Politics of and Without Difference Essay

America is a land of very diverse people from all parts of the world. They all have wide varieties of interests, which are represented by both parties of its political system. The Democrats and Republicans represent two different standpoints; although they concentrate on the same issues both of them have different views on how the issues should be addressed. Two presidential campaigns in which the parties’ candidates differed on the issues are that of 1988 and 1996. Democracy only works when the people who represent the masses differ on the issues, so that to protect our freedom and the parties of our political system are the best representation of this ideology.

The apportionment of seats in the House of Representatives is calculated based on a state’s adult population,

Implementation of this process will gradually integrate the minority into the system, causing all groups to be culturally similar with their differences no longer a basis for prejudice from the dominant group. (Dubois, Miley 172)

The organizations that would take over other beings and cause them to lose their identity to become a slave to the larger organization. However, Assimilation often associated with a negative connotation with the loss of one’s identity or historical culture as part of an integration process with a new, larger cultural identity. This negative connotation therefore raises racial and cultural identity concerns at the mere mention of the term, which results in a loss of the positive connotations of assimilation and loss of the perspective that assimilation does not require the loss of individual identity. The people involved still retain their individual identities, hopes, dreams, interests, loves, and goals, but they also can function more successfully

Equality is pushed upon each citizen. But with this equality, comes aforementioned characteristics: submission, hopelessness, detachedness, conformity, and isolation. Superiority is punished. As written in chapter I, "It is not good to be different from our brothers, but it is evil to be superior to them" (21). In this way, uniqueness is repressed when it should be

The scholar Guy Swanson once said, “Thinking without comparison is unthinkable. And, in the absence of comparison, so is all scientific thought and scientific research.” (cited in Ragin, 1992). As such, comparison is necessary for the development of political science. The ‘art of comparing’ can be seen as what experimentation is to most sciences – the principal and most effective way to test theory. (Peters, 1998) This essay seeks to describe the different aspects of the ‘art of comparing’ and also to detail the reasons why the comparative method is a necessary tool in the belt of any political scientist.

Being identified with a group can shape one’s thoughts on theirself, and what is expected of them within their society. Some things that in one’s mind seem so normal and expected may be far from

Assimilation is a pattern of different groups in relationships with each other in which the minorities of these groups is voluntarily, encouraged or even sometimes forced to blend with the majority of the group. Eventually, after this takes place the minorities’ distinct culture, belief and looks disappear into the majority group. The minority group adapts the language, norms and values of the larger group.

The most common debate between a minority group and a majority group are the ideas around religion and it is Elyakim Kislev (2012) who argued that, “[there are] challenges faced by religious groups in a society with a non-religious majority.” Throughout both McGraw Hill- Higher Education’s work (2004) and Elyakim Kislev’s (2012) research, the idea of a four step model was introduced. However, majorities and minorities do not share the exact same steps, which can cause different outlooks to arise. Minorities emerge with the four strategies/methods which include; integration, also known as participation in the majority culture while still holding on to their own, separation or rejection of the majority culture and only accepting their own, assimilation or the rejection of their own culture and acceptance of the majority culture and finally marginalization, which focuses on the rejection of both the majority culture and their own. The majority on the other hand show the same integration step (but participating or interacting with the minority group) and then are followed by “acceptance, resistance and then redefinition and reintegration” (McGraw-Hill, 2004).” Kislev (2012) argues that the most ideal model or step would be, “solely based on the acceptance of both cultures.” Kislev’s (2012) study also examined that the ability to, “[take] from both cultures [would] be enough to increase the emotional well-being and educational achievements of minorities.” By acknowledging how different people between the two classes (minority and majority) accept both their culture and other cultures, it gives insight into how they may shape their identities and ultimately, how they may treat

In the weeks following the 2016 United States Presidential election, much of the joy and outrage surrounding President elect Donald Trump has subsided. People of varying ages, races and socioeconomic classes have expressed in some form or another some sort of emotion regarding the status of the United States and where it will be in 2020. What would two political philosophers from history say? The best way to find out how Niccoló Machiavelli and Jean Jean-Jacques Rousseau would feel about the president elect would be to compare Donald Trump to their respective ideals, the prince and the general will.

