ACTIVITY #1

After taking the Politopia quiz, my results put me in Centerville. I really didn't fit any of the other regions because I tend to be accepting of all of them to a certain degree. I may agree with the north region in some areas but also follow the south in other areas.

Politopia is an idea that consists of four major sections in which people hold different views on government – The North, East, South and West. There are also areas that fall in between. People in the Northwest believe that government should play a very small role in someone's financial affairs, yet they want the government to regulate how a person lives. It is a dog eat dog world, but those dogs are kept under constant watch. The Northwest holds views of smaller government in both financial and personal lifestyle. They don't want a government telling them what to do with their money or how to live their lives. In the Southeast it is believed that government should play a role in society order and financial order. The Southwest is an area where people believe that the government should have no control over what you do with your everyday life, yet the government should be trusted financially to create equal opportunities.

In taking the idealog self test I found myself in the liberal square. I was in the lower right hand corner. My results were as follows: Order; 3, and equality; 7. According to the scale I am more for promoting equality in society but not willing to give up the government power to tell me how to live my life.

These two test results were not equal. I believe this was because the questions were different. In the Politopia quiz it asked questions with multiple choices. It let you choose from more than two possibilities. The idealog test was a yes or no questionnaire. It was more limited. Almost like a black and white world.

The results differ a little but I am satisfied with both. I have considered myself a liberal in a lot of areas; therefore the idealog quiz results didn't surprise me. I was however happier with the Politopia results. As I learn more about government and our changing society, I tend to want to stay in the center of issues.

Having completed the quizzes I have a new perspective on the way politics work. I am not proficient as of yet with the way things work, although I have a good idea of how things work. In reading the Constitution I realize that our founders weren't perfect but they wanted to make sure the government would have a good starting point. It shows how much thought went into making sure our society understood the emphasis of separating themselves from England's rule. The Bill of rights ensured that all citizens had basic rights to live by. The ability to amend them is good for an ever-changing society. By creating the different branches of government they wanted to make sure the country was govern by the people and not dictators. As a country we are fairly young but I believe it has done well with what it was given. Society will change with the times. But our government insures that it is still the majority that decides what is best for our country and government.

ACTIVITY #2

This is probably one of the hardest questions for me to answer because I have been in countries where they do not have laws that protect their citizens from their government. I wouldn’t want to ever give up these rights so it was really hard to decide what I am willing to give up and what I feel is necessary to keep. When coming up with my answer, I thought of what it would be like if it was a dictator that took over and was going to be an extremist when it came to our rights.

1. The five Amendments I would choose to keep are;

-Freedom of Speech and Press

-Right to bear arms

-Right to be confronted by witnesses, be informed of the nature of accusations and compel witnesses to testify

-Right to reasonable bail, the assistance of an attorney and freedom from cruel and unusual punishment.

-Right to due process

a. Freedom of speech – I choose this because if we were to be taken over by an extremist this would be the way that we could potentially revolt against and find a way to govern ourselves the way we were before we were taken over. This civil liberty is important because we are able to say what we want without getting in trouble for it. Giving this up, means when we have a problem with something we couldn’t publically say anything or publish anything in the press or media with what we liked and what we didn’t like. I feel if we gave this up, our future generations would not be able to speak openly if they wanted to fix something. This is why it was part of the first amendment, they wanted to change what they were not allowed to do or be a part of while under British control.

b. Right to bear arms – This is important because if we were taken over by an extremist, we wouldn’t be able to protect our neighbors or ourselves from looting or other personal crimes. My earliest memories were of hunting with my dad and being able to use a gun. I feel that if I did own a weapon now, I could properly protect my family and myself. But I do see that this can be a negative if guns were not registered and used to commit crimes. The only thing that this is missing from the amendment is “keeping”; my concern would be to make sure that is added, where we would be storing our arms.

c. Right to be confronted by witnesses, be informed of the nature of accusations and compel witnesses to testify – I felt this was important to keep because I would want to know what I have been accused of and what I was going to be going up against. The basic right to have people testify on your behalf would be helpful if your accusations were wrong against you. If you didn’t know what was being brought up against you, and you had no one to testify on your behalf you could and wouldn’t be able to properly defend yourself. Our future generations could potentially be accused and have no clue what they’re accusations were and would just setting themselves up for jail time or punishment. Which leads me to the next Right I would keep.

d. Right to reasonable bail, the assistance of an attorney and freedom from cruel and unusual punishment – What would be the point of not having people to testify for you if you cannot have a lawyer appointed for you? And if you didn’t have a lawyer to represent you, you would be facing some form of punishment if found guilty. Freedom from cruel and unusual punishment protects us from various forms of torture and humiliating punishment. Torture is currently used in countries in the Middle East and though out Asia. I would not want to put this on our future generations. I could not think of having someone humiliate my family or torture them if they were found guilty, let alone have someone represent them. This also leads me to my last one, Right to due process.

e. Right to due process – I originally wasn’t going to have this one but I talked with my brother and when we discussed this, it made me think twice. The right to due process is the principle that the government must respect all of the legal rights that are allowed to a person according to law.

