Category: Barack Obama

Introduction

A policy can be described as a plan of action adopted by a state, individual or groups of individuals in order to realize a given set of goals and objectives; it is a framework of ideas put together to guide the achievements of certain objectives within an institution. A policy is utilized to make some rational choice within an organization or institution.

A public policy can be defined as a course of action adopted by the state or government with regard to specific issues of national or international concerns. A number of scholars have defined a public policy as a set or specific regulatory measure and laws regarding certain concerns that are promulgated by government agents, organs or institutions.

In the United States of America, the concept of public policy does not only refer to the final outcome of a set of policies, but it also entails the making of decisions and analyses of decisions made by the government. The significance of public policy has prompted the study of the subject in public policy schools found within a significant number of the America’s major universities (Strassmann, 1995).

The public policy is shaped by the influence of the governmental public policy makers, scholars and interest and or pressure groups. In many cases, these shapers of policy have divergent opinions and some times clash with regards to the nature of public policy that should be in place. The consequence of this is that such policies are most likely to become controversial.

This is because, all the stakeholders cannot agree on the nature of the public policy itself. The theme of this paper is about the controversial new health policy in the United States of American initiated by the Obama’s administration. It will examine how controversial it is and the stakeholders involved in the policy process (Marzotto, 2000).

The scope of the healthcare policy concern in the United States of America

The proposal to overhaul healthcare policy within the United States of America began with the heated campaigns by Barack Obama in his quest to capture the presidency of the United States of America in 2008 elections.

The reasons for the new healthcare policy is to ensure low cost healthcare services, sufficient healthcare information and technology, transparency within the healthcare sector or industry, personalized healthcare and access to better healthcare facilities and services by all the public members. The new healthcare policy was intentioned to ensure universal access to healthcare by all the American citizens (Wasik, 2010).

The new healthcare policy is also meant to make health insurance to be more affordable by offering the largest known middle class cut on taxes (Davis, 2009); this is supposed to reduce premium costs for approximated tens of millions of American families and small scale business entrepreneurs who are said to be priced outside the current coverage.

This is supposed to assist approximately over 31 million citizens of the United States of America to get the necessarily required healthcare that they cannot afford today. This is expected to make healthcare coverage to be available to even more American citizens who cannot afford the basic healthcare in the current period (Howard, n.d).

The policy is also meant to lead to the establishment of a new competitive market for health insurance hence offering similar health insurance services enjoyed by the Congressmen and Congress women.

Moreover, the new policy is also expected to curtail abuses of health insurance by health insurance providers which may lead to denied access to healthcare services for many American citizens who may not afford the uncontrolled highly priced premiums.

The policy is also expected to reduce the perceived discrimination against the American citizens who are already having pre-existing conditions when seeking for health insurance coverage (Hadden & Luce, 2008).

The new healthcare policy has been facing a number of controversies due to varied understanding of its impacts on different American people by different stakeholders. Some argued that the new health policy is socialists in nature and may mean that hard working Americans will be paying for healthcare services offered Americans without healthcare insurance.

Moreover, other stakeholders opposed the policy arguing that government intervention is likely to interfere with the principles of free market operations. It this case, the argument is that the health insurance industry should be left to forces of free market operations that are expected to balance market and create low cost insurance premiums by itself (Amato & Neiwert, 2010).

There has also been an argument that the new American healthcare policy will force healthy people to pay for healthcare services provided to unhealthy people. This implies that the insured relatively healthy people have feelings that the money they pay as premiums will be used to subsidize healthcare services offered to patients or citizens with pre-existing conditions.

The stakeholders and the affected constituencies in the context of the new healthcare plan

There are a number of stakeholders who are concerned with the new healthcare policy proposed by the new Obama’s administration. Some of the most significant stakeholders are the uninsured Americans whose percentage of the total population is said to be big. It is stated in available statistical records that the number of uninsured Americans has been growing significantly due to high premium costs that they could not afford.

These stakeholders are expected to get affordable health insurance premiums and lower the number of uninsured citizens. In this case, the uninsured stakeholders are expected to immensely benefit from the new healthcare policy. The other stakeholders are all the states of the United States of America; it is expected that all the states should adopt the new healthcare policy in their respective healthcare systems.

The states may have varied healthcare policies, however, in the case of the new bill that is expected to revamp the healthcare industry the states are expected toe ensure that every of their citizens get to benefit from the new policy (Levine, 2009).

Again, the other stakeholders are the healthcare and insurance institutions. After the signing of the bill into law, it became an official healthcare policy that must be complied to with all the health insurance providers and healthcare institutions all the United States of America.

The health insurance providers are now expected to lower insurance premium costs so as to allow middle income earners and other uninsured Americans to have access to better healthcare services at low costs.

This also implies that the pricing of health insurance premiums will be under the direct watch of the federal government under the auspice of the state governments that are actually directly responsible for healthcare institutions within their jurisdictions.

Employers are part of the most important stakeholders of the American new healthcare policy; in fact, they can be regarded as some of the most affected constituencies by the new policy. It is expected that the new healthcare plans by the Obama’s administration should be beneficial to the employers who pay for there employees’ health insurance in terms of tax cuts.

It is proposed that employers who prefer to give health insurance to their employees will enjoy a tax cut of approximated to a maximum of 35% of premiums paid annually and an increment of upto 50% by the year 2014. It is estimated that over 60% of employers are likely to be eligible for these incentives.

However, the employers will be expected to disclose the value of insurance benefits they offer to their employees in order to enjoy such incentives.

Political institutions relevant to the healthcare policy

One of the significant political institutions involved in the healthcare policy is the Democratic Party to which the president of the United States of America currently belongs. The new American health plan was one of the policies the Democratic Party had planned to role as soon as it gets into power.

It is important to note that as a party, the Democratic Party had an obligation to ensure that the new healthcare plans is put into place; should be plan have failed, the party will have failed in its policy plans.

Moreover, the other political institution involved in the new healthcare policy is the Republican Party. As much as the Democratic Party considered the health policy an obligation, the Republican Party was a complete contrast and in the process its members completely opposed it.

The Republican Party has never been happy with the new healthcare policy arguing that it is a waste of public resources; the party members also termed the policy as promoting inequity as far as health are services are concerned.

The Independent Party members cannot be left out in the whole issue about the healthcare policy. Some of the members supported the policy formulation process while some went against it. Nonetheless, what remains is the fact that they also have s stake in the new healthcare policy. There are also other political pressure groups and institutions that are relevant to the healthcare policy issue.

Such pressure groups lobby on behalf of their members. Some of the groups are those that support the new healthcare policy arguing that it will be very beneficial to the uninsured Americans while other pressure groups are against it arguing that the policy will be a burden to the healthy insured citizens since their money will purportedly be used to subsidize healthcare services offered to uninsured individuals.

Proposed policies to address the issue

In a bid to strike a compromise with the group opposed to new healthcare plans, several policies have been put into place.

The Obama’s administration has accepted to back undercover investigations that will monitor the providers of health and medical care services to the American people; the providers who will be subject to undercover investigations will mostly be those receiving Medicaid, Medicare and also other programs initiated by the federal government.

Moreover, president Obama also rendered his support for the increment in Medicaid reimbursement to medical doctors in specific states. The Obama’s administration has also backed language designed to ensure that certain high deductible health plans are able to be offered in process of health exchange (Cable News Network, 2010).

The new health bill was passed under the reconciliation rule that would allow it be successful and finally be signed by the president into law. The healthcare insurance providers will be required to cover even the pre-existing conditions for American citizens who seek insurance services.

This implies that the new healthcare policy will ensure that the health insurance providers do not discriminate against those with pre-existing conditions (Cable News Network, 2010).

