Developing A Foreign Policy

 

            The idea of a foreign policy is a broader perspective on a domestic policy. "However, the process of foreign policymaking is much more centralized within the executive branch, and the number of public and private actors involved as far smaller" (Kitznelson, pg. 362). To me this is saying that what the executive branch says goes. According to Kitznelson, the policy before World War II focused on George Washington's farewell address that wanted the people of the future to use their geography to their advantage and find good fortune from it (pg. 353). Since the United States focuses on more than just Americans, the foreign policy needs to focus on other countries values as well. This will help everyone in the country agree somewhat on policy. The military is also a huge determining factor on what the policy says. “Two sets of statistics—military and economic—provide the context for understanding the American policy” (Kitznelson, pg. 350). With the American people understanding that our military personal are pushed to their limits, they can understand that part of the policy will be based on the power the United States has gained from strong army personal. The other context of the policy is based off of the economy. The economy lately has been going through a recession that can impact how well we reflect our policy. Before our recession, I think that the policy reflected our economy better, however when September 11^th happened, our economy hit a down fall because we lost our World Trade Centers. This created a lot of stress on people losing their loved ones and also on using their own money to help others out. Money was a huge factor for the economy, too. There was money spent to transport fire departments to New York, help out families, etc. As this event scared most people, we were able to send our own military troops over to Iraq to fight them for it. (Kitznelson, pg. 353-354).

Katznelson, Ira, Kesselman, Mark, Draper, Alex. (2011). The Politics of Power, Capitalism and Democracy. pgs 250, 251, 281. Norton & Company, New York.

September 11, 2001 tragedy

Judges and the The Judicial System Supporting Freedom

            Judges and the judicial system play a huge role in freedom, whether is it supporting it or limiting it. “The United States has a dual court system; state and federal systems of justice exist side by side” (Katznelson, 250). Each state is responsible for their own court system, but when things are that extreme, the case can be taken to the federal level. By allowing every state to be responsible for their courts, it allows some freedom in who is the judge. Thirty-nine states allow the people to vote for judges to be elected or reelected into office. However, some research has been done to find limitations, “the Supreme Court ruled in their favor, claiming that excessive campaign contributions to a judge create an unconstitutional threat to a fair trial” (Katznelson, 251). So by allowing freedoms for the people to vote, it is actually limiting the judges’ freedoms to a fair trial. As the book goes on it talks about the amount of money it takes to campaign and how judges start to become harsher with their punishments to bring the people on ‘their side’.

            The justice system here in America is much different than those in other countries. We are allowed to elect our judges, while other countries have somebody that may choose the judge for the people. This freedom allows us to see who we are voting for. “By contrast, in the United States the question of whether a law is constitutional or not is heard in the same court where all other types of cases are tried” (Katznelson, 281).  This is another freedom of our people that allows us to have a fair hearing because many other cases, probably some similar, have been heard and people are usually given the same sentence. In the courts, the person being tried has the right to speak and tell their side of the story, this allows for freedom of speech. Then the judge can take everything he has heard and examine the Constitution to decide on the punishment that should be given. Sometimes a jury is held which allows outside people to hear the case and view the evidence to determine what the person should be punished for.

When I was on jury duty myself, it took us a good 6 hours to determine the final answer of what this person should be convicted for. Without my own personal experience in a court room, I would not be able to understand what really goes on and what the judge’s role is. At first I thought that the jury was doing most of the work, but after reading this chapter, I see that the judge has to look over the laws and then have the jury duties opinion. From there the judge goes with the evidence that is seen most likely because he himself does not want to miss anything or elaborate. It was very hard to examine only the facts and to stop elaborating on what could have happened, versus what actually did. This freedom of allowing people to be on jury duty allows us to learn more about the judges and inside the judicial system.  


 Katznelson, Ira, Kesselman, Mark, Draper, Alex. (2011). The Politics of Power, Capitalism and Democracy. pgs 250, 251, 281. Norton & Company, New York.