2. The Rights I have chosen to give up are;

-Freedom of Religion

-Right to assemble peacefully and petition the government for redress of grievances

-Freedom of unreasonable search and seizures

-Right to a speedy trial by jury

-Freedom from compulsion to testify against oneself.                                                                             

a. Freedom of Religion – I know that religion is a human right and a preference, but I at the same time, I really thought about what I was willing to give up to keep this. And I felt keeping our protection from the government was more important. I also feel that we currently have little protection while in public with our religion here in the U.S. There are people who will still discriminate towards physical actions or religious symbols.

b. Right to assemble peacefully and petition the government for redress of grievances – Again, I felt this was hard to give up but at the same time, two or three generations later they will find an innate way of assembling against what they felt is wrong. It is our natural to socially gather and openly discuss what we felt is happening that is wrong. So, I felt this one would ultimately find a way back into our structure.

c. Freedom of unreasonable search and seizures – The right of confidentiality and privacy in a democracy. Even though I have never personally felt that this has affected me, I’m not sure as to why I need it other than if I was accused of anything that the police or government would not need to obtain a search warrant to search or seize my belongings that could ultimately place me at a place or time of a crime.

d. Right to a speedy trail – Even though I know giving this one up the prosecution could excessively delay a trial for their own advantage, and that there is not a time limit from the arrest or the indictment, I know people would want to know and have their punishments in a years’ time versus 5-10 years from those dates.

e. Right to compulsion to testify against oneself – Another hard one to give up because this is in our Miranda Rights; and self-incrimination could line for punishment. And now that we do not have the right to a speedy trial, you could ultimately be waiting for a long time to find out if what you said years before could do to you.

3. I believe that the new Small Country’s society will go back to what we have since our founding fathers’ wrote the US Constitution and Bill of Rights. It’s really hard to change a society in 2-3 generations; possibly after 5-6 we would conform to what we were told to but I believe there would be a vast majority of rebellion and revolt. It took a few generations for us to break away from British rule but we did. I wouldn’t doubt that we would in due course go back to our founding roots.

4. This course’s content in conjunction with the Small Country society made me really think about what is wrong and what is right with our Bill of Rights and what can be changed and what should not be changed. The basic rights that we have, as Americans, are definitely a privilege. I believe a lot of people don’t understand how others live in other countries that are not of democratic rule. Our Civil Rights alone make us stand out to others who wish to have the choice say they have been wronged or a voice to speak freely with. Our civil liberties have also been added and changed to conform to what society needs. Without our civil rights, we would not have an opportunity to do anything; rights to vote, equal opportunity; slavery. Without my civil rights, since I am Mexican and a woman, I would not be able to do very much or be heard. I could not go to school, because of segregation, I could not have a good job with equal pay as a man nor could I have the right to decide whether or not to keep a child, or vote. I would hope that we would never be in a position to give up our American rights, but I fully believe if we did, we would find a way to get them back.

ACTIVITY #2

As designator of my Small Country, I have decided the five civil liberties that I would like to retain for my country and the five I will have to give up. My decision is based upon my knowledge of each liberty listed, its importance in our government and how it affects our everyday lives. First, I will share the five civil liberties my country will keep: freedom of speech and press, freedom of religion, right due process of law, right to reasonable bail, the assistance of an attorney and freedom from cruel and unusual punishment, and freedom from unreasonable search and seizure.

With my first selection of freedom of speech and press, my country will gain two rights in one civil liberty -- freedom of speech and freedom of press. By keeping this civil liberty, I feel my country will be at ease with the comfort of knowing that their spoken and written words will not be threatened by the alien conquerors. I also feel that if this liberty were to ever be taken away from my country, the people would be at a constant struggle for what is “acceptable” to be spoken and written. In turn, this would have an effect on future generations as their learning in speaking and writing would have extreme limitations. As noted in one of the presentation slide, “American college campuses have become an important battleground in the continuing struggle over the meaning of free speech.” Not to say that having this civil liberty stay in my country will allow its people to have free range of words, but even today Americans are at a struggle with the definition of what is really “free.” Under the government, freedoms like speech and press are guaranteed until another individual's rights are violated. Although my country will be under a new alienated government, the civil liberty of freedom of speech and press must be guaranteed as that of the US government’s.

My next selection is the freedom of religion. No village or country ever wants to be conquered by a foreigner, especially from another planet and having the freedom of religion will allow my country to continue its moral and ethnic traditions. I think retaining historical traditions with religion will allow future generations to see what was brought from the past as well as what has changed into their present time. Also, I’m sure that without having the other five civil liberties, my country will soon see its affects and having a place and freedom to worship will be necessary to help them cope with this unfortunate event. The freedom of religion establishment clause “prohibits the national government from establishing a national religion.” The free exercise clause “prohibits the U.S. government from interfering with a citizen’s right to practice his or her religion.” Therefore, with this type of agreement the aliens would not be allowed to interfere with how each individual chooses to participate in religious events.

