The purpose of affirmative action was to establish equality, not to perpetuate discrimination. Affirmative action, particularly pertaining to the admissions process of the American education system, has unintentionally morphed into a noxious means of discrimination against the majority, and is thus dangerously eroding America's foundational morals of merit and equality.
The Civil Rights Act was initially enacted to achieve equal employment opportunity,"The provisions of the act forbade discrimination on the basis of race in hiring, promoting, and firing." Additionally, the act demanded for governmental programs, combined with public initiatives, to eliminate past and present discrimination. Thus, effectively combating the potential for future discrimination.
As new generations approach admission to the education system and the employment field, affirmative action has proven to be outdated, and in turn discriminatory. Particularly pertaining to admission to institutions of higher education, affirmative action has so heavily favored certain minorities that it has eroded the American merit system, justified many inadequacies in American students and the public school system, bred resentment towards minorities, and has once again institutionalized racial discrimination.
The concept of affirmative action was established to institutionalize racial equality within society; however, its affect on modern society contradicts the foundation it was created upon. Placing certain races above others is what caused the racial schism that drastically harmed American culture. Many decades ago when discrimination shielded minorities from opportunity and success, affirmative action was imperative. But society has grown immensely since its past discrimination. The idea of necessary preferential treatment is no longer applicable to contemporary society and especially not to the education system. On the contrary, affirmative action within the admissions process gives birth to new forms of discrimination; which only perpetuates the ignorant rationales that supported racism in its earlier forms.
Affirmative action's preferential treatment towards minorities is not only discriminatory to the majority, but it also psychologically undermines the capabilities of the minorities it is aiming to help. Not holding certain factions of society to the same expectations as everyone else facilitates feelings of inadequacy. By enforcing the same admissions criteria on everyone, it will inspire the youth to achieve universal excellence without the crutch of affirmative action, "If minority students are not held to the same standards, they become mere actors creating feel-good Potemkin villages of diversity." Potemkin villages were fake settlements constructed to exude a façade of success; while admitting minorities aimed to evoke racial equality and opportunity within the American education system, that is not the reality. The act of promoting undeserving candidates is an insult to minorities as a whole. As long as minorities receive preferential treatment in the admissions process, they will be regarded to as inferior classes within society, negating all of America's perilous work done to establish racial equality.
Advocates for affirmative action argue that modern society still endorses structural racism in the form of standardized testing, justifying the necessity for affirmative action; however, this argument is negated by the availability of the primary education system, public libraries, and the Internet. Standardized testing is a major component in the admissions process. Statistically, certain minorities continually test lower than others. Much of this is attributed to the cost of prep courses and the language barriers that many minorities face, but these obstacles can be absolved in a variety of ways. The primary public education system, which is guaranteed to all citizens, instills English into students starting at the age of five. Granted that not every school system is adequately funded to offer individual help, readily accessible public libraries serve as a secondary learning venue. Almost free, public libraries contain endless amounts of beneficial learning materials that will improve one's English. Additionally, the accessibility of the Internet provides an inexpensive learning device. No amount of prep courses can compare to years of this accessible and affordable preparation. All of the methods will copiously prepare any student, without regard to their race or national origin, for standardized testing. Standardized testing is not a form of structural racism; rather, it is an unbiased form of testing that necessitates logic, problem-solving abilities, and American education. Accordingly, successful scores depend upon such skills, and not upon one's race.
Saturday, May 7, 2011
Are Americans Disconnected from What Matters?
In this technology era where Americans have never been more connected, author Susan Faludi argues that american manhood has become totally disconnected from previous roles in society and useful primarily as a consumer. However, I disagree because Faludi is essentially arguing that men have an instinctive way and that society is the sole catalyst in their response. This presumption assumes that there is one way to be male, and that way is portrayed as very barbaric. An example of this can be seen in the movie Fight Club.
Fight Club highlights the economic superfluity of the American male because members of the fight club all are overworked and underpaid and fight club is a way to reject, "We've all been raised to believe that we'll be millionaires and movie idols. But we won't!" Demonstrating his disappointment and bitterness towards the American Dream. There is much focus on economic status in the film. Gray-collar men are criticized by Tyler, but he also tries to empower them to overcome social stratification and the trap of working for someone else. Tyler pretends to rob a convenience store, tells the clerk he is going to murder him and then tells him that if he does not pursue the dream he originally held that he will be dead in six weeks. This implies that the motivation to succeed must come from the individual. The narrator (Jack) demonizes the upper class when he blackmails his boss to put him on salary for not revealing the company's unscrupulous business practices and quits his job as a recall coordinator. This implies that the people at the top of society are slaves to the service class that Jack/Tyler belongs to. There is a certain disdain for the classes higher than Jack, but then Tyler is the side of Jack that is brave enough to reject materialism. Tyler believes, though he works at a restaurant and as a projectionist, is not truly one of the class of gray-collar workers. At one point, Jack interrogates a worker in a dry cleaning facility and is disgusted by him and tells him how he isn’t special, and he puts him down for his occupation. The working poor are lulled into cooperating and staying in the service of richer classes because they are mislead to believe that if they work hard they will ascend to higher security and status.
