US Senator Dan Coats

Nick Salvatore’s book Eugene V. Debs Citizen and Socialist provides a very detailed account of the life and times and Eugene Debs. Debs was born in Terre Haute Indiana and Salvatore emphasizes the important role that this played in Debs upbringing. Terre Haute was ripe with religious fundamentalism from its founding. Religion permeated everyday life throughout Terre Haute. Salvatore writes that, “In newspaper editorials, political speeches, civic dedications and Sunday sermons they assured the kingdom of God had already arrived and that their town was destined to become the center of the Kingdoms Midwest development.” It is striking how the ideals of the Terre Haute community based in religious

This written report is appertaining to the book How Congress Works and Why You Should Care, written by Lee H. Hamilton. This book is published by Indiana University Press in Bloomington, IL, it was copyrighted in 2004 by the publisher.

As the documentary continues, Republican strategist, Lee Atwater outlines the idea of the Southern Strategy. The Southern Strategy is a political strategy used by conservatives in which Republican politicians choose their language wisely to “speak in a kind of racial code designed to turn white working class voters against government programs (Wise, 2007).” According to John H. Bracey, this type of racism indirectly hurts the interests and well-being of working-class whites too. When aid is in question for whites, it also means that blacks would benefit from it as well and since some white people are so racist, they refuse the aid all together. For example, in Mississippi, there are people who won’t expand Medicare because they have such a dysfunctional political system that they would rather turn down aid for white people because the same aid would also help black people.

In 1963, with the assassination of John F. Kennedy, Lyndon B. Johnson ascended to the presidency. Johnson, a democrat, had enormous ambitions to expand the role of the federal government in American’s lives like FDR had done. The nation was in shock and Johnson rode the wave to have the martyred president’s “New Frontier” agenda passed into law. As a former majority leader in the Senate, he used his know-how to continue to churn bills one after another through Congress. Most notable among them was the Civil Rights Act of 1964: a landmark in the fight for equality. Johnson’s other bills were part of a declared war against poverty, and these would come to be called a part of his “Great Society” harkening back to FDR’s “New Deal” in both

“Enlightened statesmen will not always be at the helm.” With this statement, Madison aptly points out in Federalist 10 that United States citizens might not always elect the most qualified or well-intentioned political leaders (24). In our current presidential political climate, these words seem more pertinent than ever. There is no question that the powers of the presidency have increased since the founding of the United States, but what are the implications of this for American democracy? Increased presidential powers are taking power away from Congress, undermining the system of checks and balances, and ultimately hurting American democracy. Concentration of power in the executive branch circumvents democratic deliberation and limits

Senator Felix Grundy of Kentucky urged for war in his appeal to the Speaker in 1811 because he believed that the British were infringing on the maritime rights of Americans, suddenly and without reason. He believed it was a violation of personal liberty that the government should not stand for. On the opposition, Senator John Randolph of Virginia opposed the war and he did not believe Grundy 's appeal. In his appeal to the Speaker in 1811, he said that the war was not for maritime rights, but for greed. He believed those in favor of the war saw land they could win from the war and wanted to claim it as their own. He states in his speech that he did not hear a call for rights, but a chant for Canadian lands. In the chance that I had been a part of the decision of going to war with Britain, I would have supported the war. Although nobody doubted British actions against American shipping as crimes, the motives of the War Hawks were continually questioned. The War Hawks are a group of young congressmen that were the new generation of political leaders. They are ardent nationalists that called for war with Britain. They spoke of defending honor against British insults and in support of the annexation of Canada and the conquest of Florida, which is owned by the British ally, Spain (Foner 242). Despite their concentration on practical goals, like the expansion of America, these young men upheld principles of free trade and wanted to liberate the United States from European

Wilson Q. James. American Government, Brief Version. 11th ed. Wadsworth, Cengage Learning. 2009, 2012, 2014.

