Public Obligation: Beneficial Or Harmful?

What are our individual rights and what is the meaning of public order advocates, and how can the advantages and disadvantages that are held in response to those rights be understood? Our individual rights are our moral principles sanctioning a man’s freedom of action in a social context. To live rationally by one’s reason in society, man needs only one thing from his fellow men; freedom of action. He requires rights to those actions necessary to support his own life, the most fundamental right being the right to life from which all other rights, including the right to liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness derive. (Retrieved October 9, 2008 from

Often new people are elected into congress to shake things up a bit. If a newly elected legislator does not hold strong opinions nor fight causes that they believe in than the American people who voted the legislator feel let down. Caress believes that congressmen should hold an “understanding of the rival party and learn how to find workable compromises.” However, he finds that “[n]ovice legislators…often see the other party as an enemy.” Newly elected legislators do not really see the other party as an enemy, but rather feel that they made promises to the American people and intend to keep those promises. Because of this, they do not cave into what others bark at them while Washington and instead, hold true to their beliefs and

The American public as a whole, however, is wise and acquires political knowledge from more informed sources. James Surowiecki asserts in The Wisdom of Crowds that individuals can be impolitic; however, groups can reach wise decisions. Surowiecki claims, “Even if most people within a group are not especially well-informed or rational, it can still reach a collectively wise decision.” Surowiecki’s argument illustrates that a national referendum would thwart the ill-informed nature of the American voter as a national referendum is a collective decision. American voters can be irrational and ill-informed; nevertheless, most American voters acquire their political knowledge from more educated sources. The acquisition of political knowledge from more well-informed sources undermines the irrational nature of the American voter. Martin Gilens argues in “Two- Thirds Full? Citizen Competence and Democratic Governance” that cue taking enables ill-informed citizens to make a decision on a controversial issue. Gilens contends, “Taking cues from more knowledge elites or acquaintances is a sensible strategy for citizens who lack the ability or inclination to gather the information needed to formulate a preference on a given policy issue.” The collective wisdom of the American public and cue taking enable American voters to overcome their ignorance of politics and past political

Members of congress are faced with many tough decisions during their time in public office. They have to balance the interest of their constituencies with the interests of outside influences such as political parties, special interest groups, or national interests. These interests are rarely aligned and require tough decisions to be made when voting. When preparing to vote on a major issue congress members are inundated with different opinions sent in by email, mail, phone calls, and social media (How a Member Decides to Vote). Congressional agencies provide reports and studies, special interest groups send in background material, and fellow congress members provide recommendations (How a Member Decides to Vote).

Members of Congress are held accountable to a variety of political forces ranging from the district and federal level. Overall, members of Congress’ predominant goal are to be reelected. To accomplish this feat, the support of the constituents is the driving influence. When analyzing

The United State’s legislative branch is primarily guided by Congress, which itself is composed of the Senate and the House of Representatives. Both of these lawmaking bodies have members elected from the American population, but the sheer number of congressmen and congresswomen that serve each session greatly diminishes the actual power of any single member. In fact, in many cases, members question if they have any power. Furthermore, even if representatives and senators do have a significant say in the legislation process, they often choose not to use it, or to misuse it in ways discordant with democracy. In reality and in our simulation, the way in which Congress members use their power is predominantly influenced by their

All past experiences contemplated, the occurrence of a meager accumulation of votes bequeath an assumption of a group of knowledgeable

A member of Congress is someone who has been elected and appointed to represent a particular constituency and advocate their interest and needs. In a perfect world the representative will listen to the people and speak on their behalf. However, that is further from the truth, only 15% of Americans approve of the job Congress is doing, while 75% disapprove. I agree with the disapproval of Congress, the relationship with the legislative branch is extremely negative because the public’s needs are not being met, due to congressmen following a different agenda. David Mayhew, Jammie Carson, Jeffery Jenkins, and Arnold are a few scholars who explain the behavior of Congress and why the public is unhappy with the jobs the representatives are performing. Mayhew argues that members of Congress are single-minded seekers of reelection involved in credit claiming, position taking, and advertisement. In support of Mayhew’s view Carson and Jenkins add four conditions of the electoral connection— ambition, autonomy, responsiveness, and accountability. Lastly Arnold believes members of Congress are not only single-minded seekers of reelection, but they worry about citizens’ preferences, voter backlash, theory components and the opinion of experts v. generalist v. ordinary citizens along with other things. Members of Congress follow a different agenda when making policy rather than focus on their constituents’ needs, therefore is no surprise why a large portion of the public is so

