Interest Groups

Thus, in a very small group, where each member gets a substantial proportion of the total gain simply because there are few others in the group, a collective good can often be provided by the voluntary, self-interested action of the members of the group. In smaller groups marked by considerable degrees of inequality that is, in groups of members of unequal "size" or extent of interest in the collective good-there is the greatest likelihood that a collective good will be provided; for the greater the interest in the collective good of any single member, the greater the likelihood that that member will get such a significant proportion of the total benefit from the collective good that he will gain from seeing that the good is provided, even if he has to pay all of the cost himself.

 https://bbhosted.cuny.edu/bbcswebdav/pid-24226307-dt-content-rid-116963690_1/courses/LEH01_POL_166_H01_1162_1/Olson.pdf

          In Olson's Theory of Collective Actions, he argues that people's efforts to pursue political goals there is a way to separate the majority interest from the minority interest.  In this particular passage, makes great emphasis on the idea that the minority interest can be counted for delivery of a common good without being compelled.  It is so to the point where and a single member can put fourth the cost for the collective good.  This is quite interest because it can easily touch on the "free rider problem", which as Olson described pertains to someone who benefits from something but contributes nothing to maintain the pursuit of the goal.  If only one member can care for the cost, where does it really leave the rest of the members? His 4 solutions however seems to be a great balance and solution to this problem.

Schenck v. United States

"The Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment does not shield advocacy urging conduct deemed unlawful under the Espionage Act"
"Holmes, speaking for a unanimous Court, concluded that Schenck is not protected in this situation. The character of every act depends on the circumstances. "The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent." During wartime, utterances tolerable in peacetime can be punished."
https://www.oyez.org/cases/1900-1940/249us47

          Unanimously, the court decided that Mr. Schenck was not protected by the 1st Amendment of free speech because it violated the Espionage Act.  This is actually quite interesting for for i believe this is a country heavily founded on a Constitution which specially Supreme Court Marshalls hold  highly when making their decisions.  However, i understand how during a time of war in the early 1900's it opinions may change. The US during WWI was a very different place from what it is today, freedom of speech has taken a whole new life of it own.  Nowadays, there certainly is a greater tolerance even during war times.  But back to Mr. Schenck's time, i can certainly understand where both parties stand, one could argue he was in his every right to speak out against the draft and show how unfair he thought it was; however, on the court's side, take the actions of sending those circulars to the draftees could have affected the overall attendance of the military which would ofcourse put the country at risk.  This case is a classic example of how we should not take things so literal.

Gerrymandering

"Take New York, for example.  It is the one state among the eight that has shown a meaningful decrease in the level of gerrymandering across multiple congressional terms.  New York has also set up and independent advisory commission that recommends congressional and state redistricting plans to the state legislator.  This commission was set up on 1978, and shortly thereafter the level of gerrymandering in the state peaked and has been declining ever since."  

          This article seems to be a follow up from Ingraham's initial article regarding gerrymandering, in which he explains what this very convenient term means.  In this article he proceed to explain that gerrymandering can actually be limited if the states desire it.  But come on! lets be honest here- if a political party is on the advantaging side on the spectrum why would they want to vote against it?                 Being a New Yorker and keeping up to date with what is going on with our society and political system, is is actually very motivating to know that New York has had such decrease in gerrymandering.  Though positive, there is still A LOT to be done since unless we take matters into our own hands neither party will really be taking drastic steps towards ending such negative aspect of USA political system.

What, to the American slave, is your 4th of July? I answer: a day that reveals to him, more than all other days in the year, the gross injustice and cruelty to which he is the constant victim. To him, your celebration is a sham; your boasted liberty, an unholy license; your national greatness, swelling vanity; your sounds of rejoicing are empty and heartless; your denunciations of tyrants, brass fronted impudence; your shouts of liberty and equality, hollow mockery; your prayers and hymns, your sermons and thanksgivings, with all your religious parade, and solemnity, are, to him, mere bombast, fraud, deception, impiety, and hypocrisy — a thin veil to cover up crimes which would disgrace a nation of savages. There is not a nation on the earth guilty of practices, more shocking and bloody, than are the people of these United States, at this very hour.- Frederick Douglas 