The superfluous male does not extend itself across generations because, according to Tyler, this generation of men has had no great wars in which they could prove their toughness and worth, and serving someone richer than them does not allow the working man to test themselves. It is for all males who have been forced to work for other superfluous males without having the opportunity to prove their worth in other ways.
Perhaps there is a kernal of truth in Faludi’s argument, but this condition is not exclusive in males. In the blog, JUST JEN, the author posted about women struggling to define themselves in the working world without disconnecting themselves from their previous roles in society. “Women should be able to live knowing that they are “doing the right thing for themselves and for the people who depend on them” without having to compromise achieving their fullest potential in their career and in their personal life” (Robinson).
I think that what should be taken from Faludi’s theory is that the roles of men and women are changing, but this identity change does not come from a man or woman’s role as a consumer. Instead, this change seems to have been sparked by a shift in the working world. Maybe Faludi is right; maybe identities are being skewed because men need to fight and women need to care for their children. Regardless, it seems to me that the true problem is that people are defining themselves by the work they do. There seems to be a problem with both men and women sacrificing the things they care about for their careers. This is because in America success is measured by occupation. People are defining themselves by how much they make instead of measuring their success by more ethical means. The only remedy would be to lower the competition level in the work place, and to change policies in such a way that is more conducive to allowing workers to take time off to pursue things other than their career, like their families.
Fight Club highlights the economic superfluity of the American male because members of the fight club all are overworked and underpaid and fight club is a way to reject, "We've all been raised to believe that we'll be millionaires and movie idols. But we won't!" Demonstrating his disappointment and bitterness towards the American Dream. There is much focus on economic status in the film. Gray-collar men are criticized by Tyler, but he also tries to empower them to overcome social stratification and the trap of working for someone else. Tyler pretends to rob a convenience store, tells the clerk he is going to murder him and then tells him that if he does not pursue the dream he originally held that he will be dead in six weeks. This implies that the motivation to succeed must come from the individual. The narrator (Jack) demonizes the upper class when he blackmails his boss to put him on salary for not revealing the company's unscrupulous business practices and quits his job as a recall coordinator. This implies that the people at the top of society are slaves to the service class that Jack/Tyler belongs to. There is a certain disdain for the classes higher than Jack, but then Tyler is the side of Jack that is brave enough to reject materialism. Tyler believes, though he works at a restaurant and as a projectionist, is not truly one of the class of gray-collar workers. At one point, Jack interrogates a worker in a dry cleaning facility and is disgusted by him and tells him how he isn’t special, and he puts him down for his occupation. The working poor are lulled into cooperating and staying in the service of richer classes because they are mislead to believe that if they work hard they will ascend to higher security and status.
The superfluous male does not extend itself across generations because, according to Tyler, this generation of men has had no great wars in which they could prove their toughness and worth, and serving someone richer than them does not allow the working man to test themselves. It is for all males who have been forced to work for other superfluous males without having the opportunity to prove their worth in other ways.
Perhaps there is a kernal of truth in Faludi’s argument, but this condition is not exclusive in males. In the blog, JUST JEN, the author posted about women struggling to define themselves in the working world without disconnecting themselves from their previous roles in society. “Women should be able to live knowing that they are “doing the right thing for themselves and for the people who depend on them” without having to compromise achieving their fullest potential in their career and in their personal life” (Robinson).
I think that what should be taken from Faludi’s theory is that the roles of men and women are changing, but this identity change does not come from a man or woman’s role as a consumer. Instead, this change seems to have been sparked by a shift in the working world. Maybe Faludi is right; maybe identities are being skewed because men need to fight and women need to care for their children. Regardless, it seems to me that the true problem is that people are defining themselves by the work they do. There seems to be a problem with both men and women sacrificing the things they care about for their careers. This is because in America success is measured by occupation. People are defining themselves by how much they make instead of measuring their success by more ethical means. The only remedy would be to lower the competition level in the work place, and to change policies in such a way that is more conducive to allowing workers to take time off to pursue things other than their career, like their families.
