(no subject)
thiaguito, mande para bobcatdoc@yahoo.com do meu email big__bertha@hotmail.com (com dois tracos depois do big). muito obrigadae e eu te ai lovi iu muitississíssimo.
Laura Oliveira
Per. 4
AP Government Essays
1) Since the public is very much concerned with its own status and well being, as well as with the way their nation is perceived as by others, whenever the economy goes down or there is a political scandal that receives global attention, presidential approval will decline. It is obvious that people want secure jobs and entitlements, so it is no surprise that whenever the economy causes a cut on jobs or a threat to Social Security or Medicare public disapproval increases. People tend to support and approve of presidents that keep them secure in their jobs and economic and health welfare, thus when all of this fail, support tends to sink. Furthermore, when a president finds himself entangled in a scandal which receives worldwide notice (take the Monica Lewinsky fiasco or the recent prisoner abuse in Abu-Grhaib), home public disapproval also tends to decrease. The public elects the man they see as the best fit to represent American value and integrity. It is he who also embodies the nation in the eyes of the rest of the world. When his conduct goes askew or when actions taken under his permission take an unwanted and unethical turn, the people become highly discontent. It is a let-down for the entire population and a stain to the name of the United States.
Presidential approval may come in a victorious period during wartime, such as D-day, the atomic bombing or when Busch captured Saddam Hussein. Approval increases because people tend to trust more in a president who accomplishes the goals he has set forth, and thus feel more comfortable with stating that the person they have chosen is apt to lead the nation. Also, a president’s swiftness in attending to a relief effort (followed by an appearance and volunteer help in the effort itself, preferably), such as when Busch was quick to appropriate money to the relief efforts after the country was struck by four consecutive times, may increase public approval ratings. The people in the affected areas feel that they are important to their president and that their plight is sympathized with, therefore they will tend to approve of his efforts. Meanwhile, those who were not directly affected may become inspired by the president’s action, his devotion to his people, and his willingness to alleviate their troubles.
2) Citizens can get involved in government in methods other than voting. They can exercise their political right granted by the Constitution by joining an interest group or choosing to aid in a political campaign, for example.
The interest group offers a specific opportunity for those citizens who hold some extremely strong feelings towards a particular issue, be it abortion, education, labor, farming or benefits for retired people (like the AARP). An interest group targets one single specific issue, and all of its time and money are appropriated to the pursuit of that issue. Citizens who join interest groups enable themselves to dedicate their time and effort to a single cause that they consider to be of utter importance to the nation as a whole. Furthermore, interest groups enable citizens to send lobbyists to Congress and to form political action committers (PACs) to advance their cause even farther. With the persuasive power of the lobbyist and the enormous impact the money raised by the PACs has on most politicians, interest groups often provide citizens with more immediate rewards than the arduous electoral process. Also, ach person in an interest group gains a satisfaction that is not present when voting, which comes mostly from direct participation in the pursuit of an issue they feel strongly attached to.
On the other side, citizens may also take part in aiding a political campaign for local, state or national elections. Undoubtedly, the most desired post in the American government is the presidency, and is not surprising that a large number of people decide to take direct action in promoting their candidate of choice. Although most of the population does help to propagate their candidate of choice through stickers and banners, a few decide to venture even further. Volunteers who range in age from teenagers to the elderly run campaign promotions, in large part. Even those who are not old enough to participate in the election process may still volunteer. People in campaign committees plan demonstrations, hold signs for hours under scorching heat in front of rallies, knock from door to door to ensure people go out and vote, and much more.
3) According to the graph, from the years preceding 1945 until the about 1993, local and state governments steadily grew in size (and possibly influence) as reflected by the increase in employment opportunities offered by both, declining only in the past decade or so. Meanwhile, the size of the federal government (as a function of number of government posts open to employment) has remained somewhat steady, and it is marked by very low increases and equally low declines in employment. It is probable that the steady increase in the number of state and local governments were due to an increase in block grants given by the federal government. Since the money from block grants may be appropriated as the state government pleases, it is possible that they could have invested more in local governments, social programs, development of land, or a number of other programs. The grants had been had been appropriated without much regulation by federal government, up until about 1993 when federal mandates were attached to the grants. Perhaps these mandates ordered spending of the grants by the states to be more frugal. A cut in programs by the state governments because of such mandates would therefore explain the decline in employment by state and local governments since 1993.
