This is the first of three summer work assignments you are required to complete. Read the attached document, Democracy’s Challenge: Reclaiming the Public’s Role. The article proposes a problem with government today, then poses three possible, but sometimes contradictory, solutions for the problem. You must write one paragraph summarizing the pros and cons for each of the three solutions. Three paragraphs for three solutions, to be turned in with your Vanishing Voter essay. Then, you must decide which of the three you like the most and why and post a response to this blog post.
Again, you must write the three paragraphs, AND respond to the blog post with your favorite of the three approaches.
An additional note: if you’re having trouble viewing the PDF file, follow the directions for viewing a DOC file using Google Docs. It works for PDF’s, too!
Thanks, and as always, contact me if you have problems.
June 25, 2008 at 8:47 pm |
My favorite of the three approaches to reclaiming the public’s role in politics is option number three, bringing the public back into politics. There are a couple reasons for this, but the main reason is that our government was created to represent the wishes of our people, but politics today have gotten far away from this objective. Politics is ruled a lot by money and influence now, and may not reflect what the people of our country truly want. By bringing the public back into politics we get back to the simple objective of representing our citizens.
This solution would not only be affected on the national level, but the local and state level also. Many boards and governing bodies locally, even in children’s sports leagues, are run around politics. Many times you see the upper-class citizens ruling these leagues or clubs, and the citizens that due much of the hard work don’t get a voice. These people may be trying to do what looks best for the citizens, when in reality it may not be. This option brings the common citizen back into politics.
July 1, 2008 at 12:19 pm |
I would love to agree with number three so I can just blame everything on the gov’t, but that’s just not how it is. I’m deff not gonna agree with number 1 because you can’t just reinstate morals in a country unless we try to go back to 1984 rubbish, plus everyone is gonna have there own view of what is right and wrong anyway so number one doesn’t even make sense. I guess I would have to say that number 2 would be the best, not that it would work, but it would be the best. It wouldn’t solve the problem but if we got everybody talking ABOUT POLITICS again then we might start to get somewhere and that might lead us to a better approach to number three then take over the gov’t and such…woo revolution
July 2, 2008 at 8:10 am |
My favorite approach is the first one, rebuilding democracy’s moral foundation. This is the root of democracy’s problems. If the fundamentals of democracy are failing, we’d better look to the fundamental moral foundation.
Much of the moral decay has taken place as a result of the attack on family values. Emphasis has been taken off the family unit, where children are, or should be, first exposed to morals and acceptable social behaviors. Marriages are now dissolved at the drop of a hat and families are broken apart. In many cases, marriage isn’t even a factor in a breakup, because a couple decided to have children without first making the commitment that marriage entails. This teaches children- the future generation- that commitments are not important. In order for family values to be taught, families first have to be in place and maintain a stable relationship.
Morals are fundamental behavioral characteristics- no one is being forced to adopt a religion by accepting standards of behavior. Besides, this country was built on the idea that there are fundamental god-given rights. Along with these rights, though, comes the responsibility to accept some morals and responsibility for actions. In all honesty, that is one of the worst things about abortion- it teaches that you don’t have to accept the consequences for your actions. If you get pregnant, it’s not a big deal, the fetus can be exterminated without a second thought. Parents don’t even have to be informed.
Without morals, society will fall apart, and that is what this article is talking about- society is falling apart because of the lack of morality. Morality, taught early in the family, is essential for saving democracy.
July 13, 2008 at 1:32 pm |
The problem with solution number one is that morals are going to vary between the people, and therfore by defining solid moral boundaries for a country of vastly different groups of poeple would inevitably solve nothing.
The problem with solution number three is that nothing would get done if the people of the government wer involved in very aspect. There are groups of people that do the work, but the PEOPLE voted for them and that is there involvement.
Solution number two , though not flawless, is in my personal opinion the best choice because every person no matter what race or ethnicity, need to have the same beliefs on citizenship becdause it is not something that varies between different peoples it is something that varies between societies. And if we can get everyone to the same beliefs in citizenship eventually the moral issues will pan out and start to balance out which will then allow for the people, at this point not so different and at each others throat, to be more of a part of government.