Monday, May 2, 2011
The Punishment Does Not Fit the Crime
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s aggressive reaction to recent announcements from the Palestinian government regarding its relations with Hamas is acting as a double-edged sword for the Israeli government. The decision, although intended to protect Israel from Hamas, who seeks to destroy the Jewish state, violates current peace agreements, which require that, “Israel transfers about $1.2 billion to the Palestinian Authority each year, accounting for about two-thirds of its budget.”
Palestinian rival factions, Hamas and Fatah, proposed joining forces resulting in Israel’s refusal to pay the owed tax revenue to the Palestinian government. Withholding this tax remittance is presumptuous because the alliance between Fatah and Hamas has not been made official by the Palestinian cabinet. “Israel has started a war prior to the formation of the government.”
While the Israeli government fears that the money will be used to pay for terrorist operatives, “Palestinian leaders condemn the move as an act of 'piracy' and 'war.’” Holding on to the tax funds sets back the entire Palestinian government. Further, it has not been proven that Hamas will have access to the funds even if the factions unite. Israeli Finance Minister Yuval Stein said, “if the Palestinians can prove to us … that there is no joint funding between the Palestinian Authority and Hamas in Gaza, we are confident we will consider the matter.” Israel is weary of the distribution agreement. However, the regime change has not been made official, therefore withholding the funds is a disproportionate consequence.
The Israeli government is casting its net too wide. The fear of supporting the enemy has driven Israel to make a rash decision, which puts the Israeli government at odds with the entire Palestinian government, not just Hamas. “Former Israeli lawmaker Tzachi Hanebi warned that Netanyahu might be alienating Palestinian moderates.” Cutting off tax remittance from the tax remittance-led government is too severe. Any prospects of negotiations are grim now that the Israeli government has prematurely upset its neighbor.
"I would not advise walking away from all contacts with the moderate Palestinian leadership, because we do not have many alternatives." More civil options should be explored in lieu of destroying the moderating contract between the two countries. Until Hamas officially becomes a recipient of the tax remittance, steps need to be taken to ensure that Israel does not sever ties with the Palestinian government by inviting retaliation.
Palestinian rival factions, Hamas and Fatah, proposed joining forces resulting in Israel’s refusal to pay the owed tax revenue to the Palestinian government. Withholding this tax remittance is presumptuous because the alliance between Fatah and Hamas has not been made official by the Palestinian cabinet. “Israel has started a war prior to the formation of the government.”
While the Israeli government fears that the money will be used to pay for terrorist operatives, “Palestinian leaders condemn the move as an act of 'piracy' and 'war.’” Holding on to the tax funds sets back the entire Palestinian government. Further, it has not been proven that Hamas will have access to the funds even if the factions unite. Israeli Finance Minister Yuval Stein said, “if the Palestinians can prove to us … that there is no joint funding between the Palestinian Authority and Hamas in Gaza, we are confident we will consider the matter.” Israel is weary of the distribution agreement. However, the regime change has not been made official, therefore withholding the funds is a disproportionate consequence.
The Israeli government is casting its net too wide. The fear of supporting the enemy has driven Israel to make a rash decision, which puts the Israeli government at odds with the entire Palestinian government, not just Hamas. “Former Israeli lawmaker Tzachi Hanebi warned that Netanyahu might be alienating Palestinian moderates.” Cutting off tax remittance from the tax remittance-led government is too severe. Any prospects of negotiations are grim now that the Israeli government has prematurely upset its neighbor.
"I would not advise walking away from all contacts with the moderate Palestinian leadership, because we do not have many alternatives." More civil options should be explored in lieu of destroying the moderating contract between the two countries. Until Hamas officially becomes a recipient of the tax remittance, steps need to be taken to ensure that Israel does not sever ties with the Palestinian government by inviting retaliation.
Thursday, April 21, 2011
Will Egypt’s New Government Sever Ties With the United States?
The new Egyptian government’s harsher approach regarding relations with Israel seems to be slowly driving a wedge into Egypt’s foreign relations. If foreign relations were a game of chess, Israel would represent the king. Because of the ongoing turmoil Israel is constantly battling, allegiances to the country are often controversial.
Egyptian demonstrations at the Israeli embassy in Cairo, protesting the Israeli attacks on Gaza, have the rest of the world worried that the peace treaty between Israel and Egypt will not be enough to hold the alliance between the two countries together. Egypt’s new prime minister, Essam Sharaf, “is expected to take a tougher line with Israel than the government of the ousted president Hosni Mubarak did”.