Solution to the problem

The even though the new healthcare policy has several controversies surrounding it, it came to pass and signed by the president of the United States of America. However, it is not without a solution. There may be many people who are against it, but a middle ground that satisfies all the stakeholders can be found.

First, the Obama’s administration should not exercise extensive controls on the healthcare services; instead of setting restrictions, the government should only set the ceiling and floor prices for insurance prices and let the free market forces top take its effects it the health insurance industry.

Second, the government should determine the level of basic health requirements for all the American citizens irrespective of economic statuses and use the cost of meeting these basic requirements as the point of entry in terms of offering healthcare subsidy. In this case, the government should offer subsidy by meeting the cost of healthcare for everybody upto the limit equivalent to the cost of basic healthcare needs.

Third, in order to avoid the feelings of exploitation by those paying high premiums, as much as the government wants everybody have affordable healthcare insurance, those paying high premiums should be offered more healthcare benefits, otherwise the United States of America may be promoting unfair treatment to its citizens when it comes to healthcare services; in fact, the government may distort the healthcare market segment and hence the whole American economy.

Finally, employers should not be forced to offer insurance benefits to their employees; they should be allowed to do it out of their own free will and as an incentive to attract professional employees. In this case, the employers should be offered with more incentives if they are to provide all their employees with healthcare insurance.

The cost of the new healthcare issue to Americans

It is expected that the new healthcare plan should not have any extra cost the American people. Instead, the new plan will lower the cost of healthcare services sought by the American people. The government will provide certain amount of dollars to subsidize the healthcare insurance hence making all American citizens to enjoy universal healthcare. However, this remains at personal level and only in the healthcare sectors.

Due to this new healthcare plan, the federal government will have to increase its budgetary expenditures in which it will have to inject more finances into the healthcare sector in order to subsidized health insurance plans for all American citizens. The question is about how the federal government plans to raise the amount required for the plan without increasing taxes in other industrial sectors.

As much as the plan will reduce health cost for the American population, they should expect the possible tax rise on other items. Besides, there is a possibility that the upper class members of the American society may be taxed more than any other American citizen as it had been feared earlier on (O’Hara, 2010).

The public policy issue of faced by both the federal and the state governments. Since the new healthcare plan is for all the citizens of the United States of America, all the state governments must come into the picture.

The federal government is expected to provide the funding and the state governments are supposed to implements the new plan by integrating it into their healthcare systems.

It therefore implies that the new healthcare policy is both a responsibility and obligation of both the federal and state governments to the American people. The two set of governments, the federal and state governments, must then work in collaboration to ensure all American citizens get the benefits of the health plans (O’Hara, 2010).

Conclusion

The new healthcare plan was initiated by the Democratic Party under the presidential candidature of president Barack Obama; the new healthcare plans was planned to ensure all citizens of the United States of America would get universal health insurance at low cost premiums and eliminate all forms of exploitations and discriminations by health insurance providers.

The health plan was opposed by the Republican Party members but got strong support from the Democratic Party members. Even so, it passed with majority support. The new healthcare policy is also expected to put checks and balances on the insurance companies to ensure they do not exploit clients by charging unreasonably high premium fees (Davis, 2009).

Reference List

Amato, J. & Neiwert, D. (2010). Over the Cliff: How Obama’s Election Drove the American Right Insane. New York: PoliPointPress.

Cable News Network. (2010). Obama outlines final health care plan, urges Congress to act. Web.

Davis, C. (2009). Economic policy crisis and the stimulus: analyses of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) of 2009, HR 1, 111th Congress. United States: The Capitol Net Inc.

Hadden, B. & Luce, H. (2008). Time, Volume 172. New York: Time Inc.

Howard, P. (n.d). Medical liability: new ideas for making the system work better for patients: hearing. New York: DIANE Publishing.

Levine, R. (2009). Shock therapy for the American health care system: why comprehensive reform is needed. United States: ABC-CLIO.

Marzotto, T. (2000). The evolution of public policy: cars and the environment. New York: Lynne Rienner Publishers.

O’Hara, J. (2010). A New American Tea Party: The Counterrevolution against Bailouts, Handouts, Reckless Spending, and More Taxes. New Jersey: John Wiley and Sons.

Strassmann, P. (1995). The politics of information management: policy guidelines. United States: Strassmann, Inc.

Wasik, J. (2010). The Audacity of Help: Obama’s Stimulus Plan and the Remaking of America. New Jersey: John Wiley and Sons.

Barrack Obama’s campaign is a position of a nationalist. His campaigns are based on national issues that affect all Americans regardless of whether they are whites or blacks. In as much as he is taking the advantage of his family origin as he conducts his campaigns, he is advocating for equal opportunities in both the white and the black communities (Baldson, pp 12). His manifesto addresses issues affecting all Americans like health, education, employment, security, and natural calamities such as global warming effects among other issues. In America today, there are two kinds of nationalism that seem to catch the ears of most of the campaigners. There is the issue of civic and racial nationalism. Civic nationalism is the belief that to become a truly American one must believe and adhere to specific ideological tenets. For example, men are created equal and the country is about freedom.

Racial nationalism is taken as a belief that only a certain group of people are capable, perhaps because of certain ascribed qualities that other groups are excluded not because they cannot do better than other groups but because of who they are (Larson,11-45). To me, it seems that the two strains of nationalism are present in Obama’s presidential campaigns. This can be justified by the recent speech Obama made concerning the race in America and his candidacy in general (Baldson, pp 12). Many are the people who are ascribing his characteristics as, black, he is half white, he is not white enough, he is not black enough and he can straddle the racial divide. His candidacy too mere often gets to racial matter. Obama has also opened up possibilities for his campaigns based on primarily civic nationalism. He argues that he has the capability of bridging the differences in that he will put the race on the table and to have the hardest conversations will be the best demonstration of commitment especially to the belief that unites all the Americans (Larson,11-45). Bill Richardson appealed for this in his endorsement of Barrack Obama.

Obama’s campaigns are based on the idea that he is seen to understand the American as it is currently, majority of the Americans see him as intelligent, compassionate, a visionary leader for the future, and a leader with the ability to unite all Americans regardless of their skin color. It is quite ironic, and sarcastic that arrack Obama a presidential candidate who vows to end racism in his campaigns owes his majority support among the blacks as a continued strength and power of African-American nationalism. For more than a century now, black nationalism has provided the main ideological challenge more so to the social and liberal democratic sensibilities that have continued dominating in black politics (Baldson, pp 12). To many, it is believed that if were it not for black nationalism’s ideological impact, Senator Obama’s support among the black Americans would have remained divided between him and Hillary Clinton. Black liberalism is seen as a political ideology that usually emphasizes support and backing up of individuals rights is generally pro-capitalist (Larson,11-45). As Obama falls under this liberal ideological camp, the developing black movement in support of Obama’s campaign has some black nationalism markings in it (Gordie, 2008).

During the early campaigns of Barrack Obama and Hillary Clinton, the two were dividing the black votes. This did not go for long because the majority of the Blacks came to support Obama especially with Iowa’s caucuses and the South Carolina and New Hampshire primaries (Larson,11-45). The main reason for this change could be the feelings the black Americans had at the beginning of the year. They were a bit skeptical than the whites about Barrack Obama’s capability to win the votes of the white Americans and secondly many of the blacks were unfamiliar with Barrack Obama himself( Barrack Obama U.S. Senate Office 5-24). It was the attacks by the Hillary Clinton campaign and its surrogates like Andrew Young and Bob Johnson against Barrack Obama that first saw a massive black outrage and developed into broad black American support for Senator Barrack Obama. The solidarity of the blacks for Obama’s campaign should not be viewed as a nationalist response. His support especially after primary in South Carolina evoked hints of nationalism (Baldson, pp 12).

