Slinging In American Politics

Chapter one of The American Political Tradition by Richard Hofstadter is centered on the Founding Fathers. The very beginning of the chapter says that the Constitutional Convention was trying to create a government that would pay debts and avoid currency inflation. The Democratic ideas that the Founding Fathers were so against appealed mostly to less privileged classes, and not at all to the higher classes. This chapter says that the Founding Fathers thought that if no constitutional balance were achieved, one specific class or would take over others. Three advantages of a good constitutional government were listed in this chapter as well. One: keep order against majority rule. Two: a representative government. Three: aristocracy and democracy

Without that, I never would have learned about this remarkable passion of mine and my life would have been completely different and most likely would have been much worse without the things I learned from debating. In the end, whether I end up being right and getting that little bit of extra meaningless pride by defeating someone who I’ll never encounter again in an online battle of wits behind a mask of anonymity or being disgracefully wrong and learning as much as I can from my mistakes, debating is one of my favorite activities to partake in and I wouldn’t give it up for the world, although I’d welcome you to try and convince me

Politician and the author of the book Hardball: How Politics Is Played, Told by One Who Knows the Game Christopher Matthews is well renowned as a leading figure in explaining the inner workings of American politics. His book Hardball is a nonfiction he wrote about his experiences in politics and boiled down succeeding as a politician into fourteen maxims. He bases these maxims off of his own real experiences in politics and others’ who have both succeeded and failed. For you do well in the game of politics you should make sure to follow at least these two maxims: “All Politics is Local” and “Keep your Enemies in Front of You.” However, you must be aware that Matthew’s maxim “Press is the Enemy” isn’t necessarily true.

Richard Hofstadter examines the political beliefs of the founding fathers in the first chapter of the American Political Tradition. Ideas thought about by most Americans to be the center of our organization, our founders viewed liberty, democracy, and property, as evil. The composition can be depicted to be vicious as well, because liberty, democracy, and property are linked to the United States Constitution.

This article talks about 10 NFL players who made the transformation from the world of playing football and making a living on the gridiron into the world of politics. In this article review we will talk about 3 NFL players that this article talks about whose story really caught my attention and intrigued me. We will discuss how they went from wearing shoulder pads and helmets to work to wearing suits and ties to work. The first NFL player that went from the gridiron to politics that we will talk about whose story caught my eye is Byron White. Byron was a top-tier running back in the NFL and the highest paid player at the time during his very short stint with

Machine politicians were an influential factor to urban cities during the wave of immigration. During this era, immigrants were unfamiliar with the urban lifestyle and assimilation was strenuous. It is apparent that Machine politicians helped impoverished immigrants gain a sense of cohesion within a community. For instance, Machine politicians sponsored local events such as picnics, youth clubs, baseball teams, and choirs for immigrants to divert from pubs. This local party organization became an essential institution for the community. Likewise, Machine politicians represented working class Americans, mainly consisting of lower-class immigrants. These groups were supported politically by the machines, which served their interests and helped

The media has always played an important role in the President’s relationship with the public, but just what kind of affect does it really have on the executive office? The first televised presidential debate in 1960 between John F. Kennedy and Richard Nixon marked the beginning of a new era – the inaugural shift of the media’s role in politics. Since that time, the media has continued to transform the way the president is perceived by the public through print, broadcast, and more recently, social media. All of said outlets have played vital roles in not only a president’s campaign, but also in their presidency and likability throughout their time in office. While the White House is still the source of most presidential news, the media are the shapers of the story and can frame it pretty much any way they want. There used to be limits on certain issues or realms of the presidency that were to remain untouched, however, first amendment freedoms take precedence over almost any restriction the government could try to place on the media. The purpose of this paper is to explore the relationship between the media and the president throughout recent years, looking briefly into the past to establish the scale of the dramatic change, and to study their reciprocal connection of how each utilizes the other.

Friendly fire in combat is known as weapon fire coming from one's own side, especially when it causes accidental injury or death to one's own forces. Friendly fire in the political realm is when you are on the same side as your colleague, but you fire at them with your words and have only negative things to say about them.

In the 1790s, partisan politics emerged due to the opposing views on how the new nation should be governed. The two parties that developed were the Federalists and the Democratic –Republicans. The Republicans were a group that believed in the strong states’ rights, restricted power for the federal government, and a stern clarification of the Constitution. Thomas Jefferson and James Madison led the party. The Republicans ideal government favored liberty and believed that the government should be receptive to the people. The party believed that the states’ should be dominant in governing because they wanted assurance that individual liberties would be protected from government tyrants.

It is no secret that Americans are disappointed with the current political machine that is running the country. This dislike was illustrated in a 2013 Gallup Poll. The poll discovered that only sixteen percent of Americans were happy with Congress. When American citizens are asked what solution they think would solve this problem, most respond, “Term limits” (Gallup)  In fact, eighty percent of Americans support the concept (Cato).

Americans were known as a pioneering people who would struggle and fight to build for themselves. A people who pushed the entire world into a new era and has continued to push the limits of technology, military, and culture. After Britain finally surrendered the colonies to the American citizens a new republican experiment was conducted. One that is still going on to this very day and every citizen of America is a part of this grand experiment. The British Colonies were independent from one another before the American Revolution, but a shared enemy began a strong bond between the states. After things settled down the states were allied with one another in a form of confederation and then finally under the Constitution as a united republic nation. There were those who were not completely for a strong central government and favored the confederate style, but there were also those who found comfort and strength in a centralized federal government. This federalist versus anti-federalist debate has continued throughout all of American history each side with its strengths and weaknesses. The development of the debate and increase in federalism in American government can be highlighted by the doctrine of implied powers, commerce clause, the American Civil War, and the struggle for civil rights.

Republicans and Democrats historically have found it difficult to agree on many policy issues, and taxation represents another area of disagreement. Each party’s ideology partially explains why they take a different approach to taxation and furthermore alludes to the different coalitions present in each party. Democrats traditionally favor higher taxes, while Republicans feel as though raising taxes is inefficient. The past twenty years illustrate these two stances, and each party clearly has a history of rhetoric and policy preferences to confirm this. Each president or presidential candidate from each party has reflected a position consistent with the party’s overall stance, and this in turn explains why each party has had trouble coming to an agreement over tax policy. Furthermore, other policy issues play a role in taxation policy for both parties. Specifically social welfare and government programs correlate with taxation policy, and each party has an entirely different view on how such programs should be operated. With a fundamental difference in ideology and a different set of interests, Republicans gravitate towards less taxation while Democrats favor higher taxation.

It’s been proven that campaigns can get dirty and grimy. In the fight for voters, candidates will put on some of the most outrageous acts to destroy each other. The respect for each other is nonexistent. With mudslinging, it gives political candidates the opportunity to assassinate the other candidate’s character, dig up candidates unethical past history, and scrutinize their political views. Mudslinging and dirty politics has not only been a fad of modern day campaigning, but is known to exist as early as the 1800’s presidential election. The elections most known for its dirty politics and mudslinging in the 1800’s were the election of 1828 and the election of 1840.

Stretching the truth is a very common practice in American politics. Many times we deal with politicians who are narcissists. They are driven by the need for power and the "all about me" mentality. Dishonesty is bad business for the public because we feed into the lies and they're told so many times that we start to believe it's true. Therefore, jumping on the bandwagon and being made to think the way they

My article is about political “quid pro quo” – Latin meaning this for that, or one thing for another - and how wanting “that” can land you in Club Fed for 14 years! So I ask you, where is the line between legal and illegal political “horse-trading” - which is common place in government across the US – and should it be?