It seems the Egyptian people and their government are taking foreign policy in a new direction, but the question is whether or not that direction will put distance between the United States and Egypt. Among many Arab, Islamic and African countries, Egypt is a moderating influence. Therefore, U.S. foreign policy makers have a vested interest in the country because the alliance protects Israel, and maintains military cooperation and regional stability. However, Israel links the United States and Egypt. Prior to the 1979 Egyptian - Israeli peace treaty, “the United States opposed all aspects of Egypt’s belligerency toward Israel, including military posturing, arms purchases, the economic boycott, use of Soviet military advisors, attempts to exclude Israel from international fora, providing haven for guerrilla attacks against Israel, refusal to negotiate, and other gestures or positions considered unfriendly”.
Egypt’s relationship improved tremendously with the United States when Egypt began to build a better relationship with Israel,“As a result of Egypt’s cooperation with the 1974-1975 disengagement agreements, President al-Sadat’s 1977 trip to Jerusalem, the 1978 Camp David agreements, and the 1979 Egyptian-Israeli peace treaty, Egypt’s policy toward Israel changed from belligerency to cooperation, and U.S. policy toward Egypt changed as well.”
However, the new regime, including Nabil Elaraby, Egypt’s new foreign minister and public opinion favor a stricter approach to Israel. “Elaraby is also likely to be more open to establishing diplomatic relations with Iran, improving Egypt's frosty relationship with Syria and opening dialogue with Lebanon's Hezbollah movement, […] suggesting that the new Egypt may not be as reliable an ally of the United States as Mubarak's Egypt was.”
The recent demonstrations in Cairo are a clear indicator that not only the new cabinet is deviating from old alliances, but the Egyptian people as well. Demonstrators against the Israel attacks on Gaza called for cutting off gas exports to Israel, ending diplomatic and economic relations, and an uprising to take place on “the anniversary of the Nakba (day of catastrophe) that marked the creation of Israel and the expulsion of Palestinians from their homeland”.
Solidarity with Palestine, however, would mean an end to Egypt’s relationship with the United States. Peace between the two countries was established because of Egypt’s establishment of peace with Israel. It is in the best interest of Egypt to uphold all foreign contracts signed previous to the installation of the new regime to prevent their domestic turmoil from turning into international troubles.
Egyptian demonstrations at the Israeli embassy in Cairo, protesting the Israeli attacks on Gaza, have the rest of the world worried that the peace treaty between Israel and Egypt will not be enough to hold the alliance between the two countries together. Egypt’s new prime minister, Essam Sharaf, “is expected to take a tougher line with Israel than the government of the ousted president Hosni Mubarak did”.
It seems the Egyptian people and their government are taking foreign policy in a new direction, but the question is whether or not that direction will put distance between the United States and Egypt. Among many Arab, Islamic and African countries, Egypt is a moderating influence. Therefore, U.S. foreign policy makers have a vested interest in the country because the alliance protects Israel, and maintains military cooperation and regional stability. However, Israel links the United States and Egypt. Prior to the 1979 Egyptian - Israeli peace treaty, “the United States opposed all aspects of Egypt’s belligerency toward Israel, including military posturing, arms purchases, the economic boycott, use of Soviet military advisors, attempts to exclude Israel from international fora, providing haven for guerrilla attacks against Israel, refusal to negotiate, and other gestures or positions considered unfriendly”.
Egypt’s relationship improved tremendously with the United States when Egypt began to build a better relationship with Israel,“As a result of Egypt’s cooperation with the 1974-1975 disengagement agreements, President al-Sadat’s 1977 trip to Jerusalem, the 1978 Camp David agreements, and the 1979 Egyptian-Israeli peace treaty, Egypt’s policy toward Israel changed from belligerency to cooperation, and U.S. policy toward Egypt changed as well.”
However, the new regime, including Nabil Elaraby, Egypt’s new foreign minister and public opinion favor a stricter approach to Israel. “Elaraby is also likely to be more open to establishing diplomatic relations with Iran, improving Egypt's frosty relationship with Syria and opening dialogue with Lebanon's Hezbollah movement, […] suggesting that the new Egypt may not be as reliable an ally of the United States as Mubarak's Egypt was.”
