Q-1: McAdam and Kloos write a book to try to understand how American politics evolved in the 1950s from a politics of moderation, bipartisan cooperation and relative economic equality to today’s politics of savage partisan divisions and sharp economic inequality. Their first chapter provides an overview of their explanation. Provide in your words a summary of this overview. HINT: This is a course on social or protest movements. If your answer for Q-1 does not feature some ideas about the role of social movements, you probably need to review the material. Despite the desired trend towards less racism with the election of the first African American president, the opposite has occurred. Instead of bringing Americans together, America has become increasingly more polarized. As McAdam and Kloos write, “the country is now more starkly divided in political terms than at any time since the end of Reconstruction and more unequal in material terms than roughly a century ago and greater, even, than on the eve of the Great Depression” (McAdam and Kloos 4). An increase in inequality has only given rise to protest groups such as Occupy Wall St that protested the rising inequality between the 1% …show more content…
The authors of the text also look at the interaction between race, region, and movement when looking at the evolution of American politics. As party elites and political activists have found a wider partisan divide in issues, the ordinary American still harbors the same general outlook on social and political issues as in the past. Despite or rather in spite of this, Americans are showing an increased lack of confidence in their government and elected officials. This lack of confidence over career politicians has fueled actions such as the election of Donald Trump who campaigned as a successful businessman apart from the ordinary politics of
In the Huffington Post article “Why Partisan Voting Makes Accountability Impossible”, Todd Phillips analyzes how social groups and political ideology heightens the response we have toward the candidate that represents our political party. Phillips states that social groups will vote for a candidate because of their loyalty to the political party, and not because of their issue advocacy. This loyalty is emphasized due their attachment to their social group. During times of an election, politicians will have different policies and stances on issues that can be seen as being more liberal or more conservative. However, this does not deter partisans from voting for their a candidate, since their loyalty lies within their attachment to their political
Mariglen Verjoni Freshman Seminar Professor La’Shannon 3/9/16 The article “Divisions in the One Percent and Class Warfare that Will Shape Election 2014” by Joel Kotkin is about how can people can spread property ownership and how can they improve opportunity in each and every social class in the United States of America. Kotkin was mainly focusing on how each social class has different traditions or beliefs on the elections and because of the inequality in each social class it could affect the 2014 presidential election. Throughout the article Kotkin when on and on about how that there is only “one percent” which is mainly Americas wealthiest individuals, but also it refers to all the wealthiest people in the world and then there is the
The late 1960’s and early 1970’s was a time of unrest in the United States. America was in the middle of a civil rights movement, American racism was nearly at its breaking point. In 1968 Martin Luther King, a civil rights activist, was assassinated in Memphis, Tennessee. That same year the Association of American Medical Colleges made a recommendation to open up nearly twelve percent to first year medical school classes to minority students(McNeese pg. 14).
Blow explains how over the past years, the country has separated through a widening of the gaps between different types of groups of people in the country which have very different ideas and beliefs that clash against each other. Blow strengthens his evidence by giving specific examples of the gaps seen in modern America such as the occurrence of secessions in both the
Students have often debated whether American politics were becoming more democratic in the early 1800s. American politics in the early 1800s had aspects in which they were becoming more democratic, and aspects in which they were becoming less democratic, when taking into consideration voting, campaigning, and political parties. Politics that are democratic are representative of everyone in America, and they everyone is able to participate in government practices. Politics that are not democratic are the opposite and do not represent everyone, or do not allow everyone in America to do participate in government practices. Although there are ways that American politics in the early 1800s were becoming more democratic, they failed to become fully
Differing forms of government size and involvement in public affairs has shaped many eras in America’s history. Expanding the government has usually led to the creation of the programs and specific offices dealing with niche interests or offices targeted at helping specific demographics of citizens. When these programs are used to the benefit the disenfranchised and disadvantaged is when democratic government starts to become a better system for all instead of only benefitting those with power. In the following eras the government of the United States was altered in some manner; Progressivism, The Great Society, and social movements in the 1960s and 70s all impacted the existing ideals held by political leaders and constituents.
