Consensus and Ideology

“Whether a word like ideology can properly be employed in the American context depends, in part, on which of its many connotations one chooses to emphasize. Agreement on the meaning of the term is far from universal, but a tendency can be discerned among contemporary writers to regard ideologies as systems of belief that are elaborate, integrated, and coherent, that justify the exercise of power, explain and judge historical events, identify political right and wrong, set forth the interconnections (causal and moral) between politics and other spheres of activity, and furnish guides for action.8 While liberal democracy does not fulfill perfectly the terms of this definition, it comes close enough, in my opinion, to be considered an ideology.9 The elements of liberal democratic thought are not nearly so vague as they are sometimes made out to be, and their coalescence into a single body of belief is by no means fortuitous. American democratic "ideology" possesses an elaborately defined theory, a body of interrelated assumptions, axioms, and principles, and a set of ideals that serve as guides for action. Its tenets, postulates, sentiments, and values inspired the great revolu
tions of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, and have been repeatedly and explicitly
set forth in fundamental documents, such as
the Constitution, the Declaration, and the
Federalist Papers. They have been restated with remarkable unanimity in the messages of Presidents, in political speeches, in the pronouncements of judges and constitutional commentators, and in the writings of political theorists, historians, and publicists. They are so familiar that we are likely to see them not as a coherent union of ideas and principles embodying a well-defined political tendency, but as a miscellany of slogans and noble sentiments to be trotted out on ceremonial occasions.” 

This paragraph came from the essay “Consensus and Ideology in American Politics” by Herbert McClosky. This paragraph defines ideology through McClosky, he defines it his way, keep in mind this paper was written in 1964. McClosky questions if the word ideology can really be used the right way, he mentions there are many ways it could be used depending on the context of the conversation. Which is true for many terms. He sees ideologies as systems, he emphasizes its importance and relevance to power, and he explains that it came to be through certain outcomes of history. But in basic terms it’s a set of belief’s and ethics, integrated in today’s political society as right and wrong. He also mentions in this paragraph that liberal democracy is defined differently but in his belief its still an ideology because different elements of something join together and become one. Liberal democracy is a set of beliefs that aren’t accidental. American democratic ideology has its own beliefs and set of ideas that serve as guidelines. These ideologies are responsible for the revolutions of the seventeenth and eighteenth century. American democratic ideology has also been used in the constitution, declaration of independent and the federalist papers. Basically American democratic ideology has made a huge influence on politics and their actions in all aspects. McClosky sees them as very familiar patterns or actions but not as one union of beliefs. To him it’s more of common repetitive actions that don’t mean much.

I chose this paragraph because I disagree with McClosky on a few points that are brought up in this paragraph. American democratic ideology is important to have, especially today! “Accountability, limited or constitutional government, representation, majority rule, minority rights, the principle of political opposition, freedom of thought, speech, press and assembly, equality of opportunity, religion, political opposition, equality before the law, the rights of judicial defense and individual self-determination” as McClosky states this in the paragraph that follows the one above, this is American liberal democracy ideology. They do form an integrated body of ideas because they al derive from freedom, right versus wrong, ad the rights we are given as people. They all work together therefore that makes them one. One has to be responsible for the actions they commit, just like there should be rights in place, freedom in place and other laws in place to maintain liberal democracy!

Brown vs. Board of Ed

In Brown vs. Board of Education case brief summary (Summary of Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, 347 U.S. 483, 74 S. Ct. 686, 98 L. Ed. 873 (1954).) a case is presented where several black children sought admission to public schools that required or permitted segregation base on race. The plaintiffs argued that segregation in school settings was unconstitutional under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. In the end the judges denied these children all but for one case. They referenced Plessy vs. Ferguson, and stated that the "separate but equal" doctrine denies them of this right, therefore sine the schools were not and would not be equal children didn't get the equal protection of the laws.