The recent demonstrations in Cairo are a clear indicator that not only the new cabinet is deviating from old alliances, but the Egyptian people as well. Demonstrators against the Israel attacks on Gaza called for cutting off gas exports to Israel, ending diplomatic and economic relations, and an uprising to take place on “the anniversary of the Nakba (day of catastrophe) that marked the creation of Israel and the expulsion of Palestinians from their homeland”.
Solidarity with Palestine, however, would mean an end to Egypt’s relationship with the United States. Peace between the two countries was established because of Egypt’s establishment of peace with Israel. It is in the best interest of Egypt to uphold all foreign contracts signed previous to the installation of the new regime to prevent their domestic turmoil from turning into international troubles.
Saturday, March 26, 2011
Facial Freedom for All
The United States Army’s long-standing requirement of a clean-shaven face is a hairy criterion that conflicts with the First Amendment right to freedom of religion.
Recently, Orthodox Jewish Rabbi Menachem Stern, fell victim to the ostracizing policy. As an Orthodox Jew, Stern believes that shaving his facial hair to join the army would be a violation of his religious rights.
“The 29-year-old is suing the US Army for refusing him the right to keep his beard, on the grounds of his religious beliefs.”
The government is responsible for regulating the physical appearance of army participants, which includes the enforcement of the no facial hair rule. Requiring army members to have a shaved face is discriminatory because it excludes potential volunteers of particular religious faiths. “Joining the army can sometimes be difficult for Muslims, Sikhs and Jews who feel obliged by their faith to grow a full beard.” As the agency of government responsible for defending Americans’ constitutional way of life, the U.S. Army should realize that forcing all male participants to shave is not only passé, but it also is an assault on the first amendment because this rule violates certain religious convictions.
Perhaps the army should spend less time shaving and more time brushing up on the logistics of human rights. If a man signs up for duty, survives his training, and is approved for deployment, why should the rigid shaving requirement interfere with his right to serve the country, given that he has already proven himself to be qualified? The length of facial hair is not an indicator of an individual’s capabilities.
Rabbi Stern has since filed for a shaving waiver, which stipulates that he will be exempt from shaving. However, the possibility that his request will be approved looks rather grim. "I would like to be able to say that government agencies are becoming more accepting of various aspects of appearance but frankly Rabbi Stern's experience with the US Army leads me to conclude that there are still very strong restrictions that the people who have control over these institutions are imposing."
The need for revision is apparent, but given that the army is a volunteer-based organization, it can be argued that the government is not responsible for protecting the rights of minorities from this partisan rule. This argument is undermined by the weak foundation on which this tradition stands. There is no reason to continue to enforce this regulation because the reasons for keeping the rule as is are rather transparent.
“A US Army spokesman said it was to do with ‘long-standing traditions of uniformity, hygiene, and good order and discipline’, adding that it was in keeping with strict dress codes which required a sense of professionalism and group identity.”
This argument is refutable because the aforementioned ideals, such as uniformity and discipline, are subjective and have been defined by cultural convictions. None of these principles is a legitimate reason to enforce the rule because there is no way to prove that any of these qualities are linked to a man’s facial hair. There is no clear evidence to justify that a clean-shaven face has any impact on a soldier’s performance.
The policy perpetuates stereotypes about facial hair that marginalize men of various religions by expelling entire groups of people from useful participation in the Army based on their physical appearance. In order to generate respect between individuals of different cultures and religions, it is vital that an effort is made on an institutional level to even the playing field. Specifically, putting an end to unjustified practices like the no beard policy is an essential step in ending the cultural imperialism that is inherent in Army policy because this systemic change would expand the definition of what it means to be an American soldier by revaluing the significance of the physical characteristics of a male in the service.
Recently, Orthodox Jewish Rabbi Menachem Stern, fell victim to the ostracizing policy. As an Orthodox Jew, Stern believes that shaving his facial hair to join the army would be a violation of his religious rights.
“The 29-year-old is suing the US Army for refusing him the right to keep his beard, on the grounds of his religious beliefs.”
The government is responsible for regulating the physical appearance of army participants, which includes the enforcement of the no facial hair rule. Requiring army members to have a shaved face is discriminatory because it excludes potential volunteers of particular religious faiths. “Joining the army can sometimes be difficult for Muslims, Sikhs and Jews who feel obliged by their faith to grow a full beard.” As the agency of government responsible for defending Americans’ constitutional way of life, the U.S. Army should realize that forcing all male participants to shave is not only passé, but it also is an assault on the first amendment because this rule violates certain religious convictions.
