judiciary since the Supreme and the Federal judges receive appointments from the president.
Judicial activism means that a judge exercises his/her own will in a jurisdiction contrary to what the law stipulates.
For instance, Justice Earl Warren (1954-69) used this platform to give voting rights to all Americans. On the other hand, the proponents of the judicial restraint believe that the “courts should uphold all acts of Congress and state legislatures unless they clearly violate a specific section of the Constitution” (Wellington, 1991).
The First Amendment calls for protection of a number of liberties that includes religion among others. Within religion there are two clauses, the ‘establishment’ clause, which bars the government from setting up a common church for all, and the ‘free exercise’ clause that allows the citizens to worship whoever they please.
By definition, public opinion is a collective individual’s beliefs. Public opinion has a massive influence on the policy change. Public opinions spur policy change in many governments. Nonetheless, the degree of policy change is limited to an individual’s rights.
Political campaigns have evolved since 1970s; the popular parties are currently in dilemma of how they would sell their manifestos to the public. In spite of this, they contest on the tone and context through which their agenda may reach out to the common man. Research has it that a campaign strategy executed has a potential to make or break a party.
Recently, campaign battles have been fought on the social media front, a platform that has “proved to be a game changer” (Martins, 1983). While campaign strategies are changing, among the factors that would enable one to assume the coveted seat is a candidate’s character, his/her consultancy team, money and the opinion polls. All these have a significant effect on election outcome.
References
Bremner, P. (2011). “Public Opinion on Immigration: Trends and Interpretation.” Journal of the Centre of Migration, Policy and Society, 23, 45-78.
Martins, K. (1983). American History: Checks and Balances. Arizona: University of Phoenix Press.
Wellington, H. (1991). Interpreting the Constitution: The Supreme Court and the Process of Adjudication. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Political ideology is a set of ideals, attitudes, and behaviors that play a big role in influencing individuals’ inclination towards the dominant political parties in a country. The political culture in the American society has been characterized by issues concerning liberty, equality, the rule of law, nationalism, democracy, and capitalism among others. Two main political parties, viz. the Democratic Party and the Republican Party, have dominated the American political system.
As an American citizen, I have always associated with the Democratic Party. I have developed loyalty towards the Democratic Party based on its indiscriminate push for equality in society because advocate equality in the society. Reference groups including my family members and colleagues have influenced my beliefs, attitudes, and perceptions towards the party. This paper highlights my political ideology as a Democrat and the factors that have contributed to the making of this decision.
The claims that most Catholics from the working class families are probably Democrats are unfounded. Over the recent years, Catholics have developed a negative attitude towards the Democratic Party. Catholics are switching their political allegiance due to the Democrats’ campaigns in support of same-sex marriages and the legalization of abortion. According to Hendershott, as from 2008, there has been an emerging trend whereby Catholics leaning towards the Republican side (par. 1).
Currently, 53% of the white Catholics are affiliated with the Republican Party while 39% are associated with the Democratic Party (Hendershott par. 1). Most Latinos hold that the Democratic Party is highly concerned about minority issues as opposed to the Republican Party. Therefore, the claims that Latinos are affiliated with the Democratic Party are true. This aspect can be attributed to the view that the majority of the Latinos support the legalization of abortion, unlike the Catholics.
Factors that have influenced the development of my political ideology
Gender
Women play a significant role in the development of any society. In the past, women have been marginalized with emphasis being on the boy child. Over the years, the Democratic Party has attracted more female followers as compared to their male counterparts. The main reason behind this emerging trend is perhaps due to the realization that the party is more concerned with women issues as compared to the Republican Party.
The party has been strongly advocating equality between men and women in all life aspects including education, employment, and remuneration among other issues. I am a strong supporter of equality, and thus my loyalty towards the Democratic Party has grown with the development of the policies that support women by safeguarding and promoting egalitarianism.
Race and ethnicity
Human behavior is highly subject to what people learn from the society, and this assertion is evident in the American political culture because people mainly associate with the two main political parties based on race. For instance, African Americans and Mexican Americans are mostly associated with the Democratic Party (O’Connor, Sabato, and Yanus 321). These groups tend to prefer the Democratic Party as its policies support immigrants.
Currently, the US hosts around 11 million illegal immigrants. Apparently, immigration is one of the most divisive and controversial issues in the US today. Due to their liberal stance on immigration, the Democrats believe that the practice contributes to cultural diversity as people from different parts of the globe meet, interact, and learn about the different cultures in the process. On the other hand, Republicans are divided on the issue of immigration, as some believe that it should be limited for it endangers the cultural future of the country.