August 8, 2008 at 10:59 am |
In my opinion the solutions are numbered from worst to best.
You can’t force morals into people and thats what solution 1 reinforces. If people hate each other they’re gonna split up. You can’t force the people to your own personal beliefs it’s called a dictatorship.
Solution Two isn’t even necessarily bad, its just not that good. The creation of groups do alot for society, but the grouping together of americans into gropus that most qualify their beliefs drives us farther apart as a nation. You have cloistered neighborhoods of like-minded people and that can be dangerous.
Solution Three is just basically political reform which can be potentially very dangerous but it is a risk that could contain numerous benefits. Politicians do have war chests totalling well into the millions, for what? Negative campaign ads and personal attacks on policy. Imagine what better causes could be funded by what is essentially mudslinging. I’ve seen in action what a hot topic and a roomful of disintrested people become. They become a living, breathing think tank. Brainstorming ideas because when you put people of different minds together you get debate, you get opinions, most of all you get results.
August 11, 2008 at 8:13 pm |
I would have to agree with Brent and Cody that option three is the best. It would give people the ability to change and not force them to such as the other two options would. It would also allow the government to chage at the local level, which I feel is where it has to change first to truly change our government’s power structure.
The first option, which would undoubtably undermine our rights in the process, would do nothing. Some people do not change as we have learned from prohibiton, the continual use of illegal substances, and prostitution. Some people are moral (Cody, Hanson, McCain, etc.) and others are not (Michael James Mellon III), but we cannot change them. Shall we then attempt to change them? Certainly not!
The second option does not seem to limit our rights, but it forces businesses and schools to comply with these guidelines and if it did not, then we would have the same situation that we have now where certain areas have more civic activities and others have little or none. Personally, I could join a chess club if I wished to, but then there is the arguement that not all areas have a chess club. However, if Jamaica can have a bobsled team, then why can’t Harlem have a chess team or Philadelphia have a good football team? The simple reason is they don’t want one.
With both of these options destroyed with arguements about drugs, prostitution, Harlem and chess the only option left standing is the third option. Knight to D3 check and mate.
August 12, 2008 at 7:12 pm |
As much as I would like to just believe that everyone having the same moral standards and going to church would change all our problems, it is not a feasible option, especially for getting more people into politics as it is still viewed as a non-religious seemingly corrupt system.
I believe that solution number 3 would be the most feasible and effective method because it encompasses part of solution number two, that citizens must become a part of local communities first, but goes further to generally get the people back into the political system as quickly as possible. It seems realistic enough, but I still would be very difficult to instate, especially needing cooperation from big businesses losing work time from employees for local panels. So, still with doubt, solution number three seems like the one that is most within our reach.
August 15, 2008 at 11:07 am |
Although none of these solutions are easily applicable, I believe the third solution is the most practical. It gets the people more involved in the government again, causing positive change by giving a vioce back to the people. As cody said, debates bring results. Simply changing the civic duties of the people may cause a slight change, but that would eventually die out. And morals are far too ambiguous. They cannot be regulated. I do believe, however that the morals of today’s society must change, but I don’t see that happening in the future and I defintely don’t see that happening by teaching it in a classroom. No this solution is not perfect but after all, the government was created “of the people, by the people, and for the people,” so why not keep it that way?
August 18, 2008 at 7:21 am |
My choice for the best approach is option three. It gets the public more involved in the government and its decisions, and it makes people more aware of politics. It brings politics into the everyday lives of citizens, instead of keeping it as something not everyone understands. Attempting to change the morals of everyone in the United States is an unrealistic idea, and there is no way that citizens joining clubs will solve all problems. Approach three would be the best choice to bring politics back into the lives of Americans.
August 18, 2008 at 11:05 am |
My favorite approach (as many may have guessed) is Approach #1. Morals are the basis of all society in general. Morals imply a definate truth in right and wrong. There are broad generalizations of what is morally acceptable to the civilized man. For instance, to all civilized men, murder of another human is unacceptable. This is the reason we have written law and more than that, a civilized universal law. Law governs the behavior that is acceptable and unacceptable in a society.