Perhaps the army should spend less time shaving and more time brushing up on the logistics of human rights. If a man signs up for duty, survives his training, and is approved for deployment, why should the rigid shaving requirement interfere with his right to serve the country, given that he has already proven himself to be qualified? The length of facial hair is not an indicator of an individual’s capabilities.
Rabbi Stern has since filed for a shaving waiver, which stipulates that he will be exempt from shaving. However, the possibility that his request will be approved looks rather grim. "I would like to be able to say that government agencies are becoming more accepting of various aspects of appearance but frankly Rabbi Stern's experience with the US Army leads me to conclude that there are still very strong restrictions that the people who have control over these institutions are imposing."
The need for revision is apparent, but given that the army is a volunteer-based organization, it can be argued that the government is not responsible for protecting the rights of minorities from this partisan rule. This argument is undermined by the weak foundation on which this tradition stands. There is no reason to continue to enforce this regulation because the reasons for keeping the rule as is are rather transparent.
“A US Army spokesman said it was to do with ‘long-standing traditions of uniformity, hygiene, and good order and discipline’, adding that it was in keeping with strict dress codes which required a sense of professionalism and group identity.”
This argument is refutable because the aforementioned ideals, such as uniformity and discipline, are subjective and have been defined by cultural convictions. None of these principles is a legitimate reason to enforce the rule because there is no way to prove that any of these qualities are linked to a man’s facial hair. There is no clear evidence to justify that a clean-shaven face has any impact on a soldier’s performance.
The policy perpetuates stereotypes about facial hair that marginalize men of various religions by expelling entire groups of people from useful participation in the Army based on their physical appearance. In order to generate respect between individuals of different cultures and religions, it is vital that an effort is made on an institutional level to even the playing field. Specifically, putting an end to unjustified practices like the no beard policy is an essential step in ending the cultural imperialism that is inherent in Army policy because this systemic change would expand the definition of what it means to be an American soldier by revaluing the significance of the physical characteristics of a male in the service.
Saturday, March 12, 2011
The Internet's Role in the Future of Democracy
Congress is finally making an effort to control the economic deficit by cutting federal spending. However, the Republican dominated House of Representatives is endorsing a spending plan that disregards the needs of constituents. It is vital that Americans use the internet to retaliate and stand up for their needs and rights. Specifically, the House has endorsed the Pence amendment that will eliminate financing for Planned Parenthood. Through the use of new media websites, including Twitter, Facebook and Youtube, Americans are accumulating the support necessary to let the Senate know, before the bill reaches the Senate, that taking away Planned Parenthood funds would be undermining Americans’ rights to the health care opportunities that Planned Parenthood offers.
Today’s government has become too inundated with internal federal affairs to acknowledge the needs of constituents. Therefore, the internet and new media are necessary elements to successfully develop a campaign by and for citizens against legislative assault, like the movement against the Planned Parenthood bill has generated.
New media websites such as Facebook, Twitter and Youtube, that link together like-minded individuals are essential democratizing forces because they offer a completely open platform for the American public to unite and to make their voices heard. This is essential in strengthening the connection between the distant representatives of congress and their abstract relationships with their constituencies.
Activist groups, such as Advocates for Youth’s Youth Activist Network, have demonstrated the power of the internet as a resource to be a reactionary force. The group has established Amplifyyourvoice.org, which has set up blogs, blog-a-thons, and other easy-to-access methods to spread their message to overturn the Pence amendment via new media. These options include, “amplify on Twitter, Facebook and Youtube”. All major outlets have been targeted in order to reach those who will be impacted the most by this particular budget cut.
The movement has gained a vast following through new media websites such as Facebook. New media is a fundamental aspect of this campaign, especially given the disreputable nature of the topic. Individuals can join the 261,835 members who have already joined the “I stand with Planned Parenthood” Facebook group. Individuals also have the option to sign an anonymous petition via amplifyyourvoice.org. The message is quickly and efficiently being mobilized as the internet attempts to counter balance the imbalanced state of American government.
Planned Parenthood online has linked its “Call Congress” campaign to numerous Twitter accounts to draw more attention to the page. The page explains the repercussions of the Pence amendment, “The consequences of this bill are clear and they would be devastating. More women would have unintended pregnancies. Cancer would develop, undiagnosed, in countless women. There is no doubt: cutting off millions of women from care, that they have no other way to afford, places them at risk of sickness and death.” The site also offers talking points and phone numbers to call in order to protest the passage of the Pence amendment in the U.S. Senate.