The third civil liberty I have decided to keep is the right from unreasonable search and seizure. I strongly feel everyone has a right to their own privacy and when unwanted search and seizure is forced upon a person for no lawful reason, then privacy is violated. Can you imagine a police officer of FBI agent coming to your house or pulling you over on the side of the road just to search you and your belongings without any type of warrant? With this liberty being like that of the U.S. Constitution, we are guaranteed “that police must knock and announce their presence before entering a home or apartment to execute a search.” There’s no for sure way of knowing how the aliens would act if this civil liberty was not a right to my fellow citizens. If any search and seizure were ever to be conducted under this new government, the aliens must respect the entire civil liberty.

The next civil liberty I would like to keep is the right to reasonable bail, the assistance of an attorney and freedom from cruel and unusual punishment. With this liberty guaranteed, the citizens would gain three rights - reasonable bail, an attorney and no cruel or unusual punishment. To protect my country and its citizens from any harm -- monetary or physical -- I believe this civil liberty will be beneficial for everyone. Obviously, there is no way of knowing their laws and ways of action when someone commits a crime, so for protection purposes, this civil liberty must stay. If the constitution of this country were like that of the constitution of Texas, then the death penalty would be included in the punishment. Since the aliens would be the higher power, it would be up to their government to decide when this punishment is appropriate.

As the fifth and final selection, I have chosen the right to due process of law. This basically means that everyone is entitled to the proper processes of the law and everyone who is a citizen is also entitled to fair treatment under the law. I feel with the four civil liberties previously selected, this liberty will complete the package. Yes, by selecting this civil liberty, I may be losing an opportunity to select another liberty that the citizens would gain. However, I cannot argue with fairness and justice. Each of my fellow citizens deserves what is fair and what is just. The alien government could not deny a citizen “life, liberty or property without the due process of law.” Also noted in the slideshow presentation, “it also prevents the national government from taking property without fair compensation.” In the U.S., I believe the constitution promotes individuality and protects its citizens from unlawful situations. The right to due process of law is like a safety ground that protects the citizens of that state.

The five civil liberties I decided not to keep are the right to assemble peaceably and petition the government for redress of grievances, the right to bear arms, the right to a speedy and public trial by jury, the right to be confronted by witnesses, be informed of the nature of accusations and compel witnesses to testify, and the freedom from compulsion to testify against oneself. I think some of the civil liberties I have decided to discard will act as exceptions to previously picked civil liberties. For example, the right to assemble peaceably and petition for the government for redress of grievances, I feel, is covered in the civil liberty of the freedom of speech and press.

The same can go for the freedom from compulsion to testify against oneself, and the right to be confronted by witness, be informed of the nature of accusations and compel witnesses to testify. They all deal with the form of speech, and press can even be included. Who is to determine that the right to assemble and petition isn't a form of free speech? After all, the first amendment includes free speech, free press, free religion, freedom of assembly and the right to petition. I believe all are combined together for the same general idea - the freedom of expression.

I feel the freedom of speech also links to the freedom from compulsion to testify against oneself. Usually when a person is arrested, an officer will verbally say their Miranda rights, which includes the right to remain silent. If you chose to remain silent during an investigation, you are practicing your right of freedom of speech, which in this case would be no speech. If you are afraid of what the alien government might do to punish you, remember you are protected under the freedom from cruel and unusual punishment.

Another civil liberty that I feel is covered under freedom of speech is the right to be confronted by witness, be informed of the nature of accusations and compel witness to testify. What you would lose from this civil liberty being discarded is the possible vital information from the witness. However, let’s remember that one civil liberty I decided to keep was the right to due process of law. Therefore, you are guaranteed fair treatment under the law. The situation is bittersweet, but it’s better than losing all of the civil liberties.

The next civil liberty I would like to address is the right to a speedy and public trial by jury. I have decided not to keep this civil liberty because the word “speedy” is an ambiguous word in its context. By speedy, how long does that mean? Without this civil liberty, now and future generations may not have the opportunity to even have a trial. You could be locked up for a long time because a trial is not guaranteed. Lastly, I have decided to give up the right to bear arms. Without this civil liberty the citizens, individually and collectively, will not have the right to conceal weapons. I feel that if Small Country citizens were allowed to conceal weapons, then it would potentially be a threat to the aliens. However, by letting go of this civil liberty, there could be a possibility of less violence in the country. I think for the citizens of my country, we should do our best to try to stay at peace with the aliens, as they have allowed us five of the ten civil liberties.

My decision of the civil liberties to keep and to let go will greatly affect future generations. Of course, they will not know the difference between their present life and the life we had before the aliens. Their society will be restricted as there will be limitations to their current civil liberties. I have a feeling that in the future, the alien government will set specific rules such as new clauses to each civil liberty.

There also was no mention of voting in these civil liberties. Does that mean that the aliens will chose who their leader(s) are, and not the citizens? I also feel that the values that the government fought so hard to establish will be completely lost and forgotten as time moves forward and rights and liberties become less. When the government was being created and established by man (social contract theory), rights and responsibilities were given to the citizens and the government, but I feel that in the future, matter of rights and responsibilities will be given solely to the government. For the future generations of Small Country, I hope they keep in mind a quote that reminds me of the government that was originally sent out for my Country and that of the United States. From Abraham Lincoln in the Gettysburg Address, “...and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.”