4) The American political party, consisting only of two major parties and third parties with almost always no influence, has been the biggest hindrance to racial minority groups through the span of American history. A major characteristic of the two-party system is its lack of alternative to voters. Furthermore, the two-party system has always split the country at about half regarding many issues, which also hinders the progression of legislation for the improvement of the status of minority groups. Take the issue of slavery for example: Republicans (who comprised most of the Northern population) believed in the abolition of slavery, whereas Democrats (who comprised most of the Southern population) disagreed. The country was about split evenly over the issue, leading to almost no progress in the pursuit of abolition and the independence of the blacks. Instead, it lead to a series of fruitless compromises and, ultimately, war. After the Civil War and the establishment of equal voting rights for black men, the separation between North and South (and therefore, a split between parties) lasted until the mid-1950’s to early 1970’s when legislation favoring minorities was then passed. The fact that major third parties exist in the United States eliminates the chance that minorities might have any representation in government. No party had the power to knock the even division between Democrats and Republicans off-balance. It was only after years of pressure from minority groups themselves that the federal government decided to act. The two-party system, by large, creates a state of such constant and even division that it becomes extremely difficult for racial minorities to be heard and represented.
Ironically, it is the federal system that spawned the two-party system that offers minorities their chance to be heard. The American federal system grants its citizens with basic freedoms of speech, which allowed Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. to preach his views of equality among blacks and whites. The Constitution, since it is founded on the principles of John Locke, implies that when people are discontent with the government they have the right to rise up and fight to be represented. Furthermore, if protests (in the form of civil disobedience) or peaceful demonstrations are thought of as the right to assemble, then these are protected by the Constitution. Therefore, the federal system is what ensured that the Montgomery bus boycott, the many demonstrations in the South, that all of Dr. King’s and Malcolm X’s speeches, that the issues brought forth by the Black Panthers, and many others were brought to the national government for consideration and were, in the end, acted upon.
5) The last election with a strong voter turnout was the 1960 presidential election which awarded John F. Kennedy the presidency. After Kennedy’s death, the ensuing wave of turmoil that was Vietnam shook American voters out of their complacency for the American government and its good intention throughout the world. For the first time, or so it seemed to the majority of the populous, the U.S. was engaging in a fruitless power pursuit over a somewhat insignificant nation, meanwhile deceiving its own people as to the status and product of their endeavor. Following the disaster that was Vietnam came Watergate, which once more reassured the overall distrust of the American people towards their own government. On top of it all, both of these issues received worldwide coverage, thus increase and reinforcing the global view that the American government was turning itself into a corrupt empire. Ever since then, voter turnout has steadily declined due to a combination of cynicism and distrust towards its own government and an acknowledgement that the U.S. is no longer held by the rest of the world as a benevolent nation.
**I don’t know what a midterm election, neither do I understand what it is, therefore it becomes impossible for me to answer the second part of this question**
Laura Oliveira
Per. 4
AP Government Essays
1) Since the public is very much concerned with its own status and well being, as well as with the way their nation is perceived as by others, whenever the economy goes down or there is a political scandal that receives global attention, presidential approval will decline. It is obvious that people want secure jobs and entitlements, so it is no surprise that whenever the economy causes a cut on jobs or a threat to Social Security or Medicare public disapproval increases. People tend to support and approve of presidents that keep them secure in their jobs and economic and health welfare, thus when all of this fail, support tends to sink. Furthermore, when a president finds himself entangled in a scandal which receives worldwide notice (take the Monica Lewinsky fiasco or the recent prisoner abuse in Abu-Grhaib), home public disapproval also tends to decrease. The public elects the man they see as the best fit to represent American value and integrity. It is he who also embodies the nation in the eyes of the rest of the world. When his conduct goes askew or when actions taken under his permission take an unwanted and unethical turn, the people become highly discontent. It is a let-down for the entire population and a stain to the name of the United States.
Presidential approval may come in a victorious period during wartime, such as D-day, the atomic bombing or when Busch captured Saddam Hussein. Approval increases because people tend to trust more in a president who accomplishes the goals he has set forth, and thus feel more comfortable with stating that the person they have chosen is apt to lead the nation. Also, a president’s swiftness in attending to a relief effort (followed by an appearance and volunteer help in the effort itself, preferably), such as when Busch was quick to appropriate money to the relief efforts after the country was struck by four consecutive times, may increase public approval ratings. The people in the affected areas feel that they are important to their president and that their plight is sympathized with, therefore they will tend to approve of his efforts. Meanwhile, those who were not directly affected may become inspired by the president’s action, his devotion to his people, and his willingness to alleviate their troubles.
2) Citizens can get involved in government in methods other than voting. They can exercise their political right granted by the Constitution by joining an interest group or choosing to aid in a political campaign, for example.
