|
American Government Dr. Alan M. Kirshner |
|
NOTES: 1. Please place
your name on your exam papers. 2.
Please staple this sheet AFTER (at the end of, at the back of) your answer
sheets. 3.
Please do not write on both sides of the paper at the same time. You can,
however, write on both sides of the paper at different times. |
PART I: Identification (50 pts)--Identify any ten, and only ten, of the words, terms or dates that follow:
|
Rev. Martin Niemueller Skin Heads Bi-Cameral Legislature Plutocracy Madilyn Murray OÕHare Affirmative Action Baron vs. Baltimore (1833) Selective Incorporation 14th Amendment to the US Constitution Electoral College |
Gitlow vs. New York Civil Liberties Junta John Locke Alexis de Tocqueville Nurture Necessary and Proper Clause Ex Post Facto Laws Moral Majority Meritocracy |
PART II: Essay (50
pts)--Answer A OR B below:
A.
Do you believe that affirmative action in the United States, as defined by your
loving professor, enhances or distracts from the principles and practices of
democracy as detailed in the chart,
ÒConditions of a Democratic Government?Ó
OR
B.
The author of a previous textbook I used added another definition to politics
from those
I provided in class: ÒPolitics: The Process of Deciding on SocietyÕs Goals.Ó
What are some of the
interpretations presented in the book and in class on how a societyÕs goals are
decided? And, how do you think societyÕs goals [are] determined in the U.S.?
Make it so!
Alan
Anna Nemchuk
10/28/09
American
Government Midterm Part I
1.) Civil Liberties - those rights of individuals protected
from the government. Privacy would be one. Vigorously defended by the A.C.L.U.
2.) Nurture – the belief that a personÕs
behavior is more influenced by upbringing than genes (nature). Influences
include cultural, socio-economic, political and educational environments.
Ultimately, this view supports the view that people can be good, can change and
can be taught. (A man is made, not born.)
3.) Madilyn Murray OÕHare –
AmericaÕs best-known atheist. Founded the American Atheist
Church and, through the loophole of it technically being a church, won tax exempt status.
4.) Selective Incorporation – refers to the gradual
process of the courtsÕ applying select statements from the Bill of Rights
(which technically applies only to the federal government) to states. For
instance, all states must now protect the freedom of speech, but not all are
compelled to refrain from setting excessive bail.
5.) Gitlow vs. New York (1925) – the Supreme Court decision that opened the floodgates of allowing the
Bill of Rights to be applied to state legislatures, not just federal. It
invoked the 14th Amendment in order to force states to uphold the 1st
Amendment right to free speech.
6.) Skin Heads – members of a political party
characterized by extremist right-wing values. Obviously often sporting shaved
heads, (men and women) they sympathize with Nazi beliefs and values and believe
in white supremacy (disliking blacks, as well) and a return to the past, including
slavery.
7.) Bi-Cameral Legislature – the branch of the law that
passes laws (as opposed to executive or judiciary) and is composed of two parts
that share power. Often, one is a representative of the common people while the
other stands for the elite, as in Athens. Another example is the American
federal legislative branch, composed of the Congress (where each state gets 2
votes/Senators) & the House of Representatives (where states have a certain
amount of members based on the statesÕ population).
8.) Alexis de Tocqueville – Frenchman who traveled
throughout the United States, observed American prisons, wrote 2 volumes of
Democracy in America and was of the opinion that Americans learned to
participate in nationwide politics by first learning how to work together and
compromise in small groups at the local level, such as churches and town hall
meetings.
9.) Affirmative Action – measures and policies taken by
the government to bring reparations and restore the rights of formerly
disenfranchised people (such as African Americans in the U.S.). Modern-day
examples have included certain universitiesÕ admission policies. This does not
mean you give things (such as jobs or college admissions) to a person
undeserving of them but for his race (for instance) but that, all other merits
being equal, a candidate may be tipped into the ÒyesÓ category by virtue of
affirmative action.
10.) Electoral College – elected representatives called
electors who ultimately choose the U.S. president. They are directly voted on
by the voting public and, in turn, cast their vote for the president – a
majority is needed to win the countryÕs highest post. The electoral
college is the reason that 4 times in United States history the
president was a man who did not win the popular vote, but did win the electoral
vote.
American
Government Midterm Part II – A
My
father maintains a strict policy on politics – he discusses it only when
drunk. Understandably, this has skewed my views on many political issues
growing up and had led to some unpleasant wake-up calls, particularly on the
merits of Smirnoff vs. Stolichnaya vodka, how much jalapeno peppers my mother
can doctor each bottle with and just why is it we came to this country in the
first place. Yet of all these inebriated late-night discussions, I canÕt remember
any U.S. policy that cheesed him off more than affirmative action. My father is
a Russian Jew, who grew up in the communist Soviet Union and was in a lot of
ways treated as a second-rate citizen by his birth country his entire life.