During the first two decades of the twentieth century, a large and diverse number of Americans claimed the political label “Progressive.” Progressives all shared a common fundamental belief of developing methods to counteract against the political and social issues of the time. They thrived in tackling some of the most crucial issues of society, as they were able to improve the conditions of the urban environment, increase the democratic influence of citizens, and sap most corruption out of the government. However, as the Progressive Movement successfully managed to cover those areas, it was limited to solving the issues of only white Americans, failing to represent the minorities, especially African Americans.
Citizens of today’s society are convinced that they are divided tremendously. That the Republicans are so far right on the spectrum and that the Democrats are so far left on the spectrum that it is impossible for both parties to come to an agreement on any type of issue. If citizens dig deeper into the political world, they will find that there is not much of a difference between the two parties as they think. My job is to uncover what you may not know about politics, and have you see the opposing party 's view on the issues
Imagine earning less money than someone with a different hair color, even if the same amount of effort was put into a job, or not being able to do something all because a group of people with the same hair color said only they can do that something. This is an example of what racial inequality feels like. A majority ruling and creating certain rules that are unjust. Just because a majority has a decision on an issue, it doesn’t mean that the majority is right. This what Henry Thoreau is trying to clarify in his writing Civil Disobedience; “when the power is once in the hands of the people, a majority are permitted, and for a long period continue, to rule, is not because they are most likely to be in the right, nor because this seems fairest to the minority, but because they are physically the strongest” (Thoreau 4).
Michael McGerr focuses on a variety of topics, including the middle-class during this time and he coverers a wide variety of themes, including the importance of individualism. Michael McGerr states, “The enter of this book looks at four quintessential progressive battles: to change other people; to end class conflict; to control big business, and to segregate society.” (McGerr, xv) A Fierce Discontent is a history book in its own and Michael McGerr does an excellent job of incorporating detailed account of Americans during this era of social and political unrest. While we might “live in a politically disappointing time” (McGerr, xiii), Michael McGerr makes what might be a little boring better by offering compelling evidence of the Progressive
New immigrants, many of which could not speak english, needed help adjusting to America’s urban life: it’s laws, customs, and language. The political machine was the principle source of assistance in these adjustments. This urban machine was one of the most distinctive political institutions in America and it owed its existence to the power vacuum that the chaotic growth of cities had created. Due to this a group of “urban bosses” emerged and they would help immigrants and bribe their vote by bringing them food, finding them jobs, and helping them in minor legal situations. The power of immigrant voters who were less concerned with political morality than with obtaining the services that machines provided, the link between the political organizations and wealthy, and the structural weakness of city governments were all factors that made boss rule possible.
America prides itself on being one of the most effective democratically governed counties. The idea of the American dream is that all people have equivalent political freedoms and a responsive government. However the effectiveness of social equality is being threatened by increasing inequality in the United States. Economic inequality in the US has expanded drastically. The wealth gap has had drastic changes over the past 35 years.
Finally, it will be argued that the modern political party system in the United States is a two-party system dominated by the Democratic Party and the Republican Party. These two parties have won every United States presidential election since 1852 and have controlled the United States Congress since 1856. The Democratic Party generally positions itself as centre-left in American politics and supports a modern American liberal platform, while the Republican Party generally positions itself as centre-right and supports a modern American conservative platform. (Nichols, 1967)
Amidst the ample political discourse occurring in contemporary America, it’s hard to imagine how the political dissent that surrounds today’s Americans can be seen as positive. If the general public is so upset, isn’t that a sign that the system is broken? However, if one is to examine the scope of history and theory, one would find that disagreement–no matter how avid– does not immediately equal the dysfunction of the state. Machiavelli, who lived in times and societies more corrupt and dictatorial than that of modern day America, hypothesized that class conflict can only ever be good for a state.