Exam 2 Questions Flashcards
What does the poll tell us about citizens’ view of the “American Dream”? What does the American dream mean to you? Do you think you will be able to achieve the American dream when you are older? What leads you to believe this?
Out of 8,709 US adults, 53% (mainly people above the age of 50 and/or higher-income) believe that it is achievable, 41% believe that it was once possible but no longer achievable, 6% believe that it was never possible. This tells us that there is uncertainty whether the American Dream is a real possibility, and only half of the citizens polled believe it is in some capacity.
To us, the American Dream is an ideal that includes financial independence and stability, being in a good place in the economy, and achievable success in whatever we want to do. It is going to get harder in the future as “the rich get richer and the poor get poorer”, but there is still opportunity to work your way up (with a good dose of luck too).
Do you think the American dream is available to all Americans or are there boundaries and obstacles for some?
The American dream is still available to all citizens but the opportunity to reach economic success and to be financially independent come with new demands and struggles. As Burkta explains, housing costs and average monthly mortgage payments increased drastically by 100 percent in the past 4 years. Burkta believes the problem lies in four key areas. The first issue he discusses is the increase of births in out-of-wedlocks and increase in single adults with no children. Addiction rates have always remained high in America with 100,000 Americans die annually from drug overdoses with a 500 percent increase since 2000. Post pandemic addiction and the burden of modern American life leave a heavy despair on the American Dream. The next two key points he discusses os the lack of knowledge how the government operates and the lack of religious affiliation.
Children from families in the richest quarter with low test scores (as measured in 8th grade) are just as likely to graduate from college as children from families in the poorest quarter with high test scores. According to Robert Putnam, why does this pattern occur? Do you agree or disagree with Putnam’s perspective? Explain.
Putnam discusses that a family background is the best predictor if a child will graduate from a university. Parents who interact and speak with their children help children build cognitive abilities and learn how to organize their thoughts, which would help them more in college than in 8th grade as they have to think on their own without much guidance with less structure provided. Educated Families tend to their kids in educational and supportive ways where as working class/professional families tend to have a greater social circle where if a issues needs to be resolved the parents lean towards a friend who is educated in that matter such as a lawyer or doctor.
According to Iyengar et al., what is affective polarization?
Affective polarization is when a party has animosity towards another party. People of opposite parties are unwilling to socialize or even partner with each other. They both believe that the opposing party is hypocritical, selfish, and close-minded.
Iyengar and co-authors describe how both party members show animosity towards one another. Provide 2-3 examples of this animosity across both parties.
There is most certainly animosity towards both parties, and it is regularly shown in today’s society. For instance, Iyengar and co-authors stress that the percentage of parents who feel upset when their child marries someone from the opposing political party has significantly increased since 1960. Now, one-third of Democrats and one-half of Republicans share these feelings. In addition to this, members of opposing parties simply do not feel comfortable interacting with each other, therefore performing the act of social distance. It is unfortunate that it has come to a point where our country is so divided, but this type of rhetoric is being spread by political leaders themselves. Politicians, as we have seen in the most recent election, tend to spread negative feelings about the other party when speaking publicly. This sort of behavior then sends a message to the public that animosity is okay.
Is animosity towards the opposite party driven more by issue/policy-based disagreements or social attachments towards our “in-group” party and dislike of the “out-group” (i.e., social identity theory)? Explain.
Animosity towards the opposite party is more driven by social attachments towards the “in-group” party and dislike of the “out-group” party. When identifying with a political party, the world gets divided between an in-group (your own political party) and an out-group (the opposing party) and can trigger positive feelings for the in-group and negative feelings towards the out-group.
What factors intensify partisan animus? Describe at least two consequences of affective polarization in American politics.
Partisanship is a particularly salient and powerful identifier for two main reasons. First, it is acquired at such a young age and rarely changes over the life cycle. Second, political campaigns withstands for months, meaning that individuals constantly receive partisan cues from elites. A consequence of affect polarization in American Politics is that it makes compromise nearly impossible, working with the opposing group is seen as betrayal. Another consequence is the decline in trust for democratic institutions due to each side believing they got rigged when things didn’t go in their favor.
Can partisan discord be mitigated? Is there hope for civil discourse and compromise? What reasons give you hope and what reasons make you pessimistic?
Political leaders tend to verbally attack opposition with extreme verbiage. If political leaders would speak more professionally and peacefully, we have hope that partisan discord could decrease substantially. Furthermore, if people could clear up misconceptions over their opinions and beliefs instead of jumping straight to name-calling and insults, compromise could be much more easily achievable. However, we do not feel that this is the case as the damage to the opposing parties is extreme and permanent.
According to Cassese and colleagues, what is dehumanization? Is dehumanization simply a form of disagreement or incivility? Why or why not?
According to Cassese and colleagues, Dehumanization is the practice of believing that groups/individuals fall short on specific human qualities. Dehumanization is something greater than a disagreement or incivility; as Cassese explains, it is an expression of the denial of humanity, is correlated with tremendous consequences, and is often viewed as violent.
What are some implications of the growth of dehumanizing rhetoric in American politics? What role do political leaders play in exasperating dehumanizing and violent attitudes? Should we hold political leaders responsible?
