Western Political Theory Vs Comparative Theory

Overall Ponnuru supports his opinion by using facts; however the article has a strong conservative bias, and should be interpreted as such. Zakaria organized his argument in a way that captured the reader’s attention, starting with statistics that do not favor the United States. He proceeds to pick apart this data and refute the idea that America is not advancing the way other countries are, but rather are advancing in its own ways. Each author had convincing and valid arguments for their points about the role of America in the world and what is to come, but it is important to take into consideration ones’ own knowledge about this issue and how each article supports and opposes the

If you also look at the arguments against the options of restricting immigration, it talks about how refusing to let asylum seekers in “will fuel anti-American sentiment throughout the world”. But that doesn’t mean we should have open borders because that not only will make already residing Americans feel not secure, but it is an open door to anyone.

It is in observing how people deal with and react to conflicts that we see clear differences between cultures. Some cultures view conflict as a positive thing, while others view it as something to be avoided. In the United States, conflict is not usually desirable; nonetheless, conventional wisdom in this country encourages individuals to deal directly with conflicts when they do arise. In fact, face-to-face encounters are usually suggested as the way to work through whatever problems exist. By contrast, in many Asian countries, open conflict is experienced as embarrassing or demeaning.

“By assuming other people should be treated the way I want to be treated, it imposes my preferences and values on those around me”(Does The Golden). Essayist and writer for the New York Times Magazine, Chuck Klosterman, explains in his article Does The Golden Rule Hold Up in Modern Society why the “Golden Rule” may actually be not so golden after all. Klosterman explains why assuming that people want the same things and think that the same actions are moral is simply irrational. He states, “Well, I certainly want to be treated in a manner that accounts for the possibility that other people can’t predict what I want”(Does The Golden). I interpret this to mean that he wants to be treated as a unique person who has his own morals and values.

Sherrill on the other hand, speaks directly not to the politics of America, but to the mythos, the narrative. Sherrill does not go into heavy political logistics like Chidester and Linenthal do, instead Sherrill speaks on behalf of the cultural and conscious aspects of defining a sacred space. Sherrill makes a good argument when he discusses Linenthal’s approach towards the argument of deciding what is sacred. He states that Linenthal tries to find a particular pattern, the logistics. Meanwhile Sherrill is more concerned with using the words “sacred space” as an adjective, instead of allowing it to become a noun, losing all the cultural landscape it once had.

It is probably one of the best ways to prevent the dominance of highly populated states in the election. However, it creates issues like the election result may not truly reflect the public will, even though this does not happen very often. Reflecting the popular will is one of the important criteria for evaluating an electoral method. Therefore, I hold that the Electoral College is not effective enough at the moment and further modifications may be

However, I do not think that lobbyist should provide favors to politicians, so that the politicians will vote on a bill in the lobbyist’s favor even though lobbyists go after those politicians that have no position on an issue. I just think that it is immoral and should be considered cheating because the REAL job of the lobbyist should be to persuade the politician with their presentation of ideas, not by money. Not only this, lobbyists should go after the politicians, with ideas and

Texts are polysemic—they have multiple and varied meanings. However this semantic instability does not mean that readers can make a text mean whatever they wish it to mean. Meaning is derived from the codes, conversations and genres of the text and it’s social, cultural, historical and ideological contexts—which can work together to convey a preferred reading of the text.” (Given, 2008) Concerning the pros and cons of omitting field research and focussing primarily on textual analysis; this will lend this paper’s area of research a high level of academic validity. As well as this, between multiple textual sources the prevailing messages of Moore’s works as well as their social and cultural implications will emerge. Thereby attaining the mass interpretation as to the effects, if any,  that Alan Moore’s graphic novel have had on his readership in influencing whatever social or cultural reform that took place after his work’s had been published.

Rush Limbaugh discusses multiculturalism and its possible failings to America culture. Limbaugh believes teaching minorities about their roots hinder their “future as Americans.” He continues to say “If you want to prosper in America, if you want access to opportunity in America, you must be able to assimilate: to become part of the American culture.” This statement, personally, implies other cultures cannot have the same work ethic and values as “regular” Americans, which is a presumptuous statement to make. To a certain point, yes, incoming immigrants and generational immigrants do have to adapt to the American culture, but their roots do not discount their ability to succeed in American society. Limbaugh continues to state that multiculturalism

They argue that it has many major flaws, but they acknowledge that parts of theory have some truth to it. Throughout this essay, cultural relativism will be questioned, but also supported in some ways. The idea of cultural relativism reminds me of a sociological term--ethnocentrism--that essentially means the opposite. Ethnocentrism is essentially a bias about your own culture against other cultures. One can only see their culture (usually as dominant to the others), rather than attempting to see the perspective of whatever culture is in question.