The life of Obama portrays the very essence of nationalism. He is a son of a black East African Kenyan father and a white mother who hailed from Kansas. He was raised with the help of a white grandfather and grandmother. Obama went to one of the best schools in America and also lived in one of the poorest nations. Obama has married a black American, a daughter to a slave and a slave-owner. This means that he is a relative to many brothers, sisters, nephews, cousins, nieces, and uncles of every race and has scattered all over the world (Gordie, 2008). His image has been compared to a cultural Rorschach test especially by his supporters and his critics too. He is viewed as a neutral persona on whom individuals can emulate and project personal aspirations and their histories. Obama is also taking advantage of his family origin while doing his campaigns. As a matter of fact, in 2004, a magazine described him as an “everyman” image. His political career was not based on participating in civil rights movements used by most black American politicians. Even though many people view Obama’s candidacy as through a racial lens, Obama throughout his campaign has been preaching peace and unity for all Americans whether black and white. Obama has won on many of the white predominant States during the recent primaries (Larson,11-45).

Although Obama agrees that racial campaigns have played part in his campaigns, he does not advocate for that, in fact, he has denounced his campaigners who use race to campaign for him. He dismissed them as wide-eyed liberals with intentions to purchase racial reconciliation. He even denounced his former pastor Rev. Jeremiah Wright who used incendiary language to portray a racial divide. To him, such comments were not only bad ones but divisive especially at a time when unity among all Americans was needed most (Gordie, 2008). His campaigns also aim at solving challenges like, terrorist threats, health care crisis, falling economy, and devastating climatic changes (Problems that confront blacks, whites, Latino, and Asians). As Obama continues to campaign, he thinks that the elected leaders could overcome the political imbalance of the nation’s black communities as they (leaders) could lead the community out of the unrealistic politics-integration assimilation. Barrack Obama’s political vision was natured in the 1980s by his job as an organizer in the far south side communities of Altgeld Gardens and Roseland from the racial nationalism and the civic nationalism, Barrack Obama is using economic nationalism to campaign for his presidential candidacy(Larson,11-45). After few weeks of the primaries and caucuses, economic issues have now shaped the campaign strategies for the Democratic presidential campaign Barrack Obama and have focused on what the political analysts and economist would call it an economic nationalism. This idea of economic nationalism is not a new strategy in most of the presidential candidate’s campaigns (Baldson, pp 12). The oratory Barrack Obama is every other day talking about including many and renowned economists in his government to address the issues of the economic crisis in America. He aims at uplifting the economic standards of all Americans.

In Barrack Obama’s manifesto, he is promising all Americans to enact health care policies that would cater to the health care needs of all Americans regardless of whether they are black or white (Barrack Obama U.S. Senate Office 5-24). Obama also aims at turning around the economic status and uplift the living standards of the poorest Americans of all races (Gordie, 2008). He also aims at addressing issues dealing with drug addicts and abusers. This problem has affected youths of all races in America. A nationalist campaign of Barrack Obama is also promising to address the issues concerning climatic changes more so the devastating effects of global warming that is affecting every American whether White or Black or an Asian. Rivers are drying up, pollution of the air due to the greenhouse effect, water levels are increasing due to the high rate of melting of the ice bags, increase in temperatures, and low agricultural productivity among other effects that are affecting the Americans (Gordie, 2008). The security issues like terrorism are affecting Americans of all races and religions. Barrack Obama is vowing to address the issues of war in Iraq where the American soldiers who constitute both the Blacks and whites are suffering. The climatic conditions are unfavorable for them and are being killed by the Iraqis with bombs. By him promising to address these problems during his campaigns, Obama is indeed taking his campaigns to a nationalist kind of position. Another nationalistic view of Obama’s campaign is the issue of Latin America the “backyard”.He argues that the Bush administration concentrated on the issues of the Middle East and the war in Iraq and neglected their very own region. Obama promises to consider the region’s challenges and also have their policies addressed at Washington (Baldson, pp 12).

In a general conclusion, Barrack Obama’s campaign strategies are based on a nationalistic position where it addresses all issues pertains the welfare of all Americans regardless of their race. He has promised to address issues regarding national security as a threat to all Americans, uniting both the whites and the blacks has been his main objective during his campaigns. In addition to these, he has promised to deal with issues concerning the American economy that is felt by most economists to have fallen. Challenges of health care systems that are workable in America will be addressed to reverse the current health crisis. Obama has also promised to upgrade the education system in America. These are just but a few policies Barrack Obama has promised to implement when he gets to the white house. These ideological policies aim at benefiting all Americans whether white, black, or Asian. thus a nationalist campaign position( Barrack Obama U.S. Senate Office 5-24).

References

Baldson, Timothy. Barrack Obama a Nationalistic leader ,Saturday Times (UK) 2007.

Gordie, Chuck. Obama and the Latin American leader WJLS-TV, 2008.

Larson, Christina. Reactions to Health crisis in America Washington Monthly, 2008.

Obama to unite the blacks and the whites. Associated Press. Barrack Obama U.S. Senate Office 2007.

The 2008 United States Presidential Election scheduled for November 4th, is likely to be a race between Democrat candidate Barrack Obama and Republican candidate John McCain, if the current number of delegates each candidate has is anything to go by.

Issue; Iraq

The war in Iraq is one issue that will determine the outcome of the 2008 presidential elections. So far the war has gone badly with Iraq almost approaching civil war. A lot of American soldiers have been killed since President Bush declared war on Iraq as a means to bring democracy in that country. It is against this background that the presidential candidates have to approach this issue very cautiously.

Barrack Obama was opposed to the Iraq war right from the begging, He had to put his political career in 2002 as a candidate for US Senate by opposing the war. He feels that the congress was wrong in giving President Bush authority to go to war in Iraq before assessing the intelligence report. The feeling that the US rush into war is best expressed by quoting from one of his recent speeches “I worried about, ‘an occupation of undetermined length, with undetermined costs, and undetermined consequences”

On becoming president, Barrack Obama plans to take the following steps to end the war in Iraq;

• Bringing US troops home.
• Reconciliation of Iraq’s Leaders.
• Regional Diplomacy.
• Humanitarian program.

Within the first 16 months, Obama promises to have removed all combatant brigades out of Iraq. No Permanent bases will be built in Iraq under his leadership and the few troops who will remain in Iraq will be used to protect US Diplomats and Embassy. Troops will be sent back to Iraq only if Al Qaeda attempts to build bases there.

Making it clear to the Iraq Leadership that US troops are leaving is the best way of pressing the Iraq’s Leaders to take responsibility for their country. According to Obama, the United Nations should play a bigger role in helping Iraq to govern itself.

The stability of Middle East, according to Barrack Obama, will help in bringing sanity to Iraq. Border will be secured to isolate Al Qaeda and the neighboring countries will be compelled to support Iraq reconstruction.

According to Obama, United States have the responsibility of settling the more than 2 million Iraq refugees. An international Humanitarian group will be formed to address this crisis.

John McCain has been a strong supporter of the Iraq war right from the first begging. Having been a prisoner of war, POW, he feels that a greater military presence in Iraq is very necessary, in order for America to achieve Long term success. He feels that the current level of US troops in Iraq is not enough. The rebuilding of economies and institutions in Iraq needs to be provided with enough security provided by US troops. He is of the strong opinion that the sectarian violence being experienced in Iraq will end when Sunnis and Shia insurgents are disarmed. The US army should also stay longer in order to train the Iraq army. This way, according to John McCain, is the only way to help Iraq govern itself.