The growth of dehumanizing rhetoric in American politics has always been an issue in the past but has increased dramatically after President Donald Trump’s first term. According to a national survey supported by the Democracy Funds, partisans were asked if the opposing party lacked the traits to be considered fully human as a result the amount of partisans who agreed with this statement rose from 18 percent to 35 percent. One of the bigger implications of dehumanizing attitudes is the justification of violence against the other party. In another national survey, 24 percent of partisans who believed that the other party behaved like animals tended to support partisan violence, such as sending threats to the opposing party leaders and supporters. Political leaders certainly play a role in exasperating dehumanizing and violent attitudes, and they can reduce this effect by addressing our common American identity or disapproving of violence. Though our leader plays a role in dehumanization, we as citizens have to recognize and speak out against dehumanization.
Provide at least three examples of how different presidents before Biden and Trump have pushed the limits of executive powers.
Abraham Lincoln did not allow habeas corpus - where someone can make a written order that a detainee is illegally detained - during the Civil War.
Franklin Delano Roosevelt exceeded the limits of executive power by ordering the round-up of 100,000 innocent Japanese Americans and their incarceration after the Pearl Harbor incident. The Supreme Court allowed orders to pass under his name to contain interning Japanese citizens in concentration camps during World War II, though it was a violation of their constitutional rights.
President Martin Van Buren ordered the military to forcibly relocate the Cherokee people from their ancestral lands during the Trail of Tears, not only overreaching but violating what we understand today as basic human rights.
In what ways did President Biden push the limits of presidential power?
Biden pushed the limits of presidential power, as some may say, by requiring COVID-19 vaccines for 100 million American workers. In an effort to stop the virus, Biden warned hospitals and other health organizations that if their workers are not vaccinated, they are at risk for losing government funding. In addition to this, anyone employed by the federal government was also required, per President Biden’s order, to be vaccinated. As a result of this, Republican’s claimed this was an abuse of power, and threats of a lawsuit followed. Biden most certainly pushed the limits of presidential power here, but it was deemed valid for the sole purpose of fighting the virus that put millions of lives in danger. While at one point, Biden tried the tactic of “gentle persuasion” when it came to getting the vaccine, he showed a strong shift when he said in a speech “this is not about freedom, or personal choice.”
How has President Trump pushed the limits of presidential power and in what ways are his actions similar or different from previous presidents?
President Trump has pushed the limit of presidential power in many ways. He ordered a government shutdown during his last office. He vowed to sign 100 executive orders on his first day in office. Although he didn’t hit the mark on day 1, the number of executive actions he has taken so far has been historic and potentially unlawful. His actions are different from previous presidents because of how frequently and openly he used these powers to sidestep the legislative process. He relies on the executive actions as a primary method.
What does Teles mean in claiming that America has become a “kludgeocracy”? What is a “kludge”? How do the various federal retirement programs (social security, 401k plans, IRAs, pension regulation, etc.) illustrate his points?
America becoming a “kludgeocracy” essentially focuses on how complicated our government has become, taking out the ideas of the two popular political parties or the overall size. A “kludge”, on the other hand, can be defined as a temporary solution to a problem. To put it metaphorically, it is exactly like putting duct tape on a leaking pipe. It might work for a fixed amount of time, but it is not a permanent fix. Kludges also tend to add up, and results in a complicated system that is difficult to understand and bound to fail. This is exactly how the American government looks today, which is obviously a problem that many are concerned about. One of the biggest drawbacks on kludgeocracy are the hidden costs that it carries, which ties directly to the idea of “kludgeocracy”. While certain retirement programs are easy to understand, such as social security, there are others that require a significant amount of time, effort, and stress to manage. This would include programs such as 401k plans and IRAs. Poorly managing these programs could lead to financial loss, and ultimately hurt them in the long run.
According to Teles, what are the costs of kludgeocracy for Americans as a whole?
Kludgeocracy comes as a disadvantage to Americans across the country. They must navigate the complexities of the federal retirement programs, which must be carefully done or an individual might be at risk of making a costly mistake. The complexity of these programs allows for easy corruption that can harm citizens. As a result, it can lead to a distrust in the system.
Why does Teles think conservatives should oppose kludgeocracy? Why does Teles think liberals should oppose kludgeocracy?
Teles believes conservatives should oppose kludgeocracy because it hurts conservatives by concealing the true size of government. Pursuing public goals does not eliminate the government, but it makes it harder for citizens to see the cost of public goods resulting in trading a type of government institution, which conservatives find it difficult to reign in. He also thinks liberals should oppose kludgeocracy by creating the image and reality that the government is incompetent and corrupt and liberals favor public support. Liberals then find a way to promote public activism in spite of institutional and cultural resistance.
How do the numerous veto points in American political institutions help cause kludgeocracy? What are other causes of kludgeocracy?
The American Political institutions generate policy in the system’s veto points to create the separation of power and the agreement in all three different stages: the House of Representatives, the Senate, and the president. Legislation passes through the subcommittee and committee stages which allows legislators to obstruct or hinder action. New ideas and contributions layer over previous projects rather than replace them, which is the literal definition of policy kludge. The bill proceeds with legislation to advocate for the safety of their programs from major changes. Another cause of ludgeocracy is American institutions limiting the forms of government’s taxing and spending, which exercises more complex legislative solutions.
What is Jacob, Lee, and Gratton’s overall conclusion of whether gridlock is causing more polarization. What evidence do they provide for their assessment?
Jacob, Lee, and Gratton’s overall conclusion is that gridlock is not the reason for increased polarization but instead it contributes to polarization. Evidence provides the number and significance of bills passed across different periods of time and show legislative productivity declines as polarization increases, proving that polarization leads to gridlock. It also explores public opinion and comes to the conclusion that voter polarization is largely independent of congressional gridlock.