The social conflict paradigm is a theory based on society being a complex system characterized by inequality and conflict that generate social change. Personal life experiences dictate me to believe this theory is true. Discussion of the theory in question and how it pertains to myself will be covered in the paper. Social conflict can be seen all over the world we live in: in sports, politics and normal social engagements. The main point I have experienced with this theory would be the fact that I don’t come from a rich, powerful, and prestigious family, which in turn limits my chances of being successful. Karl Marx studied social conflict His entire life and wanted to reduce social inequality. The social

(a) Shock therapy, at its core, was privatization. Yeltsin instituted this plan of action as a way to revitalize and change the Russian economy. Shock therapy was not a simple course of action. It drew comparisons to “cutting off a cat’s tail” or “removing a bandage” both of which is far better off being done quickly. It was supposed to invigorate the people and warm them up to democratization while also creating a free market opposed to the planned economy. Many state owned industries were also sold for cheap in order help foster the idea of “shocking” the economy back to life.

From a young age, politics has been an integral part of my life. When I was growing up, my grandmother was a state senator for 12 years and introduced me to the inner workings of political decisions and public policy-making. As a democratic legislator in a largely republican state, she taught me the importance of having an open mind and how it is essential to work with others who may not share the same views. However, I do not think I completely understood what it means to compromise or be pragmatic in one’s political philosophy until I completed this course. Entering the course, I considered myself to be a staunch liberal who allowed for political compromise only in the most extreme situations. After examining the ideas learned throughout the course and realizing being concrete and unwavering in your viewpoints is not always the most productive, I now consider myself, while still believing in the majority of liberal principles, to be more of a pluralist when it comes to a political philosophy. My belief in a pluralist method of political theory is exemplified through three of the more important issues discussed in the course and the questions they raise: who should be granted citizenship, and what rights and duties accompany citizenship, how a government and political communities should be organized, and how social goods should be distributed justly. Within the discussion of these political issues brings up questions of two important philosophical issues—ontology and

Economists, Theologians, Sociologists all have hypothesis regarding why every society (Christian, Hindu, Muslim, Atheist etc) has not been able to embrace social equality yet is ok with spiritual equality. The stem from Economic, Physical and Cultural reasons. Economically, having a woman who is able to provide financially is frightening for two ways. First in Oregon a study stated that if women were to receive a raise to equal that of a males in a skilled field such as engineering “The men maintained their objection (to the pay increase) eventhough their own wage would not be lowered if the women’s wage were increased. It was cited that the reason for this was the potential degradation of self-respect a man saw if a woman made as much as him (Joan Acker
). In addition, even in professional jobs such as doctors females receive only 74% of what there Male counterparts in the USA and 55.75% of there Male coworkers in India. Finally, some believe if a woman is financially independent that takes away power from the males. Ultimately a fear of loss of power or masculinity drives this social inequality. Knowing this patriarchy present in the society in where I live terrifies me as a female and motivates me to advocate for those who women who have not been given a voice since childhood. I truly believe everyone male or female deserves a choice in how they want to live there life domestic or working sphere.

It is important to consider that politics is a contested concept with numerous differing views and perspectives presented to us. These different perspectives can offer similar perspectives on the concept of politics and what it means; whilst other times the views are strongly contrasting creating debate on the subject. The main examples of the differing views of politics are as follows: Politics as the art of government; which is the more traditional view of politics. Politics as public affairs; a view which focuses on public institutions rather than civil society. Politics as compromise and consensus; a view which sees politics as a method of resolving conflict. The final view of politics is the view that politics is power; this more cynical view of politics focuses more on the idea of power within the state. This essay will serve to set out these definitions; compare and contrast them with one another to hopefully ascertain a detailed idea of the concept of politics.