John McCain plans to implement the following plans on the Iraq Issue.

• New counter-insurgency Strategy
• Strengthening of Iraq Armed Forces
• Creation of security to enhance political progress and stability

The US troops should use force to secure all those areas occupied by insurgents so as to deny them any base in Iraq, this way it will be hard for insurgents to operate in Iraq.

The United States must provide training and equip Iraq army. This according to McCain, will play a key role in securing Iraq, leading to development.

John McCain strongly believes that the only way to pave for political settlement is by controlling the violence in Iraq. The Iraq Government will be assisted in reconciling insurgents, formation a government of grand coalition where all groups are involved in the running of the government and increasing employment opportunities to Iraq’s.

Election of Barrack Obama to be the US president will most likely see withdrawal of US troops from Iraq and considerable cutting of Federal funding to the war, while the presidency of John McCain will see the Federal Government spend millions of dollars in additional funding for the US troops in Iraq, again more troops will be deployed to Iraq in the period after the Elections. This will be in line with each candidate’s stand in the Iraq.

Reference

Iraq war and the 2008 US Elections. Web.

Real security. 2008. Web.

Robert M. Duncan, John McCain wins the Republican Nomination. 2008. Web.

Sarah Van Gelder; opportunities for real change in the 2008 election. Web.

Introduction

Barrack Obama is a United States presidential candidate for the year 2008. His campaign is a position of a nationalistic approach in that under the nationalistic approach, nationality is one of the most important aspects of one’s identity but not in terms of race, ethnicity among other forms of human aspects. You see that Obama is not a white but a black America hence meaning that his campaigns tend to show the issue of being nationalistic but not looking at the many differences people have said the issue of race, color, or even ethnicity. Nationalism, in this case, can be taken to mean a political movement or even a doctrine which holds that a nation which in this case can be defined in terms of its culture and ethnicity has its right so that it could contact an independent or even a political community which in this case is based on a common destiny and a shared history. The nation in this case is supposed to be ministered by a single state. So in this case under the nationalistic approach, you find that the national identity, in this case, supersedes the biological attachments which are attached to so many ethnic groups like color, race, and other biological differences which people tend to have similar from other groups. (Craig, 1998).

Barrack Obama Campaign is a position of Nationalism

Barrack Obama’s campaign is a position of the nationalistic approach in the sense that his campaigns are geared towards the economic nation. This can be proved in the statement when he said that “I showed my patriotism by working to help the veterans so that they could end the Iraq war plus also improving the health care and the economy”. All his campaigns address the issue of the whole nation in trying to the nation that all the people in the United States have the pride of living in their country through the equal sharing of the countries resources. This is one of the major elements of being a nationalist. You find that the citizens of that country have the full potential of enjoying the countries resources. For example in his campaign, Obama said that he has the plan of ensuring a national health plan for all its citizens. His health plan will cover all the uninsured Americans who include the self-employed plus the small businesses.

This is because you find that most of the self-employed and the people with their small businesses are usually neglected from insuring their own business since they are not in a position to buy affordable health coverage like those people with big businesses. So under his plan, he is going to ensure that there is a national health plan which will cater to everybody. He said that there will be no any American who will be turned away from any insurance plan as a result of any illness. This is a good approach of being nationalistic in that he shall ensure that all the citizens living in America are in a position to get such treatments as long as they are members of that country. He also said that he will ensure mandatory coverage of children. Here, he meant that all the children living in America will have health care coverage hence this is a good initiative for most of the poor people in the society. You will find that if he happens to become the next American president, he will ensure that all the people living in the US will have equal benefits and no one will be left behind. This is because you find that many times, most of the poor people having been neglected and left to suffer. But under his government, he will ensure that there is national health insurance for all the citizens living in America. (Lars-Erick, 2000).

Nationalists see the nations as an inclusive categorization of all human beings hence meaning that everybody has the right to be in a specific nation. It is in that nation that there is a shared language, values, and culture which are supposed to be shared by all the citizens of that country. So under the Obamas campaign, he is nationalistic in that even though he is a black American, he respects the American culture and the sense of having a common language that is English. We tend to see English as the common language in the US and we see that in most of his campaigns, he addresses them in English hence meaning that he obeys the language which is spoken in the US. This then tries to tell us that most of his campaigns are a position of nationalistic in that he respects the language and the culture of the US just like any other American citizen. He also observes the national flag and this can be explained when he said that he is a nationalist who observes the national flag. He quoted that “I wound not be standing here if it wasn’t for the country. There is no other country where my story is even possible, somebody born to a teenage mum and also raised by a single mother in Kansas, able to get an education and also run for the highest office in the American land, I could not help but only love this country for all that it has given me”. This statement shows that his campaigns are a position of nationalism since he loves his country so much. (Ernest, 2000).

Nationalism ensures that the government is open to its citizens whereby the citizens of that nation are in a position to know and also access the government activities. It is as a result of secretive and also closed administration of the government to the citizens of the country which has led to the corrupt government whereby some individuals benefit at the expense of the others. Nationalism ensures that all the citizens of a particular country have the full potential of knowing what the government activities are and the making of decisions that will lead to the growth of the country. But under the Obamas campaign, he says that he will use cutting-edge techniques which will help in creating new ideas and transparency plus equal participation to all the Americans. This is because a nationalistic approach says that all the members of the country have the right to participate in the economic building of the country in which they belong.

He has already set up a technology that will enable equal participation of all citizens living in America which will tend to connect the Americans with the government so that they can be in a position to know what the government is doing for them. This will then engage the citizens in democracy in that all the citizens of the country will be involved in the economic activities which will lead to economic growth plus equity in sharing of the countries resources. This new technology, he says that he will establish pilot programs which will tend to open up government decision making plus also involving the members of the public in the work of agencies hence this will try to make the people participate which will make the government make more informed decisions. This is very much important as an aspect of nationalism that involves equal participation of all the citizens living in that country. So through this, you will find that the citizens living in America will be in a position to make important decisions that can be adapted by the government which will later lead to the economic growth of the country. (John, 2004).

Nationalism also has the element of religion in that every country has its dominant religion. For example, you find that in America, the only dominant religion is Christianity and you find that Obama is a Christian. Most of the Americans who are Christians are also against Muslims simply because they tend to believe that the Muslims in this case are terrorists. But in this case, we see that he belongs to the national religion in America. This clearly shows that his position is nationalism even though he is black but not white. He respects the people’s culture, values, and religion and that is why most of his campaigns are towards the economic development of America. As being nationalism, then it is important to ensure that one observes the culture, values, and religion of that country.

One has to stay as per the culture of that given country. But with the case of Obama, his campaigns are a position to nationalism but not to bring any change as far the country culture is concerned. He only speaks of economic development and how he will ensure change as far as the economy of the US is concerned. He says that he shall ensure that there is sustainable development in America by ensuring that all the industries have been in a position to compete well with the other competitive industries so that they can realize their competitive advantage. This is the most important thing for any presidential candidate aspiring to be the president of the US. The only thing people should be talking about is reviving the economy which has depreciated for the past period as a result of poor leadership. People should forget about their differences and all participate in the nation-building by ensuring that the members of the country have the chance to make up their decisions which can lead to the economic growth of the country. (Ernest, 2000).