The issue was the question this brought up which was "Is the race-based segregation of children into 'separate but equal' public school" constitutional? The summary answers this question with 'no', the separate  but equal doctrine in public schools violates the equal protection clause of the fourteenth amendment and is unconstitutional. The law in Plessy vs. Ferguson that was put into place for transportation not for education. Either is wasn't right, but segregation in the education system caused a lot of harm psychologically to the children, making them inferior because they were not white. I don't understand how this is ok. It didn't occur to anyone that choosing when and for who the constitution was meant for was wrong? It isn't ok to deprive someone of one right while allowing other to indulge in the same right. The constitution doesn't discriminate against race, so why did the government? How did a doctrine overrule an Amendment?  This is the reason I chose this case summary, the reason I think I is important. This wasn't onstutional. The consistution is suppose to overrule doctrines and state laws. It isn't meant to be manipulated and used inly when one person wants it to be used. I's the mutual rights of the people, ALL the people!

When segregation came into pay the racist just ran with it, segregating everything. They applied the Plessy vs. Ferguson doctrine to everything. People shouldn't be treated inferior especially not by race. Education is power and no one should be treated different because of race. Education should be equal for everyone. I'm glade today we don't have as harsh segregation, it still exists in it's own way but there are no laws. Everyone is given the opportunity of education, the better the school the more money it costs so the wealthy have a higher chance of getting into greater schools and a greater education giving them the chance to prosper better in life.  

President's Speech

"This year, in this election, we are called to reaffirm our values and our commitments, to hold them against a hard reality and see how we are measuring up, to the legacy of our forbearers and the promise of future generations. 
OBAMA: And fellow Americans, Democrats, Republicans, independents, I say to you, tonight, we have more work to do... 
(APPLAUSE) 
... more work to do, for the workers I met in Galesburg, Illinois, who are losing their union jobs at the Maytag plant that's moving to Mexico, and now they're having to compete with their own children for jobs that pay 7 bucks an hour; more to do for the father I met who was losing his job and chocking back the tears wondering how he would pay $4,500 a months for the drugs his son needs without the health benefits that he counted on; more to do for the young woman in East St. Louis, and thousands more like her who have the grades, have the drive, have the will, but doesn't have the money to go to college. 
Now, don't get me wrong, the people I meet in small towns and big cities and diners and office parks, they don't expect government to solves all of their problems. They know they have to work hard to get a head. And they want to. 
Go into the collar counties around Chicago, and people will tell you: They don't want their tax money wasted by a welfare agency or by the Pentagon. 
(APPLAUSE) 
Go into any inner-city neighborhood, and folks will tell you that government alone can't teach kids to learn. 
OBAMA: They know that parents have to teach, that children can't achieve unless we raise their expectations and turn off the television sets and eradicate the slander that says a black youth with a book is acting white. They know those things. 
(APPLAUSE) 
People don't expect -- people don't expect government to solve all their problems. But they sense, deep in their bones, that with just a slight change in priorities, we can make sure that every child in America has a decent shot at life and that the doors of opportunity remain open to all. They know we can do better. And they want that choice."

     This paragraph is form the speech President Barack Obama gave in the Democratic National Convention in 2004. This portion of the speech covers many good points. He touches the same points and reaches the people going through real problems, these real problems. There are similar points in his other speeches about poverty, education, and racism that are in this speech, but unlike his other speeches this part touches the point that "people don't expect the government to fix all of their problems". The president is giving everyone the benefit of the doubt. He expresses the will of the people. That they want to move forward. That if just for once people stopped thinking about themselves the world will be a better place because we the people will make it a better place, and we should be teaching our children this "will power". Only like this the country will move forward and remain united despite our differences. 