ACTIVITY #3

I feel that political advertising has a positive effect on the democratic process. Advertising allows propagandists to share information that might not be available through an individual’s personal research. Usually, it is in the best interest of the propagandists to put the most valuable information out to the public. With this information, an individual can make their own judgments and opinions to help them vote on election day. Basically, political advertising does the research for the public, and depending on which party the individual is from, they may hear what they do or do not want to hear.

In political advertising, a propagandist can use a number of various advertising techniques to get their point across. These techniques can be used as a positive or negative attack on the political candidate, but either way, it is a positive movement because the public is allowed to learn about the individual who is being advertised. The same concept goes for commercials. Companies broadcast their products on TV or other media sources to inform the public of what they are selling. Propagandists will market what the candidate is “selling” to boost their votes.

For me, the most effective way for an advertisement to affect me is using the technique of “plain folks.” This is where the purpose of the advertisement is to convince the viewers that the candidate's ideas are “of the people.” Basically, they are trying to show that they are just like the “average-Joe.” Another effective technique is “testimonial.” Athletes on cereal boxes or Gatorade commercials are examples of this technique. Last Presidential election, Oprah Winfrey endorsed Barack Obama. I believe this endorsement was a boost to his candidacy because Oprah has many followers and she will advertise and speak to the public's liking. She will advertise products on her show and people will buy it because of their trust in her. Some may know this as “The Oprah Effect.”

All techniques in political advertising help the democratic process move forward. They help candidates gain strength or they can reveal unwanted facts. Let’s not forget that when choosing a candidate to run for any office, the public opinion is what matters, and the government and candidates will certainly react to the public opinion.

The media is a prime place for political advertising. With little to no regulations, propagandists have the power to advertise to their content. The TV and radio are some places to advertise special commercials about candidates. Each commercial has a specific time limit as well as the agreement of the fairness doctrine. While driving to work or other places or sitting at home watching the television, the public has an easy source of getting information from political advertisements. Other forms of media include the Internet and newspapers. Here, viewers can read recent polls or debates. All media in political advertising is a stepping stone in helping the democratic process.

This country was formed together under a democracy, “of the people, for the people.” In one of the slide presentations, I noted, “In a democracy, government should do what the citizens want it to do - it should follow citizens’ policy preferences.” The same applies to political advertising. Depending upon the beliefs of the person, and their political party, the candidate must show they are “for the people.” One controversial issue that always has voters stirring is the social issue of abortion. Every Presidential election it seems that each candidate must make it clear on how they stand on this issue. With that, they must then decide how to advertise their belief and how they will satisfy the public opinion. Another issue to name is health care; voters want to know what kind of benefits will stay or what will go. If a candidate has a new plan, voters are extremely interested in every detail. Another topic voters what to hear about are tax laws. Voters usually want to hear the candidate's views and tactics to help Americans with tax laws. A candidate must strategize how to win the public opinion because it certainly is a factor in policy-making. Political advertising is a great way to get the candidate’s voice out to the public, as they hope to win the public’s opinion and vote.

For those who say that political advertising has a negative effect on the democratic process because it is only for those with financial advantages or it ruins candidates' reputations, you must look beyond that. Funding has always been an essential to any monetary disadvantage. No candidate has a perfect record. Your judgments come from your own opinions and beliefs, and since we live in the US, no one can force you to think differently. I believe political advertisements are positive to the democratic process because this type of advertising can bring new ideas to the arena of the democratic process.

ACTIVITY #3

There was a time in American history when political advertising had a positive effect on the democratic process. Today, however, in recent elections it has had a negative effect on our democratic process. When elections were first held, the candidates would appeal to the public according to what they believed was good for our country.

In the beginning public opinion was mainly influenced by political socialization. Now, opinion is influenced by political socialization and political advertising. Political advertising was initially introduced to reach more people and ask for their support. It was a way for candidates to introduce themselves into our homes and tell us about their campaign. Now we have polls and the media. Between both, a candidate seems to know what the public wants to hear.

Political advertising has lost its original honesty. Campaigns now have more to work with like special interest groups. These groups help push a candidate and/or their agenda. With the help of the media, messages are easier to convey. The question is how much of that message is twisted in order to satisfy a public poll. It seems that the dire the case for presidency (in all parties), the more distorted the information becomes. Perhaps the negative effect on our democratic process came about when negative ads became popular.

ACTIVITY #4

Dear Mr. Colin Powell,

As chief political strategist, I am hoping you will consider this memo I am writing to you as a possible run for the coming presidential election as an independent. As you might be aware of, Bob Dole has won the Republican nomination. However, polls show that a majority of voters is not is his favor. Republicans and independents alike need someone like you to take over the Democratic majority. I have specific goals mentioned below to define your success. I deeply urge you to consider running as an independent after reading this memo. I strongly believe with your popularity and expertise, you will have a good chance of winning this election, as well as having the opportunity to lead our country.

Basics

Speculations have sprung about your possible candidacy in the next presidential election. You must know you are popular among the people. At this day and age, it is time to give the people what they want-- a president who will serve them. Your experience in the U.S. Army is highly admirable, and your experience as National Security Advisor and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Staff will gain high respect among the people. I strongly believe you should run as an independent, due to the fact that the candidates for the Republican and Democratic parties do not seem to suit the people. There is also much speculation that voters are planning on voting for an independent candidate-- even with no former knowledge of their capabilities.