Constituent opinion, interest groups and political parties all influence the voting decisions of members of Congress in various ways. However, it is ultimately up to each member to decide how to cast his/her vote on any piece of legislation. Explore each of the influences mentioned above and discuss how each could be a potential positive and negative influence on members decisions. Finally, consider these influences in light of the delegate and trustee models of representation introduced by the Framers' fears of democracy and faction. Is there a best path for members to follow in deciding how to

Representatives are in place to be manipulated to meet society’s demands after all. Schattschneilder goes on by explaining that in a representative democracy there are conflicts in which the audience, or the people, play a large part in the conclusion of the issue. This is called the scope of the problem. In the United States’ government however, there are political parties and other interest groups that direct the outcome of conflicts as well. These figures in politics sway public opinion and scope to win over a conflict or to win an election. With so many factors contributing to the solution of a problem, how does anything get done in the government? Schattschneilder believes that this is what actually makes the government work and include the public opinion as well. To win public support and the scope in a conflict, political parties and special interest groups must follow the popular

This model states that only those who come from the particular group and have shared experiences can identify with and ultimately represent that group. In this way it can be said that representatives are unable to fully understand the concerns and views of the constituents because he or she may not have experienced the same issues. Therefore a representative would be betraying the constituents if he or she sacrifices their opinions to his judgment, the opposite of Burke’s

In Policy Paradox: The Art of Political Decision Making (Stone, 2011), the author uses two versions of the political world (the polis and the market) to highlight the paradoxes in political action while also showing the ineffectiveness of many political theoretical frameworks. Stone describes the market as being comprised of individuals who pursue their own personal welfare through their interactions with others; rationality rules in this theoretical construct and people’s decisions can be easily deduced based on what will most benefit them. In contrast to the rational model of politics outlined in the market, Stone asserts that true politics is far more complex. Voters and politicians in the polis are not always well-informed on an issue. They do not always make decisions that would be considered “rational” and most highly benefitting themselves. They have loyalties and compassion for others and their decisions are based on a number of social interactions with other groups and individuals. For me, the biggest claim that Stone makes throughout the book is that other political models are too simplistic in describing the political environment and the human interaction that takes place within it.

Congress was created to enact laws and serve as the voice of the people. But not every decision made by Congress integrates the interests of the majority. One of the challenges of Congress is balancing their personal agenda and the concerns of the majority. Congressmen and women are not guaranteed reelection once their term is complete. To be reelected they must win the votes of the people but those interests aren’t always put first. The members may be more concerned about their political ideologies then the people. Another example is the unequal representation in the Senate, which makes it difficult for one person to accommodate to the interest the states and the country as a whole. The unequal representation in the Senate and the agenda

In the late 1960’s and into the 1970’s, the South Asian region of East Bengal (then East Pakistan, now the country of Bangladesh) was undergoing a severe famine, due to rampant poverty, a civil war and frequent cyclones. The lack of overseas help to this impoverished region was probably what triggered Peter Singer to write the article Famine, Affluence and Morality, wherein he claims that world hunger and famine can be prevented and possibly eradicated if everyone in the wealthy nations did their bit to help the sufferers monetarily. Singer further claims that duty and charity should not be as distinct as they are now, and hints at uniting the two. Upon careful analysis of Singer’s paper, one can find multiple loopholes in this proposal,

When looking at sociology there is a distinct difference between issues from an individual level being private troubles and at a society level being public issues. Private troubles occur on an individual level when values cherished are being, or are felt to be threatened (Mills, 1970). These troubles can be on an individual basis or within an immediate group of people such as a family. If cherished values are under threat this leaves an individual in a state of crisis. However, if the trouble is felt by a vast majority of people then the issue becomes a public issue. Public issues occur when values of a community or population are felt to be threatened (Mills, 1970). We can see public and private troubles occurring due to a number of different factors, including unemployment, marriage and war time.