          
          In this passage from the great Douglas he clearly condemns the the way the American society works and how ironically they hold great ideologies but yet somehow seem to not have a problem with slavery. He criticized American ideology by saying it was very inconsistent.  Freedom was not for ALL people, though it seems to have great roots in it.
          This particular exert I found to be very profound, it truly shows Mr. Douglas discontent and frustration with the current civil rights situation for black people- it was basically non existent.  His attack and clear demand  for civil rights and freedom for slaves was made clear in this particular passage for the is no greater accusation than denouncing of a wrong being covered by hypocrisy.  It is actually very intriguing how the United States really pride itself in being such a free country where the rights of ALL people were protected, but were they ALL really protected? That very specific preference over whom was to fall under this freedom was indeed very unfair and hypocritical.  

          

"That Government is best which governs least..."

"The government itself, which is only the mode which the people have chosen to execute their will, is equally liable to be abused and perverted before the people can act through it. Witness the present Mexican war,(2) the work of comparatively a few individuals using the standing government as their tool; for, in the outset, the people would not have consented to this measure."-Henry David Thoreau 

           Thoreau argues that laws are man made and that there is a higher divine law.  When he conflict, according to Thoreau, one must obey a higher power.   This was truly a guy whom concerned himself with nothing else but his person, he even didn't pay his own taxes!  His disconnect was actually quite interesting for he still kept himself informed but his views remained unchanged.  He was not all that naive however, he was against slavery and made clear his discontent with current war during his time.  This particular passage really intrigued me, he is basically saying that government, "the mode which the people have chosen to execute their will" is as bad as the people running it.  I do agree with what he says to so extend, we can see this even today with other international powers and even here in NYC with recent corruption cases.  However, to the extend of not having a government, that would be a recipe for the end... 

The Diffusion of Innovations among the American States Jack L Walker

"Demographic Factors: After studying the acceptance of technological innovations by both individuals and organizations, several writers have concluded that the decision maker's relative wealth, or the degree to which "free floating" resources are available, are important determinants of the willingness to adopt new techniques or policies.'4 If "slack" resources are available, either in the form of money or a highly skilled, professional staff, the decision maker can afford the luxury of experiment and can more easily risk the possibility of failure.'5 Other studies, especially in the areas of agriculture and medicine, have also shown organizational size to be a strong correlate of innovation"-Jack L Walker 


          Walker's 1969 article is a national study he performed then to see how rapidly states can conform to change and adopt them as new laws.  As no surprise of course, the results showed the northern eastern states as being more susceptible to change than the southern and western states.  as to be expected with everything going on in this day and age, the results are still pretty  much the same.  This, in my opinion, supports the idea discussed in class- there should be more representatives more the larger states.  Think about it, a state like New York- the most adaptable of all the states- has the biggest diversity of people from all parts of the world.  in order to get the most voices heard in order to continue with such adaptability, we need more people voicing our concerns and needs.

Sanders puts up a fight!

"There are a few other possible factors at work. For one: Clinton voters, assuming she was a lock to win, might have felt less urgency to vote. Some, exit polls suggest, even might have crossed over to the Republican primary instead to vote against Trump."

          The brief article touches of a major discrepancy on the latest polls taken in Michigan.  The result anticipated that Hillary would wing the primary by an overwhelming lead, this however was not the case.  Bernie actually won the state by a narrow lead.  According to the polls previous to the elections, Clinton was the anticipated victorious candidate whom would take Michigan under her wing- but who exactly was asked to participate in these polls? And where were they on election day?
          This is actually a very pleasant surprise yet a bit scary at the same time.  This particular piece I selected mentions of Hillary supporters assuming she would win, and of the others that instead want to make sure Trump was not triumphant. But did that actually work? Trump still has the lead! If this is indeed what happened in Michigan,  it should be a wake up call for all those whom continue to take Trump as a joke.  On the pleasant side, I have become a Bernie supporter- though still a bit hesitant about some of his promises, in my opinion, he truly is the best choice we got.  Learning that he actually has a higher chance than anticipated by the polls, gives me hope and pushes me to urge others to make their vote count.