Despite this, he reached the highest possible level of education and
considerate athletic accolades. To him, the idea of being handed anything on a
silver platter is beyond ludicrous – itÕs downright amoral. If my father wasnÕt quite such a Jew, IÕd accuse him of harboring a
Protestant work ethic. ItÕs not hard to see why, in my mind, the term
Òaffirmative actionÓ was, for so long, a four-letter word. My loving
professorÕs definition of the concept has put a slight crimp in my hating ways.
If we consider affirmative action to be those actions, measures and policies
designed to make amends and reparations and restore the formerly usurped rights
of previously disenfranchised minorities by giving them a slightly more even
playing field to make up for any earlier corrupting education or societal
disadvantages, then while my daddyÕs ire will still undoubtedly endure, my
condemnations must waver in their firmness. And yet.
Waver though they may, they are not falling, especially if we slide the concept
side-by-side with the principles and practices of democracy. As we learned in
the chart ÒConditions of a Democratic GovernmentÓ, some of the key requirements
of a democracy include majority rule with minority protections, institutional
guarantees that the minority can at some point become the majority, free speech
and free press and the ideas of liberty and equality. Although the idea of
affirmative action seems at first glance to enhance these principles and
practices of democracy, I believe that its true spirit clashes and distracts
from democratic ideals. In examining some of these principles, IÕm going to
compare them with the idea of affirmative action and attempt to demonstrate my
point – that affirmative action is not truly democratic.
First
up we have the idea of majority rule with minority protections. Well, itÕs
certainly true that African Americans, one of the groups affirmative action is
chiefly aimed at, have enjoyed suffrage (the right to vote) for much less time
than the majority of white people in the U.S. TheyÕve also, until a century or
so ago, been majorly stinted when it came to education, never mind business
opportunities, inherited wealth, standards of living, etc. But almost
everything that can be said about them also applies to women. WomenÕs suffrage
came about significantly later than blacksÕ, it wasnÕt that long ago that
universities were male-only, inheritance laws have traditionally favored male
heirs, women in the workplace were frowned upon, (and still are!) the standard
of living of unmarried women (or those unhappily so) was in many cases no
better than that of blacks.
Ah,
I hear you cry, but women canÕt possibly be considered a minority! (If there
were significantly less women in the world than men,
weÕd have bigger problems than affirmative action.) But that depends on what we
consider a majority. Numerically, no, women arenÕt a minority and IÕm not sure
if by the same caveat we can consider African Americans a minority – if
there are and were so few of them, what were the Northern states so concerned
about and why was the 3/5 Compromise necessary? However, if we consider instead
a political approach to the words, majority becomes a political majority
– those people whose views, likes and opinions are predominantly better
represented in the government. In other words, majority rule.
Which means minorities donÕt rule – i.e., theyÕre the guys whose views
arenÕt represented in the power circles. And with that established, you could
make a strong case for the fact that women are just as much a minority as
blacks, if not more so.
So
if women are a disenfranchised minority too, who donÕt
affirmative actions apply to them, as well? (They donÕt, in most cases.) As in Bakke vs. University of California Davis, why donÕt universities adopt a
policy of reverse discrimination and, all other merits being equal, give women
preferential treatment? Women, hell, why stop there? What about left-handed
individuals? The entire educational system, from chair arm rests to baseball mitts is set against them and society has only recently
begun manufacturing products and making concessions aimed at lefties. At
certain times in history, they used to reeducate them, force them to write
right-handed, which later studies have shown can mess with the brain in detrimental
ways. LetÕs give lefties special treatment, too. Except if we make such large
concessions for one interest minority group, where should we stop? I bet you
could put just about any United States citizen in several minority groups.
But
I canÕt possible argue that being left-handed in a land of right-handedness is
comparable in severity to 246 years of slavery and countless years of
prejudice? No, but itÕs a slippery slope. The point of a democracy is that all
men are created equal, not that all men should come out of pods perfectly
educated, with blond hair, muscles the size of beach balls and morals like the
Virgin Mary (that smacks of eugenics and Nazism and gives me the willies). It
is not and should not be the goal of a democratic society to fix the accidents
of birth and fortune – itÕs impossible and foolish to try. What democracy
does aim at is making sure that a minority isnÕt persecuted for being a
minority. ItÕs the difference between clearing a park path free of rocks so
visitors can wander freely and offering palanquin rides to tired hikers,
but first and foremost taking those with shorter legs.
Pretty
much the same argument applies to the principle that the minority can at some
point become the majority. If weÕre talking numbers, itÕs no secret that
African American families (and those of other ethnic minorities as well as
lower-income families) have significantly higher birthrates than Caucasians in
the United States. (You canÕt turn around these days without getting smacked in
the face with a chart predicting that by 20_ _, Caucasians will be in the
numerical minority in the U.S. and the world.) If weÕre talking politically,
affirmative action is achieving that goal artificially. By accepting a student
into a law school based even slightly on considerations having to do with
affirmative action policies, you arenÕt ensuring that a minority can
become the majority; youÕre making sure that it will. Someday. And maybe
that wouldnÕt be so bad, but it isnÕt in line with the target democratic principle
of leaving the path open for minorities to become the majority (again, you just
make sure not to block it; you donÕt push select people down the path).