As presented in the article, the defined moral code that was implimented in the formation of the United States of America is rapidly fading due to a bluring of the lines of right and wrong and the questioning of the existance of absolute truth. Today the widely accepted idea is that right and wrong are realitive to the individual. This is simply not the case.
As the moral code of a society fades into the abis so does the completion of social responsibilities and social duties of the societies citizens. Where before people would be held accountable to complete their duties in society (the draft, jury duty, or voting) citizens in this current age find resons not to participate. The society has now recieved the due reward of its deeds. If no moral responsibility is placed on the citizens and right and wrong no longer exist, how does the government expect these same citizens to be responsible with political and governmental duties?
I love Zart.
August 18, 2008 at 11:46 am |
As Brittney said, none of these solutions are easy to follow through, however i would have to say that the best solution is solution number 3. These days changing people’s moral standards is just far too difficult, not to mention the fact that a person’s moral views vary, and making people more aware of their civic duties does not neccesarily mean that they will act upon it. The third solution makes the most sense because if people begin to trust politicians, more people will pay attention to what they have to say and the public will restore its position in government. Making the people more involved will help bring out into the open more soltuioons to the problems our nation faces. If more people worked together, more would be solved. I’m not saying that this is the answer to all out political prayers, but it is certainly the best out of the three.
August 20, 2008 at 10:02 pm |
I agree with approach #1. Morals can help manipulate any action or decision put into action by anyone. If our morals are fading or becoming unclear, we need to fix that so that we are all on the same page. If a majority is on the same page or can agree on a decision then less time quarreling and more tie getitng stuff done. As humans we can obviously agree on some moral standards. Sure maybe not everyone believes murder or on a lesser degree nudity is wrong but i would be willing to be tthat a good majority would agree. So i would say to get a good step in the right direction would be to get everyone going in the same direction by emphasizing our morals.
Goodnight.
-º,<
August 20, 2008 at 10:56 pm |
As most people here, I dont believe that any one of these solutions would fix our problems. Yet, since I have to choose one of the three to favor.. I favor option number three.
Number one is dandy and all, but it seems too hippy-ish. Such a wide variety of people can’t possibly all agree on a standard of morals so easily. So cross that out. Solution two.. is.. decent. Putting everyone into a big group to accomplish something… dosent always mean it’s going to get accomplished. If I’ve learned anything from picking groups in class at school… it’s that. So strike two. Yet solution three, although not greatly better than the others, wins me over the most of the three. It has it’s flaws but getting people more involved will get them to understand better. Understanding better means better choices and decisions for all. Yahoo!
SCIENCE! ENERGY! SCIENCE! ENERGY!
MORE LIGHTS THAN YOUR BODY HAS ROOM FOR!
August 20, 2008 at 11:17 pm |
My “favorite” of these proposals is the first, which deals with moral improvement toward civic involvement. As all three of these proposals are basically unrealistic in regards to methods of implementation, the first proposal is chosen because of the good it could bring to one’s community. Although morals will differ between cultural, economic, and geographic backgrounds, all Americans can agree that it is important to fulfill civic responsibility by voting, serving jury duty, etc. Not everyone has to be the same religion or have the same exact morals, but instead, simply share ownership in the nation’s future.
Improvement of morals could also propel citizens into executing the second proposal while they’re at it, simply applying their bettered morality to their community by helping one another. Morals are the key to increase government interaction, as it will revive democracy from the roots.
August 21, 2008 at 9:08 am |
My personal opinion is that option number 3 is the best solution because I do think that in today’s society politics fly over the heads of probley 75% of people in this country. But not only that, I do agree that politics today is also a place where money and the title of the job have more meaning than the job itself. If the political system is revamped then people will have a more personal touch on the system. This will allow citizens to become more personal with their representatives and also it would give them a feeling of being more directly involved with politics itself. Therefore like Brittany said, if more people were working cohesively then more issues would be get solved but also faster. Hopefully this would leave fillibustering in the past and less protests in front of our state’s and nation’s captials.