His campaigns are also towards ensuring that there is nation-building through the provision of education facilities to all citizens in America. This is one of the important areas of nationalism in that every child has the right of getting an education. But you will find that most of the children have not been in a position to get good education yet they claim that they are citizens of our country. People have to be proud of their nation and this is achieved only through ensuring that people can access most of the human essentials like free education. So Obamas campaigns are nationalistic in that he promises the citizens of America free education for the needy students. All the students will be in a position to access free education so that they can be in a position to have increased standards of living. These are the leaders of tomorrow but when denied the necessary education, then it will mean that the country will not be in a position to be run effectively since we will have fewer people to work for the nation. So he is nationalistic in that he respects every citizen living in America by ensuring that there is sustainable development in the country with equal distribution of the country’s resources so that all the citizens in America can have increased standards of living. (John, 2002).

Conclusion

Nationalism means that a country has the right to constitute an independent economy that is based on a shared history with a common destiny whereby all the citizens of the country have to live as per the law of the land and work towards the economic development whereby the resources should be shared equally. It is through this that the Obamas campaign is a position of nationalism through ensuring that he has lived as per the laws of the land and respecting the citizens of the country but not to bring changes as far as the law of the country is concerned.

Reference

Craig, J. (1998): nationalism. University of Minnesota Press.

Lars-Erick, C. (2000): Emergent Actors in World Politics: How States and Nations Develop and Dissolve. Princeton. Princeton University Press.

Ernest, G. (2000): nations and Nationalism. Cornell University Press.

John, R. (2004): Culture, Identity and Politics. Cambridge. Cambridge University Press.

John, A. (2002): The state of the nation. Ernest Gellner and the Theory of Nationalism. Cambridge. Cambridge University Press.

Introduction

Mark the date November 4, 2008, on your calendar – the day when the whole world will witness a great turnover of the US economy from being in crisis to reviving the usual zesty trade.

The year 2008 taints the clean record of the US economy for the past few decades. The US economy is in its worst condition since the Great Depression. The value of $1 is deflating as compared to other currencies. The banking system is no longer as lively as it used to be (Bonner, 2008). The real estate foreclosures, affected by the current crisis of the banking system (Dreier, 2008), make way for imminent trouble in the 2008 Election as the conflict between the homeowners and foreclosed properties takes a clash.

From a list of more than 40, 2 most sought after aspiring presidential candidates, each confident that their platforms will make them win the poll, have been squaring off against each other as they attend every campaign, debate and public interview for them to win more votes in the upcoming election. John McCain, a Republican candidate and current senator from Arizona (The Washington Post, 2008), has been fleeting all over the country to capture the hearts of the crowd. He indeed is a tough contender according to recent presidential tracking polls for 2008 (USA Election Polls, 2008), but definitely not as good as the top presidential candidate, Barack Obama, a Democrat candidate and current senator from Illinois (The Washington Post, 2008).

Bringing forth the current situation of the US, I stand by my opinion that Obama should be the next President. To end the current economic crises and make enormous changes on the issues that the US Government is facing, we should cast out votes for Obama.

Discussion

His life

Obama’s parents were both servants of war as his father became an army for World War II and his mother worked on a bomber assembly line. His parents met at the University of Hawaii (where his parents were both students), and on the 4^th of August, 1961, they brought to life, Barack Obama. (Obama-Biden Campaign Site, 2008)

After studying at the Columbia University of New York in 1983, Obama came to Chicago in 1985 to perform community service. He helped Christian churches and the poor neighborhood in regaining livelihood after the steel plants closed, the crime rates climbed up high and unemployment becoming a big predicament. After fulfilling this noble mission, he went on to pursue a dream for a common good. He earned a law degree at Harvard University in 1991 and later flew back to Chicago where he practiced as a civil rights lawyer and taught constitutional law. His political career started thereafter as he became the Illinois State Senator in 2004, making him the third African-American to be elected in the House. (Obama-Biden Campaign Site, 2008)

Obama’s wife Michelle, and his two daughters Malia and Sasha, currently live on South Side Chicago. (Obama-Biden Campaign Site, 2008)

His accomplishments

Obama has been participating in many for-the-people’s-good government programs.

He participated in programs such as Earned Income Tax Credit that helped working families’ tax be cut by over $100 million; he advocated an expansion of early childhood education; he worked with law enforcement officials in requiring videotapes during interrogation after the incidents of proving a number of inmates innocent in the death row; he also passed a bill along with a Republican that allows citizens to browse via the internet where their taxes go; he had been championing ethics reform to rule out corruption in Congress; he fought to aide Illinois Veterans get their disability payments; he’s been working to promote the greater use of alternative and higher fuels in our cars; and on top of other accomplishments, he’s been there to help people’s lives paralyzed by the hurricane Katrina, battle against the genocide in Darfur and build the role of faith in our politics. (Obama-Biden Campaign Site, 2008)

His platforms

In view of redefining the greatness of America, Obama’s plans on the issue of Civil Rights are mainly to secure the rights of the people, to make sure that their civil rights are protected by the government, and improve justice and equality in workplaces and on areas where civil rights are most crucial. On the issue of defense, he intends to guard the rights of the people being sent to war, by clearly defining missions and providing enough support, are among others that he’ll make sure would be properly addressed.

While the men and women who are still in the army are ensured of being given enough needs, the Veterans of war will also be given support by combating their homelessness, fighting employment discrimination directed towards them, and giving the Veterans who suffered from combat-related psychological illness an improved mental health treatment and care for traumatic brain injury. (Obama-Biden Campaign Site, 2008)

On the issue of disabilities, the main points were to give equal education and equal opportunities on employment to battle discrimination. On rebuilding the economy, he seeks to improve taxes, job creation, and maintaining a free market. He also plans of improving technology, especially at school, where the use of the internet is highly in demand. He has high regard for poverty, that’s why he wants to make sure that there will be enough job opportunities and sufficient affordable housing that most Americans will be able to afford.

He wants to make sure that poverty is always addressed by tackling poverty and all the means to improve the condition. In taking into consideration the common good, he will make affordable the health care system, ensure the security of the society and strengthen the retirement savings. As Americans have always been known, there will be continuous protection and honor for the seniors and their interests. On the aspect of women’s rights, Obama seeks to improve the health of women by strong campaigns against AIDS/HIV, cancer, and mercury pollution are among others. He also would like to give them equal opportunity for employment, fight against violence directed at women, and common gender discriminations that affect a woman’s life. (Obama-Biden Campaign Site, 2008)

Obama has high regard for arts. His two best-selling books – “Dreams from My Father” and “The Audacity of Hope”, only proves how much he loves and wants to keep the American passion for arts alive. Not only does he plan to improve arts, but also science, where he will ensure that there will be enough funding for physical, mathematical, and engineering sciences which play big parts in various advancements in science and technology. This is to bring back the scientific dominance of America. In view of preventing further decaying of the nation’s railways, highways, bridges, airports, and neighborhood streets, he will strengthen the transportation systems.

On top of these, he will make sure that there will be enough investment and strategic long-term planning to make sure that efficient infrastructures will be stable prove stability. To put in more support for the victims of hurricane Katrina, he will rebuild New Orleans and the Gulf Coast. Along with this, he will make sure that in such catastrophic cases, emergency planning and response failure will no longer occur. (Obama-Biden Campaign Site, 2008)

Finally, as he’s always been known, Obama will put an end to the war against Iraq. This is the first thing that he will do; he will give his appointed Secretary of Defense and the rest of the military commanders the mission to pull out their military bases from Iraq. He firmly believes that the never-ending war is only making both Americans and Iraqis suffer more and unprogressive with their life, and if put to an end, will be for the best of the National Security. Our nation has given in many lives of its troops spent much money but all was for naught because it has left the Americans unsafe anywhere in the world. (Obama-Biden Campaign Site, 2008)

Conclusion

To answer the question of why should Barack Obama be the next President of the United States of America, I’d give a one-sentence answer: because we are Americans and we care for our country.

