POLS 1301 Short Answer Assignment

.pdf

School

Texas Tech University *

*We aren’t endorsed by this school

Course

1301

Subject

Political Science

Date

Jan 9, 2024

Type

pdf

Pages

Uploaded by JusticeWaterBuffalo25600

Cole Faires October 24th 2023 Sara Norman, Ph.D. POLS 1301 POLS 1301 Short Answer Assignment 1. In Unit 4, you learned about the Executive Branch. First, identify which executive branch and bureaucratic agencies might be involved in the work to combat climate change. Second, explain how climate change might constitute a collective action problem, which you learned about in Unit 1, and how it can be difficult to encourage individuals to fulfill a social responsibility of this type. One of the main cabinet branches tackling the issue of climate change is the Department of Energy. The Department of Energy deals with pollution and greenhouse gas emissions stemming from the production of electricity using fossil fuels. The DOE has multiple programs, such as Environmental Cleanup and Carbon Management Technologies Program, that are focused on lessening the amount of carbon dioxide emitted through burning fuels. Another executive agency concerned with the effects of climate change is the Environmental Protection Agency. The EPA is focused on the safety of the environment and human health in the United States. Among the issues the EPA faces are the effects of climate change, such as rising sea levels and reduction of potable water amounts ( Climate 2019). Since these effects are a global, widespread issue, there are many different opinions on the best way to handle it. Often, this leads to a collective action issue, where individuals with varying views on a problem, instead of collaborating to solve the problem, refuse to cooperate due to conflicting interests (Mitchell, 2017, p. 5). An example would be those living in areas away from the ocean and high elevation, who may view rising sea levels as a non-issue since they do not witness firsthand any problems stemming from an increase in sea level. However, people who live next to oceans or on islands, even though they may not witness a substantial change, are concerned with the long-term effects of a rising sea level: their house may no longer be safe to stay in 50 years. Forcing people to adhere to strict guidelines for their carbon footprint is challenging as most government regulation of greenhouse gasses and emissions is often met with criticism by some parties for reducing their quality of life by limiting their actions for another person’s sake. 2. In Unit 6, you learned about the Median Voter Theorem and how politicians will do best in the election if they identify the median voter’s position in whatever constituency they are appealing to. Why does this strategy sometimes result in a candidate seeming to change his or her positions when moving from a primary to a general election? Now, give an example of a situation where you think a candidate either attempted to follow the median voter, or a situation in which he or she did NOT attempt to move to the median voter’s position. Do you think the candidate in your example behaved strategically? Do you think he or she behaved ethically? During a primary election, a candidate is almost always guaranteed the support of the voters on the far sides of the left-right spectrum. For instance, a Republican presidential

nominee with very conservative views has assuredly won the support of the voters on the right side of the spectrum. After the primary elections, both parties fight for the support of the median voters whose political views are not as extreme or fully align with one of the parties. A candidate may often change their stance on key political topics to be more attractive to the middle voters. These changes can range from changes to how their policies will be enacted to a full reversal of the candidate’s original stance on a topic. An example of a political candidate altering their political stance is Hillary Clinton who switched her view on trade agreements the U.S. had made. In 2011, while Secretary of State for the Obama administration, Clinton made it clear she supported the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade agreement. Years later, she reversed her stance on the Trans-Pacific Partnership while running for the 2016 Presidential Election. She stated that she could no longer support the trade agreement after months of not providing an answer (Keith, 2016). Clinton did behave strategically as she revealed her stance on the trade deal before the initial debates were about to start when it would be the most effective. This allowed the median voters who also disagreed with the trade deal to identify with her, potentially swaying them to support her. As for whether or not Clinton behaved ethically, I believe she behaved ethically since she did not mislead voters or lied about her stance.

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help