Jordan was forcefully optimistic that social change is possible, and this optimism set the tone for her speech. It remains a speech that is strikingly relevant to the political problems confronting us today. We are all aware that partisan gridlock and dysfunction define the day-to-day political process in today’s Washington. Cynicism and lack of confidence in government are at record levels. Liberals might blame a Republican Party that seems doggedly unwilling to work with President Obama on a host of issues; conservatives might blame the President and other Democrats for pursuing a liberal policy agenda with which they can find no area for compromise. This ideological stalemate seems to have no end in sight, and it feeds a widespread cynicism about the political process itself.

Government, all the way from Capitol Hill down to the small cities across the nation, is filled with the elected officials who represent the citizens of that city and state. When people think about who represents them, who comes to mind first? The Senator? The Representative? The mayor? Despite being categorized at different levels of the government, state and federal, each of these officials are tasked with representing their state and hometowns, and each of their jobs is just as important as the other. Their job, in short, is to represent the interests of the people who elected them into office. In this essay, I will identify the individuals who represent me and evaluate the extent to which I feel represented.

The public officials representing Michigan are a diverse group of people. Prior to completing the Michigan Officials journals I thought majority of Michigan officials were Caucasian wealthy republican men. My research for the public official journals allowed me to see that wasn’t the case. Throughout my research I’ve learned about different positions of U.S and Michigan government and how each role works together to create a successful government.

Throughout the second half of the 20th century, and into the first decade of the 21st century, Wisconsin politics had a well-established tradition of centrist governance, with the ultimate goal of best serving the citizens of Wisconsin. State Senator Tim Cullen (D), who served in the state Senate first between 1975 and 1987, returned to the state Senate in 2010, for fear that state politics was on the brink of hyper partisanship. In his Memoir Ringside Seat: Wisconsin Politics, the 1970’s to Scott Walker Cullen, in cooperation with former high ranking members of both parties, attempts to describe the fundamental differences between the political environment of Wisconsin prior to, and following, Act 10. Importantly, the memoir argues that the

The residents of Louisiana that adhere to the Tea Party highly value Christianity. From the high number of church goers that mark church as a central social space, to the understanding of their time here on earth as limited--the pollution that burdens them here will not carry over to eternal paradise--the Louisiana residents’ lives are replete with embedded forms of Christian identity reproduction (Hochschild 135). This high value of Christianity is one of the reason why the residents hold strong enmity towards the federal government. Many resonated with Madonna Massey’s sentiment that “things” regulate themselves and that God will “take care of the rest.” Government was simply competing with God’s mandate (Hochschild 73). Nevertheless, the endurance required to reject the overwhelming force that is government, is another value that the Louisiana residents cherish.

In 1972 when Jesse Helms campaigned for the Senate seat in North Carolina, he brought his experience, policies, and beliefs. Senator Helms became one of the most conservative voices in the Senate. He always opposed members of the Senate, and this soon earned him the nickname “Senator No”. Senator Helms would not compromise his policies or beliefs. He earned the reputation for being stable, faith-based and a conservative. He remained steadfast throughout his career, and his feelings were made clear in this statement, “I want our government to encourage and protect freedom as well as our traditions of faith and family”. During Helms’ career, many of his colleagues in the Senate tried to find compromises on the hard issues. Helms understood the Senate rules and this permitted him to stand firm in his beliefs, and for this reason, he could block legislation that violated his principles, values, and beliefs. Helms rejected many laws such as same-sex marriage, abortion, the Panama Canal treaty, and communism to name a few. I will now explain how Senator Helms felt about these four laws.

Daschle, Thomas, and Charles Robbins. The U. S. Senate. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 2013.

INTRODUCTION: According to Politics in States and Communities (Dye and MacManus, 2009), government in the constitutional form is primarily about conflict resolution. It exists to find solutions or at least to set parameters for implementing solutions within strict limitations. At the state and local levels (which operate together under state authority), governments have the freedom to address issues and conflicts very directly through the governance policies and restrictions they put in place. For the federal government, however, decisions are tied more directly to what the US Constitution says or what it has been interpreted to mean, and it is very difficult to change.