Going back to what transpired last August, Hillary Clinton announces her support for Obama: “With eyes firmly fixed on the future… Barack Obama is our candidate and he will be our president,” said the New York senator to an enthusiastic crowd. (Dingle and Skinner, 2008) Given this time in history that a strong contender withdraws from the poll and supports her former co-candidate, it’s apparent that Obama is the best choice among the rest.

His noble life has led him to many community services whose main goal is to help the needy. His aspiration of becoming the leader of the country is backed up by missions aimed at improving the current situation of the country, and preparing for the future chain of events. He is a Democrat who wants to maintain the democracy which the Americans have always been known for.

The dilemma is not “who to choose”, rather it is if we’ll use our voting rights to put into position the man that will save our country from regression and bring about necessary changes, or vote for another that could worsen our current conditions and put us in situations we’ve never thought we’d be put to.

References

Bonner, Bill. “The Worst Conditions for the U.S. Economy Since the Great Depression”. The Daily Reckoning Australia. 2008. Web.

Dingle, Derek T. and Skinner, Deborah Creighton. “Obama Is Official Nominee”. Black Enterprise. 2008. Web.

Dreier, Peter. “G.O.P.: Lose Your Home, Lose Your Vote”. The Huffington Post. 2008. Web.

Obama-Biden Campaign Site. Web.

The Washington Post. Web.

USA Election Polls. Web.

Introduction

The health care problem has assumed great dimensions due to rising costs, rise in the number of uninsured people and lack of uniformity in providing care to the needy. Columnist, Eminent thinker and Nobel-Laureate in Economics Paul Krugman has come out with a brilliant analysis on the nature of the problem and what could be done about it. There is the backdrop of two Presidential Candidates, Barack Obama of Democratic Party and John McCain of Republican Party also explicitly stating what they would do to alleviate the problem. Despite the efforts of previous Democratic President Clinton to resolve major issues during his tenure powerful political pressures did not allow much relief given to people. In this brief essay we will follow Kurgman’s view and arrive at an assessment of the plans of the two presidential candidates as well. We shall broadly follow the theme by placing Paul Krugman’s analysis.

Whether Health-Care is a spending problem

Paul Krugman analyzes the problem from five criteria. The first one is whether Health-Care has become a spending problem. He points out that from 5.2 percent of GDP in 1960, spending on this has increased to 16 percent during 2004. Even government reports point out increase in the spending but surprisingly one reason given is the technological advancement in this instance has increased the costs rather than reducing it. Krugman’s analysis indicates that while spending is inevitable the wastage that has been inherently taking place constitutes a considerable element. At present the waste amounts to nearly 30 percent. Inefficiency and Wastage are serious elements in public spending on this but whether either candidate would be in a position to resist the efforts of powerful lobbies is a moot question. Both are keen on promising as much as possible to alleviate the sufferings of the people by offer of concessions.

Employer-base Insurance

Krugman points out that in 2003 only 16 percent of the medical expenses was borne by the individuals while public or private insurance had to bear the rest. The analysis also indicates that 20% of the population accounted for 80% and a small fraction alone accounted for substantial expenditure. The insurance cover alone helps people to enjoy medical benefits and if they have to shell out from their pockets for all the medical expenditure, most people would find that most of the income would go only for this expenditure. The problem for the insurance companies is different in that literally it has to raise the premium for everyone so that the small percentage is given all that it requires. This is an unfortunate position for many but this stems from the fact that for long insurance on medical expenditure is linked with the employer’s responsibility. A few decades back when social welfare included medical benefits included for the workmen this did not seem to be a burden. But the rising costs in the field itself has produced an imbalance. McCain offers deregulation of insurance market as one way out of impasse. Obama suggests a broader base and a pool and federal funding of certain elements. He is keen on suggesting measures which would enable the insurers to reduce premium.

Medicare/Medicaid

Kurgman points out that despite the American medical system being the most privatized one, the major funding comes from the public. Medicare covers the needs of seniors while Medicaid is concerned with providing insurance cover to the weaker sections of the society. Medicare does not pose much problem with reference to spending and even if it does, the votes of the seniors constituting a good threat would have imbalances in it rectified by the political class. But Medicaid is poor people’s hope and “programs for the poor are poor programs” (Richard Titmus, British welfare scholar). In a very clear analysis Krugman points out that it is not so much that Medicare or Medicaid inherently add to the costs, rather the increased costs in medicine and allied peripherals have added to the problem. Both the presidential candidates have come out with elaborate plans to counter the undesirable consequences that could flow from any restriction on the spending. The general opinion is that McCain’s scheme would repel many needy Americans from insuring at all. In contrast Obama’s promise of almost universal coverage sounds fascinating but budgetary controls indicate that they would merely be pipe dreams as amounts would not be available. And this is prior to the present bail out big banks and financial institutions!

Single Payer/Simplification

In spite of the fact that the American spending on health care is of substantial percentage than other advanced nations the result has been poor returns due to inefficiency, accepted by many knowledgeable ones. It is indicated by Krugman that the quality and quantity in the medical services are by no means extra-ordinary but unfortunately the manner in which many cost factors interfere with proper functioning leads to inefficiency at many levels, i.e., it fails to provide the needed relief to uninsured ones and is much more interested in recovering money from the general pool of patients rather than having a social ethos. This could be attributed to larger reliance on private rather than public sector for services to be rendered.; The system has many variations and loopholes. The political will to curb profit motive of big medical industries is lacking. There is this curious dilemma as well. Where needs of health for members are taken care of public bodies like Veterans’ Administration there is effective cost control and satisfaction. But as a nation we are committed to free enterprise and as much de-regulation as possible. So from economic to political philosophy one has to turn for solace or blame! Simplification has been sacrificed, a plethora of rules and acts and activities slow down the process of rational approach.

Conclusion

Obama offers many comprehensive schemes and many of them are realistic and could help all sections of people: more so the underprivileged. If he had his way almost every American would be insured against unforeseen medical contingencies. However, whether his administration would be able to withstand the powerful private groups lobbying for insurance, pharmaceuticals and allied industries is a difficult question to answer. McCain’s may be broadly defined as a restatement in the faith of individual enterprises and a pep talk to the under privileged. He pleads for more de-control and de-regulating mechanisms. In fact the differences may be said to represent a basic ideological difference in approach to market and governments by the respective candidates. We have to wait for the results and see how effectively each one would put into effect what has been promised by them.

References

The New England Journal of Medicine, Vol.359: 781-784, 2008. Web.

www.barackobama.com

www.johnmccain.com

Introduction

Since President Barack Obama took over office in 2008, there has been a heated debate on his healthcare plans for all Americans. A significant number of people have faulted the healthcare plan on various grounds. Some of the prominent critics of Obama’s health policy proposition were members of the Republican Party. This is well described by O’Connor, Sabato, and Yanus (166). However, there are also those who have lauded the plan.

View about the healthcare policy

It is important to note that healthcare is one of the basic human needs in the world and specifically in the United States of America. However, a significant number of American citizens do not have access to better healthcare and health insurance policy.

It is approximated that over 45 million Americans lack medical cover and about 100 million have no sufficient insurance for long term or chronic illnesses. These statistics are discussed by both McKenna and Feingold (180). These numbers are alarming; hence, the government needs to take some measures to ensure that all citizens have access to sufficient medical services.

According to McKenna and Feingold (180) the United States the world’s leader in medical research and training; as such, the citizens of the United States should have access to the best and sufficient medical coverage as compared to citizens in other nations.