Planned Parenthood also has its own channel available on Youtube.com. The channel offers a collection of homemade videos of supporters who stand with Planned Parenthood in their fight against the Pence act. The channel has had over 92,407 views since its start, and continues to communicate the importance of overturning the amendment.
The government will continue to ignore citizens’ needs if action is not taken. The most efficient means of action have clearly been demonstrated in the reaction towards the Pence amendment. Campaigns such as this one have the potential to permeate the system through the internet. The internet is universal and adds needed pressure to the federal government to acknowledge needs outside their own. If we are living in a country that is “for the people and by the people”, the internet is the most suitable entity to carry out this ideology. It is imperative that Americans get involved with the government to keep the government in check at this time.
Today’s government has become too inundated with internal federal affairs to acknowledge the needs of constituents. Therefore, the internet and new media are necessary elements to successfully develop a campaign by and for citizens against legislative assault, like the movement against the Planned Parenthood bill has generated.
New media websites such as Facebook, Twitter and Youtube, that link together like-minded individuals are essential democratizing forces because they offer a completely open platform for the American public to unite and to make their voices heard. This is essential in strengthening the connection between the distant representatives of congress and their abstract relationships with their constituencies.
Activist groups, such as Advocates for Youth’s Youth Activist Network, have demonstrated the power of the internet as a resource to be a reactionary force. The group has established Amplifyyourvoice.org, which has set up blogs, blog-a-thons, and other easy-to-access methods to spread their message to overturn the Pence amendment via new media. These options include, “amplify on Twitter, Facebook and Youtube”. All major outlets have been targeted in order to reach those who will be impacted the most by this particular budget cut.
The movement has gained a vast following through new media websites such as Facebook. New media is a fundamental aspect of this campaign, especially given the disreputable nature of the topic. Individuals can join the 261,835 members who have already joined the “I stand with Planned Parenthood” Facebook group. Individuals also have the option to sign an anonymous petition via amplifyyourvoice.org. The message is quickly and efficiently being mobilized as the internet attempts to counter balance the imbalanced state of American government.
Planned Parenthood online has linked its “Call Congress” campaign to numerous Twitter accounts to draw more attention to the page. The page explains the repercussions of the Pence amendment, “The consequences of this bill are clear and they would be devastating. More women would have unintended pregnancies. Cancer would develop, undiagnosed, in countless women. There is no doubt: cutting off millions of women from care, that they have no other way to afford, places them at risk of sickness and death.” The site also offers talking points and phone numbers to call in order to protest the passage of the Pence amendment in the U.S. Senate.
Planned Parenthood also has its own channel available on Youtube.com. The channel offers a collection of homemade videos of supporters who stand with Planned Parenthood in their fight against the Pence act. The channel has had over 92,407 views since its start, and continues to communicate the importance of overturning the amendment.
The government will continue to ignore citizens’ needs if action is not taken. The most efficient means of action have clearly been demonstrated in the reaction towards the Pence amendment. Campaigns such as this one have the potential to permeate the system through the internet. The internet is universal and adds needed pressure to the federal government to acknowledge needs outside their own. If we are living in a country that is “for the people and by the people”, the internet is the most suitable entity to carry out this ideology. It is imperative that Americans get involved with the government to keep the government in check at this time.
Saturday, February 26, 2011
The Influence of New Media on American Politics: For the People and by the People
New Media is reshaping the nature of American governmental affairs, as the cyber world entwines itself with the political world. New media is an essential tool that is necessary to maintain a functioning modern representative democracy that can accommodate a growing population. The direct accessibility made available by blogging, podcasting and social networking sites opens the means of communication to the public, thereby increasing the connectivity of government agencies with citizens and strengthening the influence of constituents, which has resulted in the manifestation of the empowerment of grassroots movements.
“The growth of the cyber world has been both the most empowering and, to already unresponsive institutions, the most influential social change to penetrate society in the last 50 years.”
The internet is fundamental in renewing the populations’ interest in public affairs. The majority of Americans are skeptical of campaigns corrupted by ulterior motives and biased funding, intimidated by the growing polarization between the two main political parties, discouraged by institutions like the electoral college and political practices like gerrymandering. These dilute the potency of a singular vote. All of these contributing factors have resulted in growing apathy amongst Americans when it comes to issues involving their government. In 1961, 75 percent of the U.S. population had a high amount of trust in the government. “By 2003, according to a CNN/Time poll, that confidence had reached a low of 32 percent.”