Having
asserted that affirmative action distracts from the principles of majority rule
with minority protections and ensuring that the minority can at some point
become the majority, IÕd have to say that I canÕt really see how affirmative
action either interferes with or upholds free speech and free press. Not unless
you get an artificially inflated number of ethnic journalists who proceed to
skew the news to highlight only certain interest groupsÕ agendas. Or,
conversely, if affirmative action allows members of some minority groups to
more eloquently speak out about their troubles. The relative impact either way
seems minor, so IÕd have to say that affirmative action is a fairly neutral
force as relating to the practices and principles of free speech and free
press.
When
it comes to the ideal of liberty or freedom in democracy, I would say that
affirmative action interferes with personal liberty, particularly with that of
those members of society that do not benefit from it (affirmative action that
is, not liberty – everyone benefits from liberty). Here you are, having
worked hard in college, gotten great grades and all spiffed up for your first
job. And they give it to the boob next to you who didnÕt do quite so well in
school, but comes from a disadvantaged background. How does that enhance your
freedom? As a matter of fact, how does it enhance the other guyÕs freedom?
Sounds more like it interferes with your freedom to the pursuit of happiness
(via a job) and his, as well, by lowering the bar for which he needs to strive.
Now your efforts are wasted just because you werenÕt born poor or a certain
color and his talents are wasted because he isnÕt facing the same challenges as
other people in the same line of work.
It
may feel like a shoddy argument, but at the heart of liberty is the freedom to
make choices. When those choices are different for you than for everybody else
because of your (likely unrelated) background, that takes away your freedom to
choose as wisely. And while many factors may narrow your choices, from a rich
uncle to a wasting disease, my point is that a democratic government has no
business being one of them.
In
fact, I would argue that lowering the bar for anyone for any reason other than
skill in areas like employment and education is a huge mistake. Finding out
that your cardiac specialist was hired because he was disadvantaged is not a
happy thought – and it definitely interferes with your freedom to choose
(the best doctor, in this case). After all, itÕs naive to think that all
affirmative action policies are created equal. Sure, this one may only help you
get into college with a 3.8 instead of a 4.0, but somewhere else, you might
ride in with a 3.0. Who would stop it from happening? ItÕs a nebulous concept
– the idea that generally, all things being about equal, the
disenfranchised soul gets the prize – and I canÕt imagine coming up with
a uniform list of qualifications. No, affirmative action does not mesh well
with the ideas of a democratic government.
Finally
we have equality. IÕd have to say that this concept of a democratic government
s one that affirmative action does enhance. In fact, itÕs the biggest defense
for the idea of affirmative action. Born beautiful, white and rich? Fine, but
itÕs going to take you more effort to get into the same schools and jobs as
your less fortunate brethren. Born black and poor (ugly is optional)? No
problem, weÕll boost your chances at success in life to make up for it.
Everyone becomes equal, uniformity is encouraged and individuality is stomped
out. But a healthy society (whether itÕs a democracy or no) canÕt function with
perfect equality; you get stagnation and a lack of progress. And I donÕt know
about you, but I donÕt want to live in a Vonnegut novel. (I may like reading
Welcome to the Monkey House but if I was hobbled in what I do best...letÕs just
say no good would come of it.)
ItÕs
true that our Constitution is slanted toward equality on the liberty-equality
spectrum, but thatÕs because the Framers ultimately lacked faith in human
nature and distrusted people. That doesnÕt mean thatÕs what democracy is
chiefly about. So while I do believe affirmative action enhances the democratic
ideal of equality, I donÕt think equality is the part of democracy we should
most acutely focus on and, therefore, I say once again that affirmative action
is more harmful than not to the democratic process. (I cherish liberty over
equality, especially as I believe all extreme efforts lead to the Animal Farm
version: all are equal, but some are more equal than others).
In
conclusion, though my opinion of affirmative action has risen from the depths
of my dadÕs derision, I maintain that at its core, it does more damage to
democratic ideals than good. While I freely admit that affirmative action may
strongly enhance the democratic ideal of equality and may somewhat enhance, or
at least not directly interfere with the values of free speech and free press,
I state again that in its incompatibility with and sometimes direct negation of
the value of liberty and the principles of majority rule with minority
protections and institutional guarantees that the minority can one day become
the majority, affirmative action is a practice that ultimately distracts from
the principles and practices of democracy as detailed in the ÒConditions of a
Democratic GovernmentÓ chart.
And
I affirm this...firmly.
Comment from Doc K: While I do not agree with a lot of the opinions that Anna expressed, I defend to the death her right to get a 100 on this exam.