     Out of the speeches I heard from President Obama I found this portion of this speech the most important because unity is very important and it is hard for people to work together with others different from them. Human beings are selfish. Therefore I don't agree when he says that "people don't expect the government to solve all their problems". President Obama talks about unity, but this unity is hard to achieve when people want to leach off of the government. Some people do expect the government to solve all there problems. They don't want to work hard. This sickens me, because I am one of the people that is out there working hard, trying to get ahead. I have to get my bachelors to get a decent career because i can't pay my rent with a minimum wage job, i already have an associates but every company has raised the bar, they don't want to hire Registered Nurses with their associates degree they want a bachelors degree. I'm busting my behind while there are people out there that are leaching off of the government through welfare. Now the government i threatening to stop the welfare program, the people that really need this help are going to pay the price for the selfish people. How can unity be reached when this is going on? People are always taking advantage of others. Not everyone see's the bigger picture, they don't want to work together to reach a bigger goal. It is hard to see the bigger picture when you are just trying to survive. President's Obama's vision is clear, unity, we all have to work together to make this world that we live in abetter place, not for ourselves but for our future family. The future of this world. But this is just a dream right now, I dont think this contry is capable of complete unity. 

Gerrymandering

"1. Democrats won in nine of the 10 most gerrymandered districts. But eight out of those districts were drawn by Republicans. 
This speaks to the notion that the point of gerrymandering isn't to draw yourself a safe seat but to put your opponents in safe seats by cramming all of their supporters into a small number of districts. This lets you spread your own supporters over a larger number of districts. And the way to do this is to draw outlandishly-shaped districts that bring far-flung geographic areas together. North Carolina's 12th district, which holds the title of the nation's most-gerrymandered, is a textbook example of this: It snakes from north of Greensboro, to Winston-Salem, and then all the way down to Charlotte, spanning most of the state in the process."

This paragraph came form the Washington's Post article "America's most gerrymandered congressional district" by Wonkblog. Wonkblog explains that gerrymandering gives parties a electoral advantage by redrawing district boundaries. This in turn causes the opposing party to have less seats at their disposition and with less seats come less votes. This is suppose to allow each party to spread their supporters or representers across the country evenly. Voting can be confusing, people often say why vote, my vote won't count anyway. There is a difference between electoral votes and population votes. For President and Vice President Electoral votes are the only ones that count. The house of representatives do take into account the population votes but they ultimately decide who to vote on. They came up with this because they have fear in what the population may do. This is fear comes from knowledge, how many people really keep up to date with politics, why would you vote for someone? because you know they will lead our country the right way or just because they made a good impression on you? All this things matter so in other words the government does this because the house of representatives knows best. They have the knowledge about each candidate, and their credentials, so this is why we have electoral votes. Now popular votes come into account  when it pertains to the state, like mayor, governor etc. The number of representatives for each state has to do with the population of that state, the greater the population the more representatives. I believe that gerrymandering is a way for them to cheat. In the paragraph above it gives the example of North Carolina being shaped weirdly and this causes the boundaries of the state to be proportioned weirdly which changes the population of the state and if it changes the population it also changes the number of representatives the sate has. Gerrymandering gives certain parties advantages and others disadvantages changing the outcome of votes. 

I found this paragraph important because it gave a good example of gerrymandering and helped me understand what it is. But that does mean the idea sits well witch me. Neither does the idea of Senators not having any term limits. Senators can stay in their positions for as long as they want if and when they do their job efficiently of course. I predict the next president will be Republican because the majority of house of representatives is Republican now. Being that our current president is Democratic this will affect the remainder of presidents Obama term, because both any bill that needs to be passed has to go through the house of representatives, and they will only pass bills that benefit their party. Senators should have a shorter term limit because it gives the country a chance for the outcome to be fair. Now most of the house is republican, who knows when it will be democratic again. This gives the other party an advantage over the country for a long amount of time. If senators are let go and new ones are elected it gives the house a chance of changing from party in a fair way. Gerrymandering has been going on for a while now. I didn't know this was a 'thing' until I read this article. Wonkblog also explains in his other article "What 60 years of politic gerrymandering looks like" that states can control gerrymandering. New York has a decreasing level of gerrymandering which they achieved by coming up with a committee specifically to control this and they hold 37 electoral votes which is a good amount. Gerrymandering allows the congress to be unfair with the house of representatives because the number of seats held by each party should be equal this way everything is done fairly now that the house wis made up of more Republicans it won't be fair at all. 