With this in mind you, Mr. Powell, are a perfect match as an independent candidate. With your strong Republican Party connections, I believe you can win over the Republican Party voters and their current candidate, Bob Dole. In doing so, there is a possibility of drowning out a majority win for Democratic candidate, Bill Clinton. My goal in this campaign is to turn the election over to the House of Representatives which is under Republican control. In order to achieve this overall goal, I have set other goals to assure success. First, you must accept my plea to run as an independent. Next we must set our position on issues such as education for all, a greener environment and creating jobs. After campaigning on our position on these issues, we should be able to reach enough votes to create a two-way race with Clinton for electoral votes and majority votes.

Message

To win over the younger voters, you will campaign to push for a higher education opportunity for all who graduate high school. Since the price for a higher education is skyrocketing, university tuition costs will have to be reviewed and then reduced so they are more affordable and do not to turn students away. Financial aid grants will also be made more available to those with financial need and to those who only qualify for loans. It is unfair to the non-finically needy who deserve a higher education just as much the financially needy, yet they are unable to attend college because of high costs because they do not qualify for grants or other financial aid. Our incumbent, Bill Clinton focuses more on the public secondary school then a higher education. However, he has offered a tax credit for college tuition. Rather than giving tax credit to a college student, this money could be used for their grant. You will also push for a greener America.

Global warming has been an ongoing issue and something must be done. You will ask automakers if today’s gas-guzzling vehicles are really up to today’s standards and regulations. In doing so, a reevaluation will be done to produce greener vehicles. You will also campaign for the people to actively recycle every day. In doing so, you will create a tax deduction for recycling materials. Lastly on this issue, you will create a “green bag” for food stores. This bag will be reusable and be made out of recycled material. The customer will purchase these bags at the grocery store and then be able to reuse them every time they shop. The use and costs of plastic bags are growing and causing much pollution to our earth and country. A “green bag” will allow the company to save money on plastic grocery bags and will also save American’s tax dollars given to buy those plastic bags. Currently, Bill Clinton is not doing much to promote a greener Earth.

Our next issue is the concern for job growth. Bill Clinton said he would create more jobs. By doing this he targeted the minimum wage earners, which is where he gets many votes. In his campaign he said he would increase minimum wage as well as allow more family leave. He also is going to give $15 billon dollars for jobs in poor communities. In this issue over jobs, you will start with the younger generation, the children. You will require more “shadow days” so they become more familiar with job opportunities. To compete with Clinton’s idea of creating jobs in communities with government money, you will suggest that government assistance is a poor substitute for good jobs. To win votes, you must value the concerns of the majority. Not all “issue space” is wide open and already taken, but you must compete for the votes of the other candidates’ voters. I believe if you concern yourself with the common concern of the majority, you will win votes.

Market

The people most effected and likely to respond to this campaign will be the young voters for higher education, those who support higher education and younger generation “shadow days”, the minimum wage earners, and the environmentalists. The states most likely to have an effect on the outcome of the campaign are those that have low college enrollment rates, education advocate states, states with a many minimum wage earner, and the states who do little to recycle. The states these issues will affect are Wisconsin, Texas, California, Illinois, just to name a few. The core states to win this campaign will be the larger states with the larger populations such as California and Texas.

Mechanics

To get you on the ballot in these states, we will let their voters know of your position on issues that affect them. That way, when they are going to the voting booth, they know who you are and will be likely to cast the vote for you on the ballot. Another factor in your favor is since Clinton and Dole are not favorites among the people, there is a high possibility that they will be voting for an independent which will also get your name on the ballot. To make your name known in these states, we will hold rallies in big cities where you can give public speeches to talk about issues that will positively affect their community and issues that they are willing to support you in. We also go door-to-door leaving flyers about your candidacy. We will also hold press conferences to allow the press to ask questions and allow regular people to ask questions about their concerns.

To help with this campaign and to boost your popularity, you will need allies to bring in more votes. Education advocate, Laura Bush would be a possible supporter. An environmentalist who actively promotes a greener earth, is actor Leonardo DiCaprio. He is creating a documentary “The 11th Hour” on global warming. For funding this campaign, we will have to find sponsors who support our campaign. To meet the overall goal of this campaign, we will have to drown out the majority win of Bill Clinton. We will need to gain some of his voters and supporters and those voters of the Republican Party in order to make this a two-way race. Once the race is about even, it will be up to the House of Representatives to decide the final outcome. Since the House is under a Republican rule, votes will be in our favor. To win the absolute majority of electoral votes from the House we will need 270 votes. Our goal is to meet this number, and in the end you will become president.

Please take the time to think this over. Our country is in need of a candidate like you and a campaign like the one I have strategized. Remember your popularity and experience within our country is highly respectable. Also, speculations are that people are likely to vote for an independent candidate, so do not think that this plan will not work. Other speculations say that people want a third party on the voting ballot. To me, this means they are looking for new ideas, which we have. Your positions on the issues above will grab the attention of those who need them, and they will vote for you because they want your view to become a policy. Together we can give the people of the United States what they want-- a president who will serve them.

