Theories in academic study and practice

Electoral Politics

As detailed quite eloquently in Chapter 15 of Haywood's text, having political power is not simply getting one's way in a crude and overt manner, like passing or pushing a bill through congress. Rather, power also involves the task of agenda-setting itself, putting an idea upon the national platform of discourse. The author additionally cites Bacharatz and Baratz as critical in defining not simply making yes or no the key player in politics -- for instance, for many years, the discrimination against Black Americans was not even part of the national discussion, until the civil rights movement. (126) Black Americans were an invisible political voice, though a sizable minority in America.

Application of agenda-setting to today's political life

Today, the role of military service and how it affects one's fitness as commander in chief is part of the national debate. The right to rule (129) is equated with military experience, rather than political aptitude or beliefs. Both parties have been complicit with this notion, as John Kerry 'reports for duty' with a salute in his Democratic acceptance speech, even though he actively opposed the war, and George Bush, despite his own lack of military service, has not disdained the notion that military service is not relevant, but attacked John Kerry's war record on a level of accuracy. Bush has suggested that Kerry's lack of support for the Vietnam War upon Kerry's return cheapens the man's service, but refuses to ignore the assumption or the unspoken psychological agenda that the ethics personal and inner life translates into political fitness and prowess.

This focus on personal service as opposed to political policy is part of the larger, popular equation of personality and personal aptitude with an aptitude to govern that is crucial in diversionary techniques of setting a false agenda, and creating what Marxists call a false consciousness, for the national race for leadership. On September 20, 2004 on the "Today" Show, the popular psychological guru Dr. Phil interviewed both candidates individually, and was then asked to give a personality analysis of both candidates, based on his singular meetings with them, as to their fitness to govern -- as if the candidate's personal ability to be a father would translate into their policy upon childcare and terrorism. This assumption or psychological agenda was accepted uncritically; again merely the factual accuracy of personal data was disputed, rather than its relevance in the agenda or the discourse of politics. The psychological assumptions of the agenda, as defined by the personalized nature of the television media, had set the agenda of personality already 'for' the candidates.

Question 1: Psychology and the law

Psychology is relevant to an understanding of criminal thinking in terms of both the detection of crime, in discovering why crimes are committed and who might commit these crimes, and also in terms of setting appropriate retributions that will change how criminals tend to think, reason and feel as individuals who exist outside of the realm of social norms, or within a social code of for instance gang behavior that is not coherent with conventional societal norms. Thus, there is no strict pattern one can discern in the justifications offered by criminals for their crimes. Some criminals obey the laws of their own immediate surroundings, from the inner cities to the highly competitive world of Wall Street, with a greater fidelity than the laws of the land, insinuating that the law makers do not understand reality from the Ivy Towers of the legislature, other criminals point on an individual basis to themselves as mavericks to the corruption of the system they are stealing from or the availability of insurance to cover losses. In front of juries, lawyers for obviously guilty defendants attempt to mitigate the severity of the crime, or the callousness of the crime with the often-cited and often defamed abuse excuse (http://www.twbookmark.com/books/10/0316181358/)

But although it may help to instate programs to prevent further crimes, explanations cannot equal excuses -- merely because Martha Stewart is not the most reprehensible criminal on Wall Street or that everyone does what she did, supposedly, can not excuse her behavior as a wealthy elitist anymore than poverty excuses the criminality of a young man involved in a gang. These explanations may be used to mitigate the criminal environment through social welfare policies, but legally do not excuse the complaint psychologically understanding the crime.

Question 2: Legitimating crisis

Trust no one,' ran the slogan of a popular television show, reflecting the 'McDonald-ization' of contemporary mistrust, as even governmental paranoia was standardized like a Model T. (Contemporary Culture, 115) However, the idea that there is a legitimating crisis presupposes the notion that once there was an ethical, wholesome era in American politics where everyone was trustworthy. The popular and confirmed lore of ballot box stuffing, the Boss Tweed era of urban politics, and even the rapacious nature of political and economic life before more stringent media scrutiny and corporate laws confirms that this was hardly the case. The temptation to fall into nostalgia ultimately creates cynicism, and must be avoided, ideally.