Equal Rights

            “Citizenship, even in its early forms, was a principle of equality, and that during this period it was a developing institution. Starting at the point where all men were free and, in theory, capable of enjoying rights, it grew by enriching the body of rights which they were capable of enjoying. But these rights did not conflict with the inequalities of capitalist society; they were, on the contrary, necessary to the maintenance of that particular form of inequality. The explanation lies in the fact that the core of citizenship at this stage was composed of civil rights. And civil rights were indispensable to a competitive market economy. They gave to each man, as part of his individual status, the power to engage as an independent unit in the economic struggle and made it possible to deny to him social protection on the ground that he was equipped with the means to protect himself. Maine’s famous dictum that ‘the movement of the progressive societies has hitherto been a movement from Status to Contract’ expresses a profound truth which has been elaborated, gists, but it requires qualification. For both status and contract are present in all but the most primitive societies. Maine himself admitted this when, later in the same book, he wrote that the earliest feudal communities, as contrasted with their archaic predecessors, were ‘neither bound together by mere sentiment nor recruited by a fiction.  The tie which united them was Contract.’ But the contractual element in feudalism coexisted with a class system base on status and, as contract hardened into custom, it helped to perpetuate class status. Custom retained the form of mutual undertakings, but not the reality of a free agreement. Modern contract did not grow out of feudal contract; it marks a new development to whose progress feudalism was an obstacle that had to be swept aside. For modern contract is essentially an agreement between men who are free and equal in status, though not necessarily in power. Status was not eliminated from social system. Differential status, associated with class, function and family, was replaced by the single uniform status of citizenship, which provided the foundation of equality on which the structure of inequality could be built.”

This paragraph came from page 150 of the article “Citizenship and Social Class” written by T.H. Marshall. Marshall argues there are three elements ‘civil, political and social’ that divide citizenship. The beginning of this paragraph expresses how regular rights that came with citizenship didn’t bother the capitalist society. These regular rights didn’t interfere with capitalism and instead helped it with its inequality because of the economy. A Feudal contract is a contract between a "noble" person and a powerful person. In this case i believe the lower class people and a person from the upper class.  In this paragraph it is said the feudal contract hasn't really changed from the modern contract and it is true today because the lower class is working for the upper class. In the paragraph above they also discuss how class status became to be which is also used today. You have the poor class, working class, lower middle class, upper middle class, and upper class (Elite). Inequality is a big thing we are fighting for in this country, the civil right movement fought for equality for all. Social rights emerged from this. I believe political power came from social rights because the upper class didn't want the lower class, working class or poor class to have any power or say in decision making. They wanted to leave them powerless and rule as they pleased with their belief's. The power the upper class wanted to have over the other classes aggravated the problem of inequality. The people that where suffering the most by inequality finally rose and made a difference with the civil rights movements because at this time African American where being targeted and separated. The power of speech went a long way with Dr. King, and the other activists that fought for equality. Today you have citizenship, where becoming a citizen gives you certain rights in that country. The rights are suppose to be equal rights for all but the upper class still has the upper hand. 

This paragraph is important because Marshall brings up a good points and explains the root of the problem well which is inequality. The demand of civil rights led to the demand of all rights including social rights. This all ties in with education. Everyone should have an opportunity to get an education. With education comes knowledge and with knowledge comes power. I said in the previous paragraph that the upper class still had an advantage because people with money are able to get a better education and be led into politics where they have a voice and ht empower to change laws affecting an entire population of people wether is be state or country; or into better paying jobs. They still have more power but there are a lot of things that exist today like loans, scholarships, and financial aid, that make is possible for the lower classes to coexist with the upper class. Education gives us a fighting chance. 