ACTIVITY #4

This is an internal memo meant for the leadership of the new Common Sense Party.

The Common Sense Party has been formed in an effort to make political gains for the common American, who is quickly getting left behind by both major parties. With our steady financial support we have the luxury of focusing on the issues and not the monetary side of the 1996 Presidential Campaign.

Senator John Smith, a long-time moderate Democrat who is looked at as the leader of the moderate Democrats across the country, is passionate about the CSP platform and has accepted the party's nomination to run for President. As a moderate Democrat who commonly works across the aisle with moderate Republicans he has numerous political friendships and can connect with the center of American politics.

He understands the task ahead, knowing full well that America has relied on a two-party system for most of its existence. The goal of this campaign will be to get the message of the CSP out to the American people. Victory would be very tough to achieve in this first election. The real goal of this campaign is to convince enough Americans of our cause that during the Mid-Term Elections of 1998 CSP candidates will win seats in both the House of Representatives and the Senate. Senator Smith has a loyal following of both moderate Democrats and Republicans who will follow his lead with this new party.

Then four years from now, in the 2000 Presidential Campaign, with no incumbent in the race, the CSP can make a major play for the White House.

Message
As the CSP is a party of moderates from both parties it will have ideals from both parties. The common American finds common ground with both parties on a number of issues. As this is the first election for this start up party we will appeal to the public with a number of stunning initiatives that will help the country and the common man.

The first initiative would be to pass a flat tax. This would more than pay for the national budget and would help Americans keep most of the money they earn for themselves. As both parties are still recovering from their conventions (where they must run to the extremes of their party to win their nomination) the center is wide open right now as neither candidate has run back to the middle. This ground is ours for the taking. The flat tax works against the Democrats tax hikes and against the Republicans tax breaks. When shown the advantages of a flat tax the common American would be very tempted to agree with us.

We want to support certain things that conservatives care about and certain things that liberals care about. We will show the American public that we are religious, and believe and trust in God but that love and devotion to him doesn't run our campaign or our message. We also want to make sure that the American people know that we support their constitutional right to bear arms and that we will not try to take their guns away from them.

On the other side of that argument we want to reassure liberals that we will protect their pro-choice stance and not legislate against it. We will also push strongly for civil rights that extend to all Americans.

We will encourage tax breaks for businesses, large and small. We want to let Americans know that small business can flourish in this country and will not be drowned out by the huge corporations. We want the large corporations to know that we are not out to get them and we will work with them if they will work with us. The tax breaks will be a sign of good faith to them. The liberals will disagree with this stance and the conservatives will try to beat us to this point so we have to get out in front of them on it.

Along with these tax breaks we must push for strong legislation protecting the jobs and rights of the common workers, the workers who are the backbone of the American economy. The common man must know that he has a right to work and support his family and that we will support him in this goal.

We must make dramatic changes though for Americans to join our cause. Senator Smith supports and will push for the federal decriminalization and legalization of marijuana. Conservatives will be against this and liberals will watch how the public responds to this before they have a stance on it but Senator Smith wants to legalize it and tax it. Internal studies have shown that the potential profits from such taxes would be staggering and would help fund one of the major campaign goals of the CSP, which is the government relief of existing student debt, both private and federal. This is sure to be controversial but it is a logical step in American evolution.

The next step along those lines would be to make college free to all those who meet the criteria for admission (with additional criteria to be added). The common family is hurting more and more financially and college is only getting more and more expensive. The gap is widening and America is falling behind the world on the education front. The tobacco industry makes billions upon billions of dollars a year and the marijuana tax would create similar money that could be used to help fund such an education bill. Neither party will agree with this but they will try to show America that it is wrong, but this will just bring attention to our cause. Average Americans will have to listen to such a proposal as it would save them tens of thousands of dollars for every child they want to get a college degree.

Also, Senator Smith wants to allow illegal immigrants to obtain drivers licenses. This would put their fingerprints on file and would show them that although they came to this country illegally they still have a right to chase their dreams and support their families. This will be very controversial and we will have to fight the Democrats on it but it is worth fighting for.

Market
The entire population will be touched somehow by the platform of the CSP. Older Americans will be enticed by the flat tax and the tax breaks for businesses. We can also reach out to the more traditional, older and middle-aged Americans with the support of various liberal and conservative ideas. If we want to be a party of the common man we must support what the common man supports, regardless of which party supports it.

The worker's rights and protection laws that we want to pass will also show common Americans that they can believe in our message. Free college tuition will draw huge amounts of people to our platform.

We will appeal to the immigrant vote (which is substantial) with the law allowing drivers licenses to be obtained by illegal immigrants. We must also streamline the process for immigrants to obtain legal citizenship to this country.

The young vote, although hard to reach and mobilize, will be heavily drawn to our platform. Neither party has been able to mobilize these voters but that's because they haven't had a cause for them to get behind. The very young will want us to legalize marijuana and make college free. That would be something they could absolutely get behind and support.

Our platform has mass appeal (that is why we are running to the center) and will make many people rethink their allegiances to the Democrats and Republicans. The beauty of this approach means that no matter what part of the country we campaign in the issues are important to everyone. No part of the country will feel left out or like its problems aren't being addressed.

