Note: Sample below may appear distorted but all corresponding word document files contain proper formattingExcerpt from Essay:
There were a few things that changed in American political culture between 2004 and 2012. The political culture became more polarized, as media and political rhetoric escalated significant following the 2008 election. The political landscape was change by the 2008 election, which saw an expansion of red states, and renewed interest in politics from African-Americans and Hispanics, two groups that traditionally vote Democrat. The heightened rhetoric can be seen as something of an extension of culture wars, where conservatives and liberals alike seek to more clearly define their positions on both economic and social issues. Socially, Americans have become more liberal on many issues, but there is still a divide with respect to economic issues.
National security, social issues and the economy were three key issues in 2004 and 2012. While Bush gained among conservatives for his national security policy, he performed miserably among liberals. Obama took the middle road on national security issues, perhaps so as not to look too weak. On economic issues, Bush benefitted from a strong economy in 2004, but Obama was able to overcome a weak economy in 2012, largely because of social issues and because the economy was at least trending in the right direction. Social issues seemed to be a key point of voting in 2012 in particular. The Bush re-election was not as focused on these as on national security and the economy, but Obama was able to overcome liberal misgivings about national security and the sluggish economy with positioning opposite to Republican hawkishness of social issues. This gave Obama a strong edge with younger and urban voters. The increasing starkness of political divisions between the two parties seemed to work against Romney and the Republican Party as their positions appeal only to a minority of American people. They have chosen positions that will win them votes in primaries, but not in a general election, allowing Obama to win even if some of his constituents were significantly less enthused with his candidacy than they were in 2008.
Obama swept into office on the economy. Americans in 2008 were already tired of Bush's foreign policy incompetence, so they could not forgive a sinking economy. Obama's four-year upward trend may have been slow, but it was enough to set the economy back as a major issue. The Republicans appeared to spend too much effort on smear campaigns, and failed to convince a skeptical electorate on the merits of economic principles -- having brought the country to recession under Bush, Republicans needed to make a stronger case in favor of their economic program. With a major influx of new voters who are either young or Hispanic, Republicans missed an opportunity to sell these new voters on their social and economic ideas, the former of which seem rooted in the past and the latter of which have some merit but that merit was not really discussed. Voters still want leaders with whom they can connect. Obama and his policies were better at that. In 2004, Bush and Kerry had such similar backgrounds, that Bush's personableness and the state of the economy had voters overlook his deficiencies.
If there was an element of culture war to the 2012 election in particular -- but also in 2008 -- what are those cultures? Are they new? Are these new cultures redefining the American political map? We've seen Obama turn red or purple states into solid blue -- places like Ohio, Michigan, New Mexico and even Florida seem little in doubt any more. As the political parties seem to be moving to a more polarized dynamic, it forces people to choose between very different worldviews. One thing that comes from the 2012 election is that the Republicans did a poor job of either defining a worldview that could get them elected or of selling it -- Obama didn't win because liberals were in love with his performance, which was that of a fairly conservative President, the ACA notwithstanding.
So there are definitely some issues that have been raised, in particular whether the electoral map has changed. While conservative ideology is by definition slow to change, the world today seems to be moving ever more quickly. It could be that 9/11 gave Bush an opportunity to win, which otherwise stalled a trend towards progressive values and progressive Presidents. A large demographic of…[continue]
"Politics There Were A Few Things That" (2013, April 15) Retrieved October 23, 2016, from http://www.paperdue.com/essay/politics-there-were-a-few-things-that-89620
"Politics There Were A Few Things That" 15 April 2013. Web.23 October. 2016. <http://www.paperdue.com/essay/politics-there-were-a-few-things-that-89620>
"Politics There Were A Few Things That", 15 April 2013, Accessed.23 October. 2016, http://www.paperdue.com/essay/politics-there-were-a-few-things-that-89620
This person proved to be an honest and God-loving individual who is actually concerned about my well-being and the well-being of other slaves. He brought me a pair of glasses and a book called "Uncle's Tom Cabin" yesterday. I could never understand why many white people in the South can't abandon slavery in spite of the fact that they know that it's wrong, but I am satisfied knowing that
They are only trying to justify their actions; they are handing excuses, telling the events as they happened. And in the end maybe these characters do find an excuse, the one that they are both human, bound to fail and to be influenced, sharing the same planet and dealing with the same kind of people. The two personages enjoyed having power and realized in the end that having power
" (Prince: 61) The second important thing to focus on is the military strength of that person. Does the ruler possess greater military might than the displaced ruler? If yes, then there is no point in rejecting him as the new ruler. This is because with his military weapons, he is likely to prove valuable to the country in the long run. Michaela's views on the art of war and possession
Democracy for the Few Parenti (151), in the book Democracy for the Few, outlines his views of the U.S. And the world. At the heart of his view is that the United States is ruled by corporations, specifically a corporate plutocracy. At the outset of Chapter 10, he writes "the corporate-dominated state," essentially confirming his views with respect to this. He notes several instance where he believes that corporate interests have
Mill take issue with the Puritans? Explain. Famed government theoretician John Stuart Mill took great exception with the Puritans who traveled to the New World in order to start a community based upon similar fanatical religious beliefs. The reason that he took such issue with the Puritans is that they used religion as a basis of government but worse than this they used that religious intolerance in order to oppress
politics is and what it is not. Some definitions of politics are examined. The applications of politics in society are explored. The paper also looks at some of the things that are not politics, and examines why these things are not politics. The role of politics is distinguished from the role of government, and the reasons for this are looked at more closely. This is a paper written in Harvard
Ryan Dawson (2011) helps illustrate the way ideology shapes foreign policy by digging into Project for a New American Century files and showing how the PNAC reports are basically a lobbying tool for Israel. Dawson refers viewers of his documentary to PNAC many times in his attempt to show how the papers lay out the blueprint for American foreign policy post-9/11: "The policy of 'containment' of Saddam Hussein has been