Jury Duty Personal Experiences

The U.S. Congress Supporting and/or Limiting Authentic Representation

                Congress has always gone back and forth between the Republicans or Democrats taking ‘over’. So in having the war between who is more powerful, how can the U.S. Congress support authentic representation when it sounds like they are limiting the representation within the Congress. When the parties come together and can be represented in an equal sense we create a unified government. “Under unified government, the Obama White House entered into more robust collaborative relationships with the majority in Congress crafting the details of key legislation, including the stimulus package and health-care reform” (Katznelson, 219). Now that Congress has been seen as coming together, they are able to focus on more problems in the society. Even the health-care reform was helping the majority population, but also the minority populations in ensuring people have health care. This brings me to my next point of the minorities being heard.

            There is some limitation by the Congress being mostly white, educated, rich, males. Although the minorities have a chance to be in on Congress by being in the House of Representatives, I still feel there are not enough of them to make a difference. The white males are the majority, and usually majority rules leaving those minorities out, unless the minorities are on the same vote as the majority. Even in society, the educated, rich, white population is seen to vote more than the minorities. However, we still have some support from the Congress. “For example, Senator Jay Rockefeller of West Virginia comes from a very wealthy family, yet has been among the leading advocates of social programs for the poor” (Katznelson, 227). This leaves hope for the minorities, whether it is race or status that classifies them. It could also inspire people to want to join Congress and be a part of a program that can help a minority group they may not be a part of, but want to help. “...A white member of Congress can do a very good job representing a black-majority district, as Steven Cohen of Memphis, Tennessee, has been doing in the House since 2006; and a black member of Congress can do a good job representing a district where whites significantly out number blacks, as Barack Obama did for the state of Illinois when he served after his 2004 election to the Senate” (Katznelson, 227).

            The idea of minorities being ignored is not very shocking as I am learning from my Cultural Diversity class. We watched a video the other day that showed us how white people are the majority and even white females are looked up to in commercials and movies. They showed a commercial where the female is seen looking up at the white male, and the white male is always looking down on the female and having a sense of power. However, there was a scene where the white female was looking down on an African American male. The roles are very reserved to show that the majority or the whites have the power over the minorities. This idea is driven into our heads at a very young age from the TV we watch, and I believe it should be changed to not send this underlying message across while are kids.

Katznelson, Ira, Kesselman, Mark, Draper, Alex. (2011). The Politics of Power, Capitalism and   Democracy. pgs 175, 185, 206. Norton & Company, New York.
Cultural Diversity Metro Class 

U.S. Presidency and the Ideal Government

            After the Revolutionary War and the ideas of a new government, ideas of the founders started arising of who should be running the government. “Many of the Founders believed that a new government required and autonomous and energetic presidential office, as opposed to the weak executive that labored under the Articles” (Katznelson, 2011, 175). Although this did not necessarily happen within the government, Hamilton decided that a strong executive branch was needed. When different presidents are elected from the different branches of government, like democrats or republicans, it seems to cause a bit of an uprising for particular tasks to be completed. For example, “When the Democrats gained control of the Senate in 2004 and the House of Representatives in 2006, pushback began” (Katznelson, 2011, 185). The constant battle of who has more power of the house comes with the President’s election.

            The people that have the power to choose their president are the members of the American society. People are allowed to vote for who they feel will be a better president. Now if the voting is skewed, nobody knows although rumors have spread. After the president is elected into position, he has the power to listen to or ignore the people and what they want and feel will make a better economy for them to live in. Aside from this, President’s still have a lot on their plate. “Presidents must contend with countervailing pressures from citizens, business firms, interest groups, and social movements” (Katznelson, 2011, 206). This means that the president looks at all of these groups and their opinions and then bases his decision off of the majority. However, is this true? Presidents are supposed to look at all of these opinions and what is going on, but we won’t actually know if they do until one of us becomes president. The idea of a perfect society is like the idea of Big Brother from the book 1985 by George Orwell. Big Brother was seen to be so perfect that he watched every move you made and made things better when he saw discontentment. Then, when one person tries to break away from this perfect society, all hell breaks loose. With so much on the presidents hands, he may not necessarily mean to create flaws, but by overlooking the minorities opinions, he might be doing just that.

Katznelson, Ira, Kesselman, Mark, Draper, Alex. (2011). The Politics of Power, Capitalism and           Democracy. pgs 175, 185, 206. Norton & Company, New York.


1985. George Orwell