That being said, since this is our first campaign and we are trying to make a splash we will put our resources into getting our message across to the states with large amounts of electoral votes. We want the other parties to be worried about us. They will be keying on the large states and so must we. Even if we win a couple of small states that have very small amounts of electoral votes we will not be getting our message across to the country in order to win seats in Congress during the next election.

The states to put massive resources into would be California, New York, Texas, Florida, Pennsylvania and Illinois. Should there be money left over for substantial campaigning in other states it should be spread out among the next tier of electoral states-Ohio, Michigan, and New Jersey.

Mechanics
For this party to succeed in getting on the ballots we must start a grassroots campaign from the ground up. Senator Smith is well known throughout America and well respected by members of both parties and public due to his past military service and outstanding public service. He gives us immediate name recognition and his name alone should be good enough to guarantee that we will be on the ballot along with the Republicans and the Democrats.

Again, Senator Smith is very well known and so making the public aware of who he is will not be difficult. The main focus of the campaign will be to get his message out to the public. As we do not have the financial resources of either major party we will need to utilize a huge viral campaign on the internet and a word-of-mouth campaign. We will get back to the basics. We will go out to the people and tell them what we want for them and for America and listen to what they have to say. We will show them that our platform has room for growth and is legitimate and will make America even greater than it already is.

Since we have issues that appeal to all ages and voters from both parties we can appeal to almost anyone. We can appeal to workers' unions for workers’ rights protection. We can appeal to blue collar workers with the flat tax. We can appeal to parents with the free college education. Celebrities and sports stars will endorse legal marijuana, as will the college population. Local officeholders who feel betrayed or abandoned by the two major parties to endorse the CSP. And with Senator Smith's considerable reputation and friendships he can get endorsements that would normally have gone to a Republican or a Democrat.

Although we do have stable financial backing we do not have the substantial support that the two major parties have. We will have to stick to our message and appeal to the common American for money. We will ask all Americans for a small, modest donation to help the party and our causes. If we can get millions of Americans to donate even twenty to fifty dollars we could have millions upon millions of dollars to get our message across to the entire country. We will also be able to solicit money from those Americans, groups and businesses who didn't feel like they had a true party before. We will be looked at as a legitimate, real third party, Americans will find our new message and ideas refreshing from the normal politics of the two-party system and we will rely on those common Americans to give money to our party.

Although our party and campaign will be passionate and will fight to win the White House for the average American the true impact we will have on the 1996 Presidential Campaign is hard to judge. A victory in the election is not realistic with a brand new political party that the American people feel like they are still understanding. We will throw everything we have into the election but this race will lay the foundation for an even stronger showing in the Congressional elections in two years and the 2000 Presidential campaign. Fifteen to twenty percent of the popular vote would be a huge victory for the CSP. If that percentage translated into thirty to sixty electoral votes the party could expect to truly contend for the White House in 2002.

Common Sense Party, 1996
"America is America!"

CRITICAL THINKING ESSAY

Is most power in America used legitimately and only by those granted authority by the people? Maybe said in other ways, but this question is more often asked than not. Everyone wants to know who is in charge of whom, why they are in charge, how they got in charge, and so on. For the most part people would think that the ones who can be in charge of them are those who are CEO’s of a business, a boss at their job, or a leader of some sort. It all depends on who is designated as the leader of that particular situation. Not only the situation but who has the power also depends on the point-of-view of each person.

With so many different views on what is truly a legitimate use of power, is there a really a way to determine who has it and who thinks they have it. What makes someone different from anyone else that they have the power to tell others what to do? The fact that the people themselves have given someone else the authority gives that person the power legitimately. Someone can say they have the right but if the people say otherwise, the authority they think they have to power is illegitimate. The examples of who has the power overall would be characterized in the sense of authority. In one way or another right was given to them, so they have the use of power legitimately.

Who has the power and how was it given to them? An example of someone who has power would of course be the president. He has the right to the use power because we the people elected him into office and gave him the authority. In this situation the president could be considered as practicing macro-politics. Not everyone agrees with his decisions but he has the right to do what he does. Some more people with authority would be the cops. I paid more attention over my two days of journal entries at the fact that the cops on school campus use their power in any way they can. I have seen more tickets been given out just by the cop walking around the parking lot then a student getting pulled over for speeding. It is stated in the school handbook that we as student are supposed to have a parking decal and if we don’t we will get ticketed. That alone gives the cop the power to write a ticket if they see a car without a decal. Most students don’t take the campus cops seriously but they can’t forget that they still have the right and power to do what they do.

Others who may not always be considered as people who have the right to power would be parents and teachers. Teachers were given the authority when they got their teaching degree, and parents, I guess you can say that would be an unspoken authority. They are dealing with children and students on a daily basis, so the power that they have would be considered micro-politics. A parent has the power to tell his or her child what to do and how they would like it to be done. Not all parents take advantage of  this power and think that it would nicer to just get along with their children, but they still have the power. Teachers and administration have the power while students are at school. Certain rules and consequences are set forth in the school so that no disruptions are taking place and everyone is there doing what they need to do, getting an education. If a student doesn’t follow the directions at school the administration has the power to take the appropriate actions to teach the student a lesson.