It is ironical to see other nations like Canada, Great Britain, France and Germany provide better healthcare to their citizens at low cost yet their medical research and education are ranked below that of the United States. Therefore, the United States of America needs a national health insurance.

The private sector is mostly profit-oriented and the players in the sector will always ensure their profit margins are as large as they can make them. Therefore, living the healthcare to the private sector will lock out low income earners from accessing better and high quality healthcare.

National health insurance will ensure that all American citizens, irrespective of economic class one belongs to, have access to better healthcare services. It is unfair for the law to grant all citizens the right to better healthcare services yet the state players do not ensure it by providing easy access to health insurance and medical cover. Without state involvement, the right to health may just be on paper.

Even though it may be viewed as an element of socialism, it is crucial for the government of the United States of America to play a significant role on the issues of health insurance and medical cover. It is only this way that low income earners can also access better healthcare services.

This is because the government is not profit oriented; it acts for the interest of all American citizens irrespective of their economic, social or political statuses. The private sector does not work for the interest of all. It only offers the best to those who are ready to give them high returns.

Nonetheless, it is also noteworthy that full involvement of the government may jeopardize the health insurance in the private sector thereby interfering with profitability in the sector.

The only workable modality is that both the government and the private sector should be involved in healthcare. This will ensure higher income earners who prefer private sector health services get the services they can afford and at the same time the low income earners are also able to get proper healthcare services.

Obama’s recent healthcare reforms

Obama’s healthcare reforms have been subject of debate for quite sometimes since he took over office in 2008. However, the healthcare reforms are a step in the right direction.

The new reforms will ensure that non-elderly American citizens have access to inexpensive healthcare insurance. The reforms have established the provision of these services through a recipe of a newly formulated program similar to Medicare program and the existing health plans provided by the employers.

The healthcare reforms will ensure that all American citizens access high quality healthcare services. The reforms provide that every individual legally living in the United States of America and is not covered by either health plans provided for by employers or Medicare can purchase healthcare coverage via Health Care for America.

This implies that the government will ensure that all citizens and legal residents are not discriminated against by the cost of obtaining healthcare services.

Under the reforms, the United States employers are required to provide their employees with health care coverage comparable to Health Care for American or alternatively pay employees a proper payroll-based tax in order to give support to the program of Health Care for America and assist the employees to purchase their own health coverage.

This healthcare plan is very good even for the immigrants since the Congress had passed an anti-discrimination legislation embodied in the Civil Rights Act of the year 1964; this was also past in the Voting Rights Act of 195 (O’Connor, Sabato, and Yanus 135). This implies that irrespective of one’s economic status, it will still be possible for one to afford a better healthcare coverage.

However, it remains a fact that President Obama’s healthcare reforms are expensive. This is one of the grounds on which they have been criticized. The modes of funding the reforms are likely to be burdensome to many American citizens who work hard to earn their money.

Hence, the Obama administration should carry on with the reforms but find alternative funding sources. In other words, the reforms are good, but they should not place selective burden on a section of citizens while favoring the other.

Conclusion

The healthcare services in the United States should not be left to the private sector. Doing this will deny low income class from accessing quality healthcare services. Therefore, both the government and the private sector should be involved.

Again, it is important to state that President Obama’s healthcare reforms are a step in the right direction since they will make access to quality healthcare services possible for most American citizens irrespective of their economic, political and social statuses.

Works Cited

McKenna, George, and Feingold Stanley. Taking Sides: Clashing Views on Political Issues, 17^th edition. New York: McGraw-Hill Higher Education, 2011. Print.

O’Connor, Karen, Sabato Larry, and Yanus Alixandra. Essentials of American Government: Roots and Reforms, 2009 edition. United States: Longman, 2011. Print.

Racism has been like a plague that America has lived with since the existence of this Great Nation. A lot has been spoken on the matter, opinions given by the most influential people in the world, and even accusations made, but racism has just refused to go away. The election of Barack Obama, an African-American to the highest seat in the nation is one big leap of a lifetime, an advancement that has not been even in the wildest dream of the world. The struggle began with the likes of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. with his “I have a dream” speech. As at then, the possibility of Black Americans being fully integrated with the pure white society was still a tall order; but he believed that “Someday” it surely will come to pass…this was proved when the Americans rose above the racial barriers and elected Barack Obama (Dinesh D’Souza, 12).

The advancement is a clear indication that a clear path has been opened towards a resounding resolution to the racism issue. With Obama on the presidential seat after the swearing-in ceremony on 20^th January 2009, Americans will have surely confirmed that the fight against racism is at the point of completion and that they no longer judge anyone by the color of their skin but by the content of his/her character. The NAAWP (National Association for the Advancement of White People), which is the modern equivalent of the KKK (Ku-Klux-Klan) and their policies can be fought successfully with a number of blacks as well as non-racial and liberal whites in the top government positions (Sentient Cenerd, 13-17).

No single nation in the entire world holds racism a greater horror more than the U.S. It surpasses all social evils, and it is believed to be more reprehensible [national obsession]. That is why any individual who advocates in public for its abolishment in most cases becomes a hero instantly…churches preach it and newspapers and politicians denounce it. It is explained that the non-white Americans have been forced into violence and in some extreme cases into drug abuse as a form of self-defense because of centuries of white oppression. But thanks to the previous polls that resulted in the election of Barack Obama that has seemingly put to rest our worries. And since he fell victim to the white oppression, it will be a lot easier for him to understand the logic involved in the struggle to completely put an end to racism in America.

Basing our argument on the speech he gave on racism in Philadelphia, if he goes by his own words then Mr. Obama will really make racism a part of our history. He stated that the US government has previously failed to address the racial issue by failing to deliver the lofty promises due to the constitution’s shortcomings. The number of African-Americans languishing in jails for varied offenses surpasses that in school, reports indicate that this has been fueled by the previous administrations: For instance, in the 1900s the Pennsylvania Authorities constructed eleven new prisons and only one public high school. The government statistics show that a good number of those in these prisons are uneducated and unemployed individuals (Sentient Cenerd, 22)…Obama’s other speeches have also been centered on the need for Americans to rise above racial acts. The American society is sure that the bail-out fund, which Obama wholly supports will be channeled into the needed infrastructure renovations which will sufficiently address the poverty and prejudice underlying the U.S perennial “race” problem…Americans have the way out of this now, so we should never lose the will.

Obama, a new elected president in the US is different from many, who have been presidents before him. Most evidently he differs from the president, who preceded him and from his rival, John McCain. The elections have been uneasy this year as pursue of leadership was revealed up to the end of it. Many theorists consider it to be the fight of an old and a new order and the representatives of the parties to be the representatives of an order which is to be set within America. The fight between Republicans and Democrats is over. And Barack Obama among the two represents the new democratic order or regime and embodies the spirit of new time of 2008.

First and foremost Obama is the first president, who is not white. This might be considered as a historical moment, USA adopted a black president. Since the foundation of the country it is the first success of the up of the black politics. Obama’s success interlaces with the ideas, embodied in the book by R. Thomas and Harmon Zeigler as democracy denotes the equality. Starting from the basic equalities in common and finishing with the racial equality in particular. This turn in the political course is most likely to bring another changes into the country.