Americans’ distrust in their government stems from the inability to trust in campaigns that are funded by private interests. The Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission case has further empowered wealthy institutions to infiltrate their partiality into campaign advertisements that fail to concentrate on the needs of the citizenry. American negligence to politics partially stems from the corrupt campaign ads full of slander often funded by these very companies who invest in particular policies or candidates because of the direct effect on their businesses. The United States Supreme Court in the Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, turned down recent accusations against these companies, “a bitterly divided Supreme Court […] ruled that the government may not ban political spending by corporations in Candidate elections.” The decision struggled to pass as it granted corporations the power to influence the political market of the U.S. “The difference between selling a vote and selling access is a matter of degree, not kind […] and selling access is not qualitatively different from giving special preference to those who spent money on one’s behalf.” Allowing companies to finance politicians and policies, ultimately privileges wealthier agencies to manipulate the electorate in their favor. Hence, numerous Americans are apprehensive to vote because the information accessible to them is typically influenced by economic concerns.
In the recent November 2010 election in California, for example, the expenditures of particular institutions, like the Texas oil companies who endorsed Proposition 23, were blatantly associated with the policy because it held the potential to benefit their sales. Whether directly tied to a policy like Proposition 23, or a candidate, supporters are invested in particular policies and candidates because they promote or obstruct their personal agendas. Further, it is hard to tell who to believe when “Yes on 23” commercials are telling the viewer that voting yes will save their jobs, and “No on 23” commercials convince the viewer that the environment will be destroyed if they vote yes. Although corporations should have the right to provide information to the American public, no matter the biased intentions, Americans possess the right to think for themselves and to fully understand the source of this information. The fine print that flashes on the bottom of a campaign commercial, or the miniscule writing on the bottom of a yard sign is not prominent enough to overpower the undue influence that wealthy campaign contributors have. The confusing advertisements and the often-offensive presentation of information made available to the American public during political campaigns, discourages their trust in their media sources.
In addition to policies such as Proposition 23, candidates themselves are made to appear untrustworthy and difficult to relate to. The most popular way to generate support during the short campaign period is to employ negative advertising against an opponent since the image of a candidate is a fundamental part of persuading voters. “We have today a system that rewards politicians for conflict and confrontation, and encourages them to demonize opponents.” For example, in the recent gubernatorial election in California, 35 days before the election, it was brought forward that republican candidate, Meg Whitman, employed an illegal immigrant as a housekeeper for nine years. This personal information seemed to, in the end, be more memorable than any of the millions of dollars Whitman spent on commercials. The predominance of defamation morally degrades the political system, which in turn dissuades the general public from feeling allegiance to any candidate. Americans are looking for a relatable candidate, and it is difficult to connect to candidates when they are portrayed as criminals. Further, Americans are distanced from government officials and this abstract relationship between representatives and constituents attributes to the lack of interest in the general public.
Even those who typically feel enthusiastic about a candidate tend to have their own hidden incentives. For instance, Whitman’s alleged housekeeper hired Gloria Allred as her lawyer for the lawsuit against Whitman. Coincidently, “Ms. Allred was a personal friend of Jerry Brown, […] and had donated to his past campaigns. ‘So there’s a clear relationship and party affiliation that’s undeniable.’” Allred’s involvement exemplifies exactly how financial investment in a candidate enables her private agenda with Brown. Allred clearly had more invested in Brown’s candidacy than just money; therefore, she utilized her power to influence the decisions of voters. Although she is entitled to do so, her financial influence corrupts the perspective of a voter. How can the public trust information provided to them if it is tainted with the prejudice of individuals or private companies?
The internet has proven to be an effective anecdote for this issue. The internet allows for information to circulate that would otherwise be limited by the nature of media, which is funded by private entities. The internet allows like-minded citizens to come together quickly with social networking sites like Facebook and Myspace. The internet does not tailor content to fit a particular political agenda, nor does it inhibit individuals from expressing their opinions. With the power of the internet, public interest in governmental issues has been revived because information is accessible to everyone, and communicating the importance of a particular movement has become easy to do. Supporting a political movement now comes at the expense of clicking a button. Individual citizens have power and influence over their government. Making a difference and being heard is a possibility for just about anyone with a blog or a Facebook these days. The result is that political interest has been revived.
“There was an astonishing 11 percentage point increase of voter turnout in 2004. While there may be socio-political factors involved that can explain this sharp hype, it is interesting to note that one difference between the world of 2000 and the world of 2004 is accessibility and popularity of internet applications such as online petitions and online networking.”
The most successful public servants are those who utilize this new media to effectively carry out their message. “Take Barack Obama. The reason he is the Democratic