Another Stab At the Constitution- Greene's Point Of View

"In a democracy, no one person should wield so much power for so long. Article III of the Constitution provides that federal judges “shall hold their offices during good behaviour.” In practice this language means they serve for life absent voluntary retirement or impeachment. Were we to draft the Constitution today, we would be wise to reconsider this provision."- Jamal Greene http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2012/07/08/another-stab-at-the-us-constitution/revisiting-the-constitution-we-need-term-limits-for-federal-judges

          Greene makes two very valid arguments in his article.  First we have the issue of old age, everyone will go through it- judges are not exempt.  After many years, and depending on the care and state of the body; we begin to deteriorate, physically and mentally.  One's judgement begins to decline and the older we get the more stubborn we are.  Think about it,  how difficult does it become to see or make your grandparents understand or agree with your point of view.  The second point to Greene's argument is that it becomes too political the way judges are elected.  First they are appointed by the president and then approved by the Senate.  As Professor Marduco has stated in his blog, with so many oppositions going on today between the democrats and republicans it has become increasingly complicated to elect Justices. I personally could not agree more with his argument.  As Green says, "In democracy, no one person should wield so much power for so long" , this is very true- the presidents cap of ruling terms is a great example of this, why are justices any different? Greene also mentions about an 18 year term, which I still think it is a bit long but nonetheless it is a step in the right direction.

The Melting Pot vs Transnationality

"Only America, by reason of the unique liberty of opportunity and traditional isolation for which she seems to stand, can lead in this cosmopolitan enterprise. Only the American -- and in this category I include the migratory alien who has lived with us and caught the pioneer spirit and a sense of new social vistas -- has the chance to become that citizen of the world. America is coming to be, not a nationality but a trans- nationality, a weaving back and forth, with the other lands, of many threads of all sizes and colors. Any movement which attempts to thwart this weaving, or to dye the fabric any one color, or disentangle the threads of the strands, is false to this cosmopolitan vision. I do not mean that we shall necessarily glut ourselves with the raw product of humanity. It would be folly to absorb the nations faster than we could weave them. " http://www.theatlantic.com/past/issues/16jul/bourne.htm


Explanation:

          Randolph Bourne's essay written almost a century ago is an impacting one, holding many truth about America in this day and age.  In it, Bourne clearly resents the  ideology behind the melting pot theme- in which  all different cultures mix together into the "Americanized" main stream culture.  Bourne states of the importance sticking to your identity and beliefs, for each individual culture abiding by its rituals and beliefs respectfully of the others is what makes America unique. his point about America not being a nationality but rather it be called trans-nationality was perhaps his most striking point, I mean in reality, aren't we all descendants from immigrants whom moved to this country in search for that liberty we now can enjoy here? Lastly, in this particular paragraph he makes clear emphasis on the fact the America actually has the luxury of promoting such trans-nationalism for it stands a "unique liberty of opportunity"

Opinion:

          Being a first generation immigrant myself and adjusting to the very different way of life in this country, I must say this particular exert was most welcoming and comforting for me.   The principal reasons for migration are to escape persecution, in search of a better life, and more importantly for liberty.  To me and others like me, the United Sates offers protection for all three.  The fact that this essay was written almost 100 years ago and still very much applies to a lot of the principles held today is even more reassuring to me that American is the land of Liberty.  The idea of trans nationality is more alive today then it ever was, think about; with so many race interest groups and so many politicians always going after the race groups- it is quite clear that the idea of preserving those values from different cultures and allowing each person the liberty of practicing them within respectable measures of others is the American way!

"If Men Were Angels, No Government Would Be Necessary"

FEDERALIST PAPERS #51

"But the great security against a gradual concentration of the several powers in the same department, consists in giving to those who administer each department the necessary constitutional means and personal motives to resist encroachments of the others. The provision for defense must in this, as in all other cases, be made commensurate to the danger of attack. Ambition must be made to counteract ambition. The interest of the man must be connected with the constitutional rights of the place. It may be a reflection on human nature, that such devices should be necessary to control the abuses of government. But what is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself. A dependence on the people is, no doubt, the primary control on the government; but experience has taught mankind the necessity of auxiliary precautions."

Explanation: 
          The Federalist Papers, written by the great James Madison addresses the need and importance of accurate checks and balances on federal government, and the significance of separation of power in order to prevent tyranny.  The purpose behind federal 51 is to ensure the American public that no one faction will ever become strong enough to take over other factions.  Following the recent Constitution and supporting its ideas of defending the people's liberty, Madison makes it clear that this new government needs to be a massive and strong one.  The bigger the government the more factions, the more faction the less room for tyranny.  In a very interesting way Madison uses the understanding of mankind and its needs, he also uses that as the point of his essay by stating, " If men were angels, no government would be necessary".  