The interest group offers a specific opportunity for those citizens who hold some extremely strong feelings towards a particular issue, be it abortion, education, labor, farming or benefits for retired people (like the AARP). An interest group targets one single specific issue, and all of its time and money are appropriated to the pursuit of that issue. Citizens who join interest groups enable themselves to dedicate their time and effort to a single cause that they consider to be of utter importance to the nation as a whole. Furthermore, interest groups enable citizens to send lobbyists to Congress and to form political action committers (PACs) to advance their cause even farther. With the persuasive power of the lobbyist and the enormous impact the money raised by the PACs has on most politicians, interest groups often provide citizens with more immediate rewards than the arduous electoral process. Also, ach person in an interest group gains a satisfaction that is not present when voting, which comes mostly from direct participation in the pursuit of an issue they feel strongly attached to.
On the other side, citizens may also take part in aiding a political campaign for local, state or national elections. Undoubtedly, the most desired post in the American government is the presidency, and is not surprising that a large number of people decide to take direct action in promoting their candidate of choice. Although most of the population does help to propagate their candidate of choice through stickers and banners, a few decide to venture even further. Volunteers who range in age from teenagers to the elderly run campaign promotions, in large part. Even those who are not old enough to participate in the election process may still volunteer. People in campaign committees plan demonstrations, hold signs for hours under scorching heat in front of rallies, knock from door to door to ensure people go out and vote, and much more.
3) According to the graph, from the years preceding 1945 until the about 1993, local and state governments steadily grew in size (and possibly influence) as reflected by the increase in employment opportunities offered by both, declining only in the past decade or so. Meanwhile, the size of the federal government (as a function of number of government posts open to employment) has remained somewhat steady, and it is marked by very low increases and equally low declines in employment. It is probable that the steady increase in the number of state and local governments were due to an increase in block grants given by the federal government. Since the money from block grants may be appropriated as the state government pleases, it is possible that they could have invested more in local governments, social programs, development of land, or a number of other programs. The grants had been had been appropriated without much regulation by federal government, up until about 1993 when federal mandates were attached to the grants. Perhaps these mandates ordered spending of the grants by the states to be more frugal. A cut in programs by the state governments because of such mandates would therefore explain the decline in employment by state and local governments since 1993.
4) The American political party, consisting only of two major parties and third parties with almost always no influence, has been the biggest hindrance to racial minority groups through the span of American history. A major characteristic of the two-party system is its lack of alternative to voters. Furthermore, the two-party system has always split the country at about half regarding many issues, which also hinders the progression of legislation for the improvement of the status of minority groups. Take the issue of slavery for example: Republicans (who comprised most of the Northern population) believed in the abolition of slavery, whereas Democrats (who comprised most of the Southern population) disagreed. The country was about split evenly over the issue, leading to almost no progress in the pursuit of abolition and the independence of the blacks. Instead, it lead to a series of fruitless compromises and, ultimately, war. After the Civil War and the establishment of equal voting rights for black men, the separation between North and South (and therefore, a split between parties) lasted until the mid-1950’s to early 1970’s when legislation favoring minorities was then passed. The fact that major third parties exist in the United States eliminates the chance that minorities might have any representation in government. No party had the power to knock the even division between Democrats and Republicans off-balance. It was only after years of pressure from minority groups themselves that the federal government decided to act. The two-party system, by large, creates a state of such constant and even division that it becomes extremely difficult for racial minorities to be heard and represented.
Ironically, it is the federal system that spawned the two-party system that offers minorities their chance to be heard. The American federal system grants its citizens with basic freedoms of speech, which allowed Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. to preach his views of equality among blacks and whites. The Constitution, since it is founded on the principles of John Locke, implies that when people are discontent with the government they have the right to rise up and fight to be represented. Furthermore, if protests (in the form of civil disobedience) or peaceful demonstrations are thought of as the right to assemble, then these are protected by the Constitution. Therefore, the federal system is what ensured that the Montgomery bus boycott, the many demonstrations in the South, that all of Dr. King’s and Malcolm X’s speeches, that the issues brought forth by the Black Panthers, and many others were brought to the national government for consideration and were, in the end, acted upon.
5) The last election with a strong voter turnout was the 1960 presidential election which awarded John F. Kennedy the presidency. After Kennedy’s death, the ensuing wave of turmoil that was Vietnam shook American voters out of their complacency for the American government and its good intention throughout the world. For the first time, or so it seemed to the majority of the populous, the U.S. was engaging in a fruitless power pursuit over a somewhat insignificant nation, meanwhile deceiving its own people as to the status and product of their endeavor. Following the disaster that was Vietnam came Watergate, which once more reassured the overall distrust of the American people towards their own government. On top of it all, both of these issues received worldwide coverage, thus increase and reinforcing the global view that the American government was turning itself into a corrupt empire. Ever since then, voter turnout has steadily declined due to a combination of cynicism and distrust towards its own government and an acknowledgement that the U.S. is no longer held by the rest of the world as a benevolent nation.
**I don’t know what a midterm election, neither do I understand what it is, therefore it becomes impossible for me to answer the second part of this question**