Then, considering the changes and directions, which Barack Obama is most likely to choose, it means that he will introduce something new in the politic direction of his country. This change might be called a one, which has the spirit of new time. The promises of the new president are really encouraging and Democratic as they rest on the principles of the democracy as Ideology, namely treat each other with dignity and respect, government works for people but not against them, the same idea is that it should rather help its citizens than hurt them. The following citation from the book “The Irony of Democracy” shows the principles and plans, which are close to Obama’s views on how the politics of the country should function. These are democratic standards: “every man is equally entitled to protection by law; but when laws undertake to add to these natural and just advantages artificial distinctions… and exclusive privileges, to make the rich richer and the potent more powerful, the humble members of society – the farmers, mechanics, and laborers, – have neither the time nor the means for securing like favors to themselves, have a right to complain of the injustice of their government.” (Thomas R. and Harmon Zeigler, 66) Moreover, a truly courageous statement about the end of the dependence on the oil also shows which way Obama is going to choose to develop the country at least for four following years. He looks far ahead of time, mentioning, that drilling is a short-term solution as one day, the Earth is going to run out of this natural recourse. The availability of the study and the availability of getting a good job on good terms is also reflecting the new type of thinking, which is inherent to a person, who is a self-made person.

The big plans for the future, which Obama is hopefully to embody during his rule are 100 percent democratic and new. The slogan of the campaign, he led continued this word. As he knows perfectly, that people need changes this time, changes in politics, idea changes. All these are to be lived out under the rule of a person, who represents them – Barack Obama.

Inferring, it should be mentioned that Barack Obama, the newly elected president of the United States of America is the one, who represents not democracy only, but also the changes it may bring into the lives of people. The first black president, won this campaign thanks to the promise he gave, the promise to change the political course, to turn the war in Iraq into peace, not to depend on oil, and to pursue a more long-term solution to the existing problem of natural resources. All the abovementioned proves that Barack Obama not only embodies the spirit of this time but also looks ahead of it.

Works Cited

1. Andrew Heywood. Political Ideologies, Second Edition: An Introduction, Palgrave Macmillan, Gordonsville, Virginia, U.S., 2002
2. Thomas R. and Harmon Zeigler. The Irony of Democracy: An Uncommon Introduction to American Politics, 14 Edition, Wadsworth Publishing, 2008

Introduction

The United States of America is under the leadership of a president who is the holder of the highest and most powerful political office across the world. The first president of the US was sworn into office in the year 1789. Ronald Reagan was the 40^th president of the US and he served two terms as required by the constitution from the year 1981 to 1989.

He was a Republican, had a BA in Economics and Sociology, and he was well known for his economic policies, which would be later known as ‘Reaganomics’. The economic policies included the cutting down income taxes from 70% to 28% for the top income tax rate, restoring incentives for economic growth, and reducing government spending.

In a bid to achieve this goal, he hired the best available economists available in the country who came up with one of the most successful economic policies ever formulated in the world as the economy grew by one third in a period of seven years.

There is a similarity in both the governments of President Barrack Obama and Reagan as they both underscore the interest to come up with solutions to tackle the problem of economic recession facing the country. However, their economic policies are different as Obama is interested more in raising the taxes of every major Federal Tax as compared to Reagan who was committed to reducing the tax.

Historical turning points in the period of Reagan revolution through president Obama

The turning point is a moment where changes occur in the way things are done and it may have some negative or positive effects in the society. During Reagan’s time, one notable historical turning point was the ending of the Cold War. As Reagan took office, there was a cold war between Afghanistan and the Soviet Union, which originated from the invasion of the Soviets to Afghans in the year 1979.

Through his Cold War policies, which aimed at spreading democracy and freedom worldwide, the president managed to stop the invasion of the Soviets. The Cold War policies involved expending many resources on the United States’ military and technological improvement (Fitzgerald, 2000).

This strategy weakened the economy of the Soviet Union as it tried to keep the pace to be recognized globally like the US, and in the process, the move stopped the advancement of the soviet communism. The United States also supported the anti-Soviet uprising around the world and this move aided in the collapse of the Soviet regime.

However, although the Cold War policies led to the total containment of the Soviet regime, the US economy was affected as more funds were directed to funding the military. Despite the demerits of the war, this process was advantageous to the nation, as it helped in maintaining and improving its super position for it had the best-equipped and modern military in the world.

In addition, the containment of Soviet communism benefits even the contemporary society as people become more independent rather than depending on the state for every aspect of their well-being (Kengor, 2006).

As the Cold War ended, the relationship between the US and the Soviet Union improved and this aspect led to the signing of new arms control treaties in 1987, which helped in regulating nuclear weapons. This treaty is of great importance as it curtails the possibility of a nuclear war, which can have catastrophic effects on people.

Another notable historical turning point in this period is the decision by the United States to withdraw all its troops from Afghanistan. The nation had sent its troops to Afghanistan in 2001, but under the reign of Barrack Obama, he decided to withdraw the troops by the year 2014.

The first troops began returning home in 2011, which means that the military intervention in Afghanistan will end. The exit of the troops will have both negative and positive effects, as the Afghanistan will lose their foreign aid while the American economy will improve, as fewer funds will be set aside to fund the troops in Afghanistan.

AIDs epidemic in the United States

During the reign of Ronald Reagan, there was the discovery of one of the world’s most deadly diseases known as AIDs. The United States’ researchers discovered the disease in the early 1980s and up to date, it has killed millions of people as its cure is yet to be discovered. People associated with the disease are discriminated and considered as outcast even by their own family members.

As more people were infected and other died of AIDs, the then president advocated for abstinence and prevention of immigrants infected with the scourge. Since its discovery in 1980s, HIV/AIDs epidemic shook the confidence of the most powerful nation as statistics of people who have been affected by the virus worldwide especially in the African continent are overwhelming.

Though the US came up with antiretroviral drugs to prolong the lifespan of people affected by the disease, it has failed to come up with a lasting cure that would counter the disease. Due to this aspect, HIV/AIDs has affected the economic development of countries especially the developing countries with strained resources (Hunter, 2006).

Deregulation movement of Ronald Reagan era

The deregulation policies during the era of Ronald Reagan mainly aimed at liberalizing the economy of the country. The president believed that removing the restrictions in place and providing a free market would help the institutions to help economic growth in a better way.

However, Reagan failed to understand that the regulations’ existence was important, as the major aim was to prevent malpractices from big companies. Due to this move, the free market led to the crippling of the economy and the widening gap being experienced in the country between the rich and the poor coupled with the mortgage meltdown in the country currently.

United states War with Afghanistan and Iraq

In 2001, a terror group supposedly led by Osama bin Laden attacked the United States. The result of this attack was the loss of approximately 3000 lives and destruction of property worth millions of dollars. This attack forced the US to intensify its war on terrorism by invading Afghanistan, which is seen as the home for Taliban.

The US accused the Taliban of protecting the leader of Al-Qaeda who was responsible for the attacks and so the main aim of the attack was to remove Taliban from power and kill or capture Osama bin Laden. The United States also invaded Iraq on the pretext that Saddam Hussein was developing weapons of mass destruction (Keegan, 2005).

The response of the United States’ invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq received mixed reactions from the international community with some condemning and others supporting the invasion. Given that even to date no single weapon of mass destruction has been found in Iraq (Keegan, 2005), the international community is skeptical of what informed the invasion.

Conclusion

The United States remains the world’s largest economy followed by china and this aspect hinges on the economic policies made from Reagan’s time as the president. It is also the most powerful nation and it has aided in curtailing terrorist activities around the world due to its advanced and sufficiently funded military as compared to other countries across the world.

Reference List

Fitzgerald, F. (2000). Way Out There in the Blue: Reagan, Stars Wars, and the End of the Cold War. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster.

Hunter, S. (2006). AIDS in America. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.

Keegan, J. (2005). The Iraq War: The Military Offensive, from Victory in 21 Days to the Insurgent Aftermath. New York, NY: Vintage Books.

Kengor, P. (2006).The Crusader: Ronald Reagan and the fall of Communism. New York, NY: Harper Collins publishers.