"Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all those other forms that have been tried" – Winston Churchill
Winston Churchill said this as part of his speech during the Second Reading of the Parliament Bill on November 11, 1947 (Baltzersen, 2005). As the leader of the Opposition, Churchill is known for his commitment to democracy. His stand is justifiable; the alternatives to democracy that he knew were all ultimately violent, coercive, and totalitarian—much like the governments of Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union which Churchill confronted during his career (Stolyarov II, 2006). Therefore, even though he recognizes that democracy has its own flaws, it is least evil of the forms of government in his opinion. However, in my opinion,
…show more content…
In a roundabout way the media do have a considerable measure of impact on democracy, as they make individuals mindful of the political situation in the nation in the condition that the media reports it to be, which may not always be the reality. Those not so much mindful of the political issues in the nation can thus make the wrong, confused choice while voting. Individuals likewise have a tendency to take after a swarm, and may vote in favour of a party under the influence of the majority, and not voice his or her actual assessment (R. Machan, 2002). One case study is that of America whereby Democracy has failed in view of the widening gap between the rich and poor people. Those who are financially capable take part more than others and are able to press their requests on the government. Public authorities, thus, are substantially more receptive to the rich than to the average individuals and the poor. Candidates running for elections with more financial support basically have a higher possibility of drawing in voters and beating their rivals. This results in a legislature that is ruled by the elites, helping the elites. Subsequently, popular government falls flat in light of the fact that the privileges of the less advantaged are not equivalent to those of the
Groups and individuals with that hold these resources use them to maintain power and social control. The wealthy are the independent variables that hold the power to make decisions and control how society is ran. The lower classes are the dependent variables that have little to no control over how society is structured. Conflict theorists encourage social change. Instead of allowing the “well off” to force social order on everyone else, the general public should fight for social change even at the expense of a possible social revolution.
Is the author 's argument based on any unproven assumptions? If so, identify the assumptions and identify what information is needed. The author 's arguments are based on unproven assumptions. For instance, he assumes that, it is false that material wealth is the standard of success and this goes hand in hand with the abandonment of the false belief that public office and high political position are to be valued only by the standards of pride of place and personal profit.
However, contrary to popular belief, democracy, if not implemented properly, can be a “slow, messy, combative and often inefficient form of government” as
The media is a major source of information for voters. Voters depend on the media to make their decision on who to support and vote for. As much trouble as the media causes, they play a major role in our political system. The American President accurately depicts the political process.
Currently, we have both a wealthy class and common people rule. Everyone (common people) gets to vote, and those votes decide our future. But, because of their wealthy, the wealthy have an advantage when it comes to politics. They can pay a lot for the best lawyer (the best example being the OJ Simpson case) and be proven innocent because the lawyer raised reasonable doubt. Also, wealthy business owners could get the government to move a smaller business/store, using eminent domain, and place their own business at the location, using the words “public use” to tell the people it was for them.
One important component in which the upper class rule America is the electoral process. Loose campaign finance regulation, including controversial Supreme Court decisions such as Citizens United v. US and Buckley v. Valeo is a primary cause of the wealthy ruling politics. These two decisions asserted that corporations are not limited in their spending on political candidates. Essentially, the US Supreme Court enabled corporate leaders to buy influence - SuperPAC heads and wealthy businessmen were welcomed to join forces and pour as much money as possible into candidates’ campaigns. The net effect: America’s wealthiest individuals could exert an unmatchable influence on candidates and the electorate while pressing an agenda favoring the upper class.
In this article, Tom Mckay examines how the United States has turned into an Oligarchy. One of the interesting arguments he makes is the average citizen doesn’t have significant impact on public policy and most power has come from the upper class. Figure 2 shows that the income gains for the top 1% has increase over 100% compared to the rest. The data seems to support the idea that with the top earners becoming more wealthy, that as means they are having more power. The author suggests that as the business and corporations are getting bigger and wealthier, they will essentially make all of the decision.
One of the arguments made by proponents is that creating a public financing system would minimize the socioeconomic demarcation line of political influence between the wealthy and the poor. Additionally, this would augment the U.S.’s overall political participation, specifically voter turnout – currently only 60% compared to the international average of 70% – because if a broader spectrum of people felt that they could make a difference, then there would be greater participation in the political
In America, Media bias is everywhere, in the United States all the information that an average American received through everyday sources, the news was most likely processed through the media and told through a biased point of view, when the media gets their hands on news if it is important then it probably won’t be talked about or downplayed no matter the source like in the newspaper, radio, television, movies, as well as other outlets that the media uses, the media only seems to share the news that they find interesting, even then the media would most likely have changed the story, in what they say is just tweaked news, what actually happened and what really happened would be two different stories, also the story would be told from one person
When thinking of the media you think they are reporting the appropriate and accurate information not based on any personal opinions and feelings. Also one would not think the media would be reporting based on one side of politics or the other. The media is extremely biased when it comes to politics and news. While some of the media is conservative-biased I believe the mass media is liberal-biased. Majority of media outlets are liberal companies, media personnel and journalists will identify themselves as democrats and liberals more so than republicans or conservatives and lastly the left side (liberals) of the mass media is persuasive on what information to report.
Sir Winston Churchill was of the viewpoint that the free people of the world shall not be forced to live in a way they don’t like. He was in the favor of the democracy and the practice of democracy in the whole world not only in Eastern Europe or Western Europe. He wanted and highlighted that the Communist Soviet Union now Russia may take over the democratic Europe and force people to live in a communist society.
I have come to realize that the media has always sided what was popular to the public. Though in some cases I’m sure there have been some influencing through monetary means and under the table deals. Nonetheless the media actually served as a counter argument to my thoughts and actually helped me remembered in why I vote for what I vote for. As you can see from most of the media in the last 6 years it has served towards democrats and more government interference. Now don’t get me wrong things like the patriot act are necessary for the safety of our nations
Literature Review The study of media influences on society is important because of the impact it has on shaping our beliefs, behaviours, and biases. Many Sociologist have examined the different aspects of media influence on society and this literature review will summarize the findings of five different research articles which focus on the effects of media exposure on society as a whole. A variety of issues are explored including, feminism, racism, sexism, and inequality of the different socioeconomic classes. It is important to highlight the influential practices used by the media to influence people, so that we may better understand the impact that it may have on our daily lives. This literature review examines the many aspects of media
Media are platforms of mass communication that can be categorized as either new of traditional media, with new media being forms of communication that make use of technologies such as the Internet, and traditional media being more conventional forms of media such as newspapers. Media, primarily new media, is getting more popular and influential, especially in today’s day and age since we are exposed to it a lot more than in the past and also since media is more easily accessible now. The media can shape our behaviours, perceptions and opinions, and it is important to know how people are influenced and impacted by it. The media can influence someone’s perception of social reality, or perceptions of beauty or even influence people’s behaviours and habits and therefore, the media does shape who we are. One way that the media can shape who we are is by influencing our perception of social reality.
Many people believe that the election plays the most important role in democracy. Because a free and fair election holds the government responsible and forces it to behave on voter's interest. However, some scholars find evidence that election itself is not enough to hold politicians responsible if the institutions are not shaping incentives in a correct way. In other words, the role of the election on democracy, whether it helps to serve the interest of the public or specific groups, depends on other political institutions. I