Originally, the immigration law only allowed certain immigrants of different nationalities to enter the US legally, but this stance changed in 1965 when the national origin quota system was wiped out (Aleinikoff et al. 42). I support the strategic plan of the Democratic Party for there is a need to fix the broken immigration system and give people an opportunity to become American citizens legally. Millions of illegal immigrants will benefit since they will come out in the open to register and start playing important roles like paying taxes, which helps in the improvement of the country’s economic development.
Religion
Religion plays a critical role in the shaping of people’s political ideologies. Most people ascribe to a certain religion. Therefore, they form their political ideologies and allegiances depending on whether the political party in question supports or contravenes the values enshrined in one’s religion. The campaign by the Democratic Party towards the legalization of abortion and supporting same-sex marriage has tainted the party’s image.
Consequently, conservative people from different religious denominations especially Protestants and Catholics have shifted to the Republican Party (O’Connor, Sabato, and Yanus 350). Being a protestant has not affected my loyalty to Democratic Party for I believe that women have a right to terminate their pregnancies legally.
Socio-economic status
The US is characterized by an ordered division of upper, middle, and lower social classes whose members share similar values and interests. The culture of the upper class associating with the Republican Party and lower class belonging to the Democratic Party has influenced my political ideology as a Democrat.
Works Cited
Aleinikoff, Thomas, David Martin, Hiroshi Motomura, and Maryellen Fullerton. Immigration and Nationality Laws of the United States: Selected Statutes, Regulations and Forms, St Paul: West Academic Publishing, 2014. Print.
Modern political life of any country impossible imagines without political parties. Political parties introduce the political life of the country through the ideas and considerations which are put in the basis of these parties and are the main differential features, which make the opposite. American political life is fulfilled with the political parties which make up the government of the country and should function of the benefit of the whole society.
The history of the modern American parties is very long, and its role on the democracy of the country is significant. It is not the secret that every party should be responsible before the nation for its actions. Responsible Parties Model may be characterized according to the following features: (1) the politics and promises of the parties should be specific, (2) the specific promises should be acted on and carried on by the parties, when they are in the office, (3) parties should be in constant opposition, and those who are out of power should search for the alternatives to the decisions made by the parties with power, (4) the difference between the ideological considerations of the parties should be significant (LeLoup 11).
Main Body
A Responsible Party Model: characteristic and discussion
Considering the usage of the Responsible Parties Model in the modern America, it can be mentioned that it failed to be provided. The reasons for this may be numerous, the promises cannot be absolutely specific as people in one society search for the improvement in their lives in the same spheres. Moreover, in the condition of present separation of power, it is impossible to follow and to act on all issues, which are mentioned in the model. The current crisis makes political parties in power provide the changes and the reforms of the economical life of people with the aim to improve their economic position and do not have time to care about the political changes which were promised by them.
Except the political parties, there are a lot of other issues and concepts which can be considered as the various forms of political participation. Having provided some researches it was concluded that there are a lot of other forms of political participation. The types of the political participation are (1) voting in national elections and on referendum, (2) different campaigns which occur during the elections, (3) different pressure groups, demonstrations, some industrial strikes (the aim of which is political), and other political activities which objectives are to change the public policy, (4) different social policies, different forms of disobedience, which have civil or political nature, and (5) different social organizations and political parties, which are created by the society in order to provide their opinion to the government (Axford and Huggins 123).
Various forms of political participation
Having considered different forms of political participation, it is possible to mention that democracy is impossible without political participation and that government cares about the rights of those who take in such participation. The information between government and society is mostly provided through the political participants and, furthermore, people are involved in the political life of the country by means of the political participation (Inoguchi and Marsh 196).
Conclusion
In conclusion, political parties of the modern society are the main political participants of the political life, which should tend to follow the Responsible Parties Model. In the modern conditions this model fails to be provided but in future it may be implemented. Parties are not the only participants of the political life in the country and which can be influential and deliver the information of the political life of the country.
Works Cited
Axford, Barrie and Huggins, Richard. Politics: an introduction. Oxford: Routledge, 2002.
Inoguchi, Takashi and Marsh, Ian. Globalisation, public opinion and the state: Western Europe and East and Southeast Asia. Oxford: Routledge, 2008.
LeLoup, Lance T. Parties, rules, and the evolution of congressional budgeting. Ohio: Ohio State University Press, 2005.