Opinion:    
          This particular passage was the most captivating for me because of Madison's reference to mankind's needs in order to explain the need for a well organized federal government in which the rights of mankind are protected.  But it is the same token with which we seem to have such a hard time getting laws passed and progress rolling.   With so many checks and balances of each group from others whom a lot of times do not have the same ideologies as the next one, coming a common conclusion seems next to impossible.  as explained in Professor Murdaco's blog: "In order for proposed legislation to become law it must pass through both houses of Congress and be approved by the president. The president can veto laws, but the Congress can override the veto if it gets a 2/3 majority in both houses. " http://theamericanpoliticalsystem.blogspot.com/2012/06/th-67-constitution-and-federalist.html. With the Obama Administration we have been able to observe this for this two terms, withthe majority being republicans and he being democrat, decisions seem to never come easy.  

Governed's Rights to Life, Liberty, And The Pursuit Of Happiness- Is That Still The Focus

Despite Negativity, Americans Mixed on Ideal Role of Gov't

by Frank Newport

" The too much regulation attitude held in the 30% range for most of the rest of the last decade, but jumped after President Obama took office in 2009"  

   Since the birth of our nation, the concept of the "ideal role of the government" has been an ever changing and challenging one.  In the beginning, the founding Fathers of the original 13 colonies which would soon become an independent country from the British Crown, challenged the Crown indicating that the government's role had violated the governed's right to liberty, life, and the pursuit of happiness; " We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed "http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/declaration_transcript.html  . However, once free from the English, this idealistic focus shifted over the years to the mixed views every one now has of our government: "Americans have strongly negative views of the way the nation is being governed and of Congress" http://www.gallup.com/poll/149741/despite-negativity-americas-mixed-ideal-role-gov.aspx .  The idea that the government is there to protect us from issues like terrorism, international threats(overall alliances with other nations), and other external factors remains pretty constant.  We can agree with Frank Newport from the article mentioned above were he states, "Americans were least likely to say the government regulated business too much in February 2002, months after 9/11 and at a time when President Bush and Congress were involved in efforts to combat terrorism and had high approval ratings"  http://www.gallup.com/poll/149741/despite-negativity-americas-mixed-ideal-role-gov.aspx .  During times of crisis the government takes over and does what it is suppose to do- protect us.  But what about internally? what is going on at home- how do Americans feel about too much regulations, high taxes, liberals vs conservatives- this are all the big issues we are currently facing at home.
          Coming from a country( Dominican Republic) were corruption is basically part of our every day lives, and government control is solely affecting the under privileged and all profit for the ones in control; I find myself at times having a tough time believing in many of the politics and regulations the government tries to impose here.  Seems like with a never ending fight for power between the Liberals and the Conservatives, that ideal role for government changes to the constant struggle of dominating each other.  Liberals( or the Democrats) on one end of the spectrum want the government to be more involved- they want to create more services and regulations where mostly the lower classes will thrive.  the Conservatives(or the Republicans) on the other end, just want more of a laissez faire  leadership; where the government doesn't get involved as much and therefore taxes are kept at a minimum.  But even this seems to be forgotten when a president of the opposite party is in power from the majority in the House of Reps: "when George W. Bush was president, Democrats were more concerned than Republicans about government power."  http://www.gallup.com/poll/149741/despite-negativity-americas-mixed-ideal-role-gov.aspx .
          This truly derails the Government's true purpose to such extend were Americans now believe the number one problem is actually government.  Think about it,  when a group of people ( Congress and the President) cant seem to agree on something- the focus then is to have the " last word".  Issues like health care, homelessness, taxes, economy, unemployment, etc., though are the platform for debates, resolving them become secondary until finally one side has that "last word".  " Americans continue to name the government (18%) as the most important US problem, a distinction it has had for the past four months" http://gallup.com/poll/18946/americans-name-government-no-problem.aspx .
          So in a nutshell, what are we really to do? in a country were we pride ourselves in such liberties like speech, religion, etc.-  it really is our duty to make of our government a more functional one.  It is left for the leaders of tomorrow to take the real concerns of the American people and make real changes   not debate on who will have the "last word."