August 21, 2008 at 9:22 am |
Out of the three approaches, my favorite is approach one. Although it may not be a feasible option, rebuilding the moral foundation needs to be done in order to have a strong democracy.
For nearly two centuries, morals, such as work, responsibility, and sacrifice, have established and strengthened America’s democracy. However, now that these morals are diminishing from people’s lives, or are not as present, democracy is following the same path. Therefore, because democracy was structured off of morals, it needs to be rebuilt to have a healthy and strong government.
Approach number two, reinventing citizenship, will be a result for approach number one or three, so i don’t see the point of picking approach two. For approach three, I agree with Michael Paul where we cannot just blame the government. Also, with the American people being “morally adrift”, it will not matter how many people vote because society is hurting.
August 21, 2008 at 11:56 am |
I have to agree with the third solution. I think that if the government gives more power to the people, the people will accept the responsibility and use that power. This solution seems to make more sense than the other two. Solution number one calls for an entire nation to change the way they think. The mindset of an American is not something that can be easily changed. Morals have been adjusted over time. Rarely (if ever) is there an extremely radical change of morals in a very short time. Solutions two would not work well because many Americans do not have the time to commit to being involved in committees. Solution two seems to be created for the 9-5 working class. A main reason that I chose solution three was the part of the article that stated ordinary people need to be taken seriously to create a government of, by, and for the people. I feel that the government has the means to be able to do this.
August 21, 2008 at 9:56 pm |
I guess I am alone in thinking that option three would be the best solution. Option one is too simple and idealistic and contradictory to the Constitution. Option 3 would never be accepted by a general public that could care less about their involvement in the government. Option 2 is the most practical solution to the problem and even if it does not offer a solution to the “big problem” it would promote community and citizenship in a smaller location. No solution has a guaranteed success but the second seems attainable. It is the least extreme and from it a better sense of citizenship could grow into more.
August 21, 2008 at 10:42 pm |
I guess I like numbah 2. From personal experience, when you do community service you feel good, and you feel closer to your community. Personally, I feel that everyone should do at least a LITTLE bit of community service. I feel its just respectful to the country as a whole. I dunno. Pros of this are that people will be closer together, and that the nation will look nicer now that all the trash is picked up. The only problem with this is how to implement it. I think community service as a graduation requirement is great, but I do not think that we always need to be active members of the community. That just seems off to me somehow.
August 22, 2008 at 11:44 am |
Like many other people I feel approach 3 would be the best. Getting the people more involved in governmental decisions is what this country needs. The candidates today are too caught up in getting into office and the money that surrounds the job, that the publics opinions and ideas are going untouched and unnoticed.
Approach 1 is ok, but there is no time to change peoples morals. This process would take along time to implement. And approach 2 is again, ok, but people have no time with their work and children let alone joining groups in their community and meeting other people.
August 22, 2008 at 6:31 pm |
My favorite one is the third one. This is the one that involves the people the most. It also keeps the people united and interested in their community. This would give more power to the people which might make them want to be more involved. The first two would be near impossible. Morals have changed over the years and would also be almost impossible to change again. The times have changed so the morals are different now then they were before.
August 22, 2008 at 6:47 pm |
I’d say I like approach three the most, because I find that there is a problem with citizen activity in our nation and approach three encourages united citizens. The approach requires an obligation to be informed about what is happening in the deliberations of the public. This in all increases interest in the community to increase the voting rate, which would better represent our Democracy.
August 22, 2008 at 8:22 pm |
I believe approach three is the best and this is why
Approach three sounds great. Citizen juries and other town-based commissions will give the people a sense of duty and ownership to their local government and may spur them to find ways to help support their national government. Although, it is a somewhat bad idea to cut back on special interest groups and study boards. These groups help find solutions to dire problems in the nation. Without them, who else would dig up problems that would go unnoticed? Reducing the length of campaigns is an excellent idea as well. This will lessen the wear and tear on voters’ brains and lessen the frustration that long campaigns cause. A disgruntled and ignorant citizen will not vote, but an informed and interested citizen will.
Number two and one just sound like they wouldn’t work. Forcing morals down someone’s throat won’t change the government and neither will making people do community service. That’s my two cents.