Civil Disobedience

Civil Disobedience

"After all, the practical reason why, 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. But a government in which the majority rule in all cases cannot be based on justice, even as far as men understand it. Can there not be a government in which majorities do not virtually decide right and wrong, but conscience? — in which majorities decide only those questions to which the rule of expediency is applicable? Must the citizen ever for a moment, or in the least degree, resign his conscience to the legislator? Why has every man a conscience, then? I think that we should be men first, and subjects afterward. It is not desirable to cultivate a respect for the law, so much as for the right. The only obligation which I have a right to assume is to do at any time what I think right. It is truly enough said that a corporation has no conscience; but a corporation of conscientious men is a corporation with a conscience. Law never made men a whit more just; and, by means of their respect for it, even the well-disposed are daily made the agents of injustice. A common and natural result of an undue respect for law is, that you may see a file of soldiers, colonel, captain, corporal, privates, powder-monkeys,(5) and all, marching in admirable order over hill and dale to the wars, against their wills, ay, against their common sense and consciences, which makes it very steep marching indeed, and produces a palpitation of the heart. They have no doubt that it is a damnable business in which they are concerned; they are all peaceably inclined. Now, what are they? Men at all? or small movable forts and magazines, at the service of some unscrupulous man in power? Visit the Navy Yard, and behold a marine, such a man as an American government can make, or such as it can make a man with its black arts — a mere shadow and reminiscence of humanity, a man laid out alive and standing, and already, as one may say, buried under arms with funeral accompaniments, though it may be "Not a drum was heard, not a funeral note, As his corse to the rampart we hurried; Not a soldier discharged his farewell shot O'er the grave where our hero we buried."(6)"

This paragraph came from the paper Thoreau wrote titled “ Civil Disobedience”. I felt like the beginning of this paragraph meant that when people have power in government a certain majority is given the power to rule over a certain period of time for example in the government the House of Representatives were mostly Democrats when president Obama came into power in 2008. That was the majority that ruled, but now after this election (2014) the House of Representatives is mostly Republican. Now they will have “the power to rule” for a while. But this doesn’t mean they are right, or they know more. They are in power now because they have the strength. Thoreau argues in the next portion of this paragraph about right, wrong or conscience. He questions if a government could exists where the majority don’t get to decide what is right or wrong in where this majority decides what is fair and what is appropriate. Everyone has a conscience so why can’t we act on our conscience? Thoreau believes “we should be men first subjects after”. Meaning the government expects us to follow the rules that are set instead of going with our guts and instincts. You see it everywhere a group of people following laws that make no moral sense but they still follow them because they are like an army, they do as they are told and don’t question anything even thought inside they don’t agree. But most of the time they do it because they are forced to. The penalties that come with breaking the laws are much greater than their will to do the right thing. Thoreau also compares these men to toy soldiers, they are alive but they are not living in essence because all his common sense is gone, all they know how to do is follow orders. A life like that isn’t worth living. But yet we do it. In the last portion of this paragraph Thoreau quotes a poem names “The Burial of Sir John Moore at Corunna”. The poem is based on Sir John Moore who is sent to fight the Peninsular War, he is given orders and those orders in the end get him killed, even though they won, he dies in the end.     

This entire paper was very important but I chose this paragraph because it illiterates a connection between the law and our conscience. It explains why for so long injustices occurred and went on for as long as they did like slavery and the period where women had no rights. It was because people just follow, the majority just follows the group that is in charge. Civil disobedience occurs when the people rebel and follow their conscience like Susan B Anthony. In the mid 1800s women weren’t allowed to vote and she voted, was arrested for it and brought up her case about the 14^th amendment in the constitution in front of a whole group of people. This proved the majority in power passed their own laws disregarding and sometimes ignoring the facts at hand. It clearly states in 14^th amendment that all citizens have the right to vote. But yet he majority of the population followed the group that was in power and they said no women or slaves can vote and that was the law for a very long time. People have to be more conscience of the actions of the government they can’t just follow blindly!