1) In the current political environment, explain which requisite poses the greatest aspirational challenge to administrators? To answer this question it is important to first define the “current political environment” of the United States. This in and of itself is a formidable challenge, as political action, intent, involvement, and many other facets of political culture vary based on locality, which itself is highly variable. As a matter of convenience and simplicity, I will focus my evaluation of the “current political environment” on the federal level of government. Given that media and scientists alike are often caught up in the fervor of national polling and analysis it is easier to consider political trends at this level. The …show more content…
Any action taken against the general interest of the citizenry would conflict with the guiding principles of either group, disrupting the balance thought to exist as a result of complementarity. In some cases Fredrickson’s requisites promote actions that may be contrary to the general interests of the public. The requisite responsiveness highlights the potential for an inequitable administrative response based on the ability of a group or individual to express their views. Frederickson indicates that there exists a possibility that “the needs of organized and collective publics will be met and that those of the inchoate public will not.” Assuming this to be true, a conflict would arise between the principle’ of administrators and those of politicians. Frederickson requires administrative action to be a result of empirical evidence. Vote counts are inherently empirical, and often viewed as a referendum on a candidate’s beliefs. In this case an administrator would be forced to obey the political will of that politician based on their electoral victory, even if the majority of the public truly opposes the actions taken by that politician. Furthermore, a politician could support a policy that is not in the general interest of the citizenry and administrators would be forced to implement such a policy, consequently conceding their duty to act in the best interest of the public. In this scenario the theory of a dichotomy between administration and politics is reinforced, while the interplay suggested by complementarity is challenged. In a general sense, labor intensive and complicated actions suggested by Fredrickson, such as the nurturing of an informed citizenry and the consideration of opinions from those who fail organize, have the potential
On the local level, people are very free to express themselves. Mr. Williams’ current firm does not handle the corrupted system in DeKalb country, but they are aware of the corruption. Mr. Williams feels like the mentality and civil culture that sustains a democracy has dissipated. He believes that we no longer have the same mindset as the founding fathers had, so he does not think that we are capable of sustaining a democracy. He is deeply suspicious of people who want to run for public office.
When a men rule over other men, that can be dangerous and even deadly. The government must control the governed and control itself (Madison 1). A nation’s administration must depend on people for its direction, but there are some reservations that must be maintained. Two views are presented about why the federal system of America should follow a constitution. The first is that usurpations are protected with the division and distinctions in governmental departments (Madison 2).
Within all democracies, a government’s power and sovereignty lie with its citizens. Undoubtedly, there lies an importance with the virtue and character of the citizenry, as they are inherently responsible for dictating the direction of a government’s policy and laws. Over the course of American history, many politicians and scholars have come to similar conclusions regarding the importance of moral citizens. However, statesmen have shared varying levels of concern for government’s role in developing such citizens. Some of the first groups to debate this were the Antifederalists and Federalists.
Tristan Parker Mr. Mccormick AP Government 25 March 2018 Analysis 2 In the Congress of the United States, the majority party will have substantial influence over making legislation. Even though the majority party has a larger numerical amount of Representatives and Senators in the chambers of Congress, there is no security that the majority party’s legislation will be passed in both the House of Representatives and the Senate. In addition to the majority party having the numerical advantage in the House of Representatives, they also have, control over the Speaker of the House and over all the Standing Committees. Though the Majority party may have the numerical Representative advantage, each chamber of Congress has a different variation of “rules” to abide by when making legislation and these can greatly affect legislation being passed or not.
Salient issues rose the most in 2003-2004, 2005-2006, and 2011-2011 and that is not surprising given the introduction of new issues such as homeland security and global warming over the course of the last decade. Jefferson states, “the government is best which governs least”, but what affect does that have on society? The competition for power between separated institutions is a driving force. When the legislative and executive branches of our government engage in a power struggle, policies that could be potentially life changing or at the least beneficial, suffer at the hands of legislative gridlock. Polarization has a huge impact on the difficulties faced by congress.
If the president appeals to one set of interests over another, unwanted circumstances can arise. Commonly, the president would want to consider the public opinion which usually
The Primary objective of all leaders should be to control citizens. A society that allows authority to be challenged will never succeed. This source depicts an authoritarian or totalitarian view of what a governing body should look like. The author suggests that the primary objective of government should be the “control of the citizens”, and therefore that the individuals should entirely obey said government.
embraces more than the fate of these United States. It presents to the whole family of man the question of whether a constitutional republic or democracy -- a government of the people, by the same people -- can or cannot maintain its territorial integrity against its own domestic foes. It presents the question whether the discontented individuals-- too few in numbers to control the administration, according to organic law, in anycase -- can always, upon the pretenses made in this case or on any other pretenses, or arbitrarily without any pretense, break up the government and thus practically put an end to free government upon the earth. It forces us to ask: “Is there, in all republics, this inherent and fatal weakness? Make a government, of necessity, be too strong for the liberties of its own people, or too weak to maintain its own
3). He also advocates that the very nature of a constitutional government, though it does give power to only a few bodies, ultimately rests on the authority of the people. Because, in order for the different departments of government to operate correctly, they must be separate from any of the other departments; he states that the only way to achieve this is by nature of the people
The extreme partisan polarization and the hostility between Democrats and Republicans that we see in Congress is the product of a long evolution starting in the mid-1960s that has rendered the system a low-functioning machine. In her examination of how the ideological gulf now separating the two major parties developed, Sinclair offers some insights into how today 's intense partisan competition affects the political process, lawmaking and national policy. As Sinclair (2006) describes, the atmosphere in contemporary Washington is intensely partisan and highly conflictual. Congressional Republicans are more uniformly conservative and Democrats more uniformly moderate and liberal than at any time during the past half century.
The trend in congressional polarization overshadows the trends in public. While congressional moderates dissipate, moderates in the public “in the United States stands at its highest point in more than 75 years” according to polling (Smith). Many moderates ‘lean’ toward the left or right which causes the first problem in many polarization studies. Polarization means that constituents disperse from the center of the line to either or right into political parties, not necessarily radical, but many of these ‘leaners’ continue to vote on an issue to issue basis (Enns and Schuldt). Congressional polarization differs immensely; this trend appears more as sorting where partisans move to more “extreme ideologies” (Hill and Tausanovitch 1060).
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.
One would think that one way to remedy this problem would be to concentration more power in the executive branch. This struggle of power is a problem that is found in many countries. Where do you draw the line for executive powers? When does a system become tyrannical? These two questioned were explored by the Framers, and continue to be the point of contentious debate among
It was clear that, such autonomy is the one in play in forging a consensus of the general interest that dictates administrative strategy or policy framework. Increasingly, it was also seen that, elitism notion regarding the administration states that a chosen few of the most affluent and influential people or groups direct and influence public policy that works in their favor and satisfies their own interests. It was notable that, since the associates to the constitutional convention comprised majorly of those of European decent, affluent associates of the “upper class,” they revealed what came to be elitism. Hence, this particular group of people sought a strong central administration that was meant to congeal their own power, influence, and interest in the best way they wanted it to become. It was also clear that, those in attendance comprised of the white, affluent, and superior men from the upper classes.
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)