True Political Shift

Big business not only monopolized the economy, but also caused unprecedented corruption in the political system. Joseph Keppler’s “The Bosses of the Senate” political cartoon in Puck depicts the massive corruption in the political system as he claims that the Senate no longer served the people, but the industrial tycoons (document 4). The American people responded to this by forming political and economic organizations in an attempt to curb the control of the large

In the period immediately following World War I, American workers struggled to earn a living as prices rose and wages stagnated, forcing them to seek union support. Labor unions endeavored to represent the working class against their employers and corporations, who refused to increase wages or improve working conditions. In order to combat the capitalist’s immense political clout, unions made their voice heard through strikes. After the war, capitalists linked unions to the mounting communist threat, stressing that strikes undermined capitalism and threatened a republican form of government. As a result, government sided with capital against labor unions and the struggle of the American workers, who had no voice against corporations. This struggle can be exemplified in a correspondence between union leader, Samuel Gompers and bishop William Quayle, published in “The Twenties in Contemporary Commentary: Labor & Capital”. The letters demonstrate that in the 1920’s, labor unions were necessary as a means to overcome capitalist greed and enhanced the ideals of democracy by empowering the working class.

The final nominee in the 1912 Election was the Socialist Eugene Debs. Debs as a Socialist deeply cared for the needs of the worker and pledged to take the necessary steps to strengthen America’s working class. As a former Conventional Trade Unionist, Debs knew that reform was needed in order to change conditions for working Americans. “True socialists” however, differentiated themselves from “unionists” how sought for more industrial action than political action. Even though Roosevelt, Wilson and Debs seemed to express support to worker rights; each had his own position on the issue. Each advocated for different measures that would help the individual worker’s social needs as well financial needs. Taft, however, did not fully support the worker’s rights.

It is 2014 and since the beginning of the millennium there has been a major shift in America’s political ideology and demographics, more so than in any set period of time. America which has historically been very conservative, has started to become more liberally made evident by the results of the last two elections. Although America’s government is based on a less centralized system and free market, Americans have seemed to start embracing things like big government and a stricter market. Americans are also starting to think different on social issues such as homosexuality and drug usage. America has also experienced a change in its demographics as minorities like Asians and Hispanics continue to grow while whites are, percentage wise, starting to make up a smaller part of Americas population. Along with a shift in ideology and change in demographics, technology and communication has advanced greatly making the world a much more connected place. Because of this connectivity people are also beginning to be influenced by foreign ideas that are not familiar to most Americans such as universal healthcare. Overall, because of factors such as foreign influences due to technology and changing demographics, America has become less conservative and more liberal.

President Herbert Hoover, a Republican, had control of the United States from 1929 to 1933, the beginning of the economic downfall. Hoover created a laissez-faire government; the government was not involved in everyday business, instead it was a very hands off approach and daily life just took its path. When Franklin D. Roosevelt became president in 1933 the economy was now deep in a huge downward spiral, and he raised a new Democratic approach to run the government and United States. The United States was in for a lot of reform movements being that a Democrat was president, and something needed to be done to prevent the status of the United States to fail even more. Franklin D. Roosevelt responded to the problems of the Great Depression

Regime Parties and Realignments- The topic of party realignment was one that was brought up during lecture. Critical realignment theory has stated that some Presidents have played a larger role in the realignment of their parties. The definition of a critical realignment is when the parties and the issues that are at the forefront of the American attention change. Realignments have often been the result of a pressing issue coming to the forefront of Americas attention and allowing for third parties to arise and challenge the two major parties of that era. They often cause huge strains on the ideology and strength of the party because these issues cause rifts within the party weakening its structure. Richard Hofstadter recognized that a new issues arose around the elections of 1800, 1828, 1860, 1896, and 1932 and that the Presidents who won those elections all benefited by taking a stance on that issue.

Following World War I, Americans were left with scarce amounts of job openings and a poor economy. Several were left fearing the communists, who the Americans believed were going to overthrow the government. This caused Americans to resent those who were not accepting to return to the “traditional” American values. With the 1920’s, there came both a rise in conservatism and liberalism, but only one was revolutionary, described by Merriam-Webster.com as,”Constituting or bringing about a major or fundamental change.” Furthermore, different presidents advocated for different political stances. Republican Presidents, Warren Harding and Calvin Coolidge, advocated America to have a conservative government and return to normalcy, while Republican

The political shifts in American history during the last two centuries are often explained by Arthur Schlesinger's cyclical explanation of eras of public purpose followed by private interest. What is considered liberal versus what is considered conservative shifts in a similar pattern. While laissez-faire policies are considered liberal in the Roaring 20's, the onset of the Great Depression in

Liberals had dominated American society for most of the 1900s. The 1960s was widely known for being the age of counterculture, social reforms, and liberals. The era witnessed many advancements like racial equality such as the Voting Rights Act of 1965, a strong advancement in political liberalism, and a significant increase in the power and influence of government-funded social programs as a result of Lyndon B. Johnson's Great Society reforms. Beginning with the election of Nixon, however, followed a gradual return to conservatism whether religiously, politically, or economically. The resurgence of conservatism in American politics and government in the years 1964-2005, was caused in

… “ FDR believed that an undue dependence on regular Democratic party would prevent a fundamental alteration of political alignments and …his support of regular patronage practices to reward certain Republican Progressives and other reformers outside the Democratic party…developed a national New Deal Organization.” (55)

In which ways did the Fifties and Sixties in the USA set the scene for the rise of conservatism in the Seventies and into the Reagan era? Was the rise of the right inevitable? Please explain your point of view.

There has been a lot of fuss over big business influencing the government in the United States lately. Now there is no doubt that the business elite have some influence on politics. It can even be traced back to the early 1900’s, when “the People’s Party had disintegrated, but many writers and activists have continued to echo the Populists’ central thesis: that the U.S. democratic political system is in fact dominated by business elites” (). Although there are countless arguments to go against this idea, the questions still comes up today: Is government dominated by big business? Political Scientist G. William Domhoff believes that government is dominated by big business. More specifically, Domhoff believes that owners and top-level managers in income-producing properties are not only dominant power figures in the US, but they also have inordinate influence in the federal government (). Another political scientist however, Sheldon Kamieniecki, believes otherwise. He states that businesses do not really get involved in policies that affect them; and even when they do, their success rate at influencing policies is not consistent. In fact, he believes that other factions have more influence on government policies ().

Looking at the United States in 1965, it would seem that the future of the liberal consensus was well entrenched. The anti-war movement was in full swing, civil rights were moving forward, and Johnson's Great Society was working to alleviate the plight of the poor in America. Yet, by 1968 the liberal consensus had fallen apart, which led to the triumph of conservatism with the election of President Reagan in 1980. The question must be posed, how in the course of 15 years did liberal consensus fall apart and conservatism rise to the forefront? What were the decisive factors that caused the fracturing of what seemed to be such a powerful political force? In looking at the period from 1968 to the

How did powerful corporations advance their agenda against workers during the Carter and Reagan years?

Politicians run the United States, or do they? Recent studies show that large corporations and businesses that fund candidates are actually behind what policies are being made, they also influence what laws are being changed or updated, and who wins these elections. It is no secret that these corporations play a vast role in politics. It takes a generous amount of money to fund a campaign and an even more substantial amount of money to fund a successful one.