The question still remains, is most power in America being used legitimately and by those with the authority? I believe so, power is being used by everyone in any way, whether it is as small as a parent grounding their child or as big as the president declaring war. The power is being used and in a legitimate way. Although the person with the power may differ, as long as the people have given the authority the, power is being used legitimately. Someone giving another the authority can range anywhere from a dean of a college giving the student’s their degrees to the owner of a corporation hiring someone as the manager of the business. This all just goes back to the point-of-view of any one person.

CRITICAL THINKING ESSAY

Power struggles occur in daily life in every culture: a battle in Congress over healthcare, a fight between a mother and her teenage son, and two cops vying for the same promotion. In politics, power is legitimately given by the people through voting. With the balance of power in the three branches of government, votes are needed to gain majority rule. Earlier in his life, a son would obediently listen to his mother; however, as he aged, he yearned for more freedom, responsibility and power. Nature has run its course as the son wins over his mother and is allowed to do as he pleases. A power struggle between two police officers wanting the same promotion can cause tension and competition between them. By nature, individuals strive for power to use to gain a higher status. Power is have the ability and aptitude to influence others in order to further a purpose. However, how this power is used is either legitimate or illegitimate.

To understand power in politics and power relations, we must know how it works. Democracy in America gives its citizens the power to influence, like interest groups, but protects its citizens from physical power. Power in politics does not lie in the hands of the leader. Instead, the power is shared and balanced. Without this type of structure, democracy would not exist, and without democracy, the control of the government would not grant authority to the people. The people are who control the government, because they are the majority and the foundation.

In a visual mind, the shape of a pentagon can help explain the role of power in politics. A pentagon has five points and five sides. The very base (one side and two points) of the pentagon represents the people, for they are the foundation and influencers of politics in government. From the foundation, a government is able to form and build upon its foundation. The people (foundation) elect officials which represent the parallel walls of the pentagon. These officials use the authority granted to them by the people to secure the structure of the government, just like the walls secure the shape of the pentagon. The officials who represent these parallel walls, and the foundation of the people then work together to form a point, which is usually the leader or the president. With this shape, we can now understand how power relations work, as each point and each side or wall of the shape can depend upon each other. It’s funny how in America one of our government buildings is called ‘The Pentagon’.

In macro politics, power relations heavily depend on each other. Every day we rely on our elected officials to use their votes to voice our opinions, known as majority rule. However, sometimes an official may go against their beliefs and morals in order to win majority rule. Usually, an official will vote for or support an interest when it is in the best interest of the general public. Let’s look at the healthcare bill, for example. When campaigning for presidency, Barack Obama made it known that he wanted to see ‘change’ in America. Part of his vision of change was the reformation of healthcare. When he was elected president, his big idea was to pass his healthcare bill. Let’s look into this bill in the form of power. The power to pass this bill does not lie solely in one person, or Obama. In fact, the power to put Obama’s idea of change into action lies in the hands of many people. For his bill to even be considered, he must have supports such as his vice president, the speaker of the house, and of course the votes, which plays a heavy factor. This type of power and the relations of power in this case are legitimate. The people, who were given the original power to vote, voted in officials who voted in this healthcare bill. However, if within the bill were policies made to benefit only some and not everyone, then that would be illegitimate. Policies, bills, laws must be made to suit the best of the general public, and power should not cause illegitimate benefits.

In micro politics, power relations rely on the individuals who set the power. Let’s look at the power of a family. In the simplest form, a family is a government. Depending on what type of family it is, the mother and/or father, or guardians will set the power in the household. As noted earlier, power can often shift. There are a number of reasons why power may shift but one cause is through development and change. Let’s take into consideration a police officer giving a driver a ticket for speeding. The legitimate power lies in the police officer who has the authority to give a speeding driver a ticket. To be very clear, the speed limit was documented at sixty miles per hour, but the unaware driver was going seventy miles per hour. Speed limits are set for a reason and should be obeyed, as all road signs should be obeyed. The police officer has legitimate authority to ticket the speeding driver for not following the speed limit. Legitimate authority is what is accepted as just by the ruler and the ruled. The speeding driver understands the consequences but decides to shift the power. The speeding driver then bribes the police officer into believing that a tree was blocking the speed limit sign and convinces the officer to let them go with a warning. This type of situation is an example of illegitimate power, and as a result, the power has thus shifted.

To answer the question, is most power in America used legitimately and only by those granted authority by the people? -- I am going to have to agree but also disagree. Yes, we the people set the legitimacy of the power given to those granted authority, but often we see illegitimate power to gain benefits or shift the power. Elected officials and leaders are trusted by their voters to put the people’s voice into action, which, in fact, they do. However, there are individuals who think they can get past the system and can take advantage of any situation to gain power. However, with the research I have found, those granted authority are from the people. So really, it is the people who have the authority. People just like me are who really run this country and have the power, so why are illegitimate powers being used when we have to power to oversee it? As a voter and a participating citizen in politics, I feel that the research in this area shows that the people or the voters need to be more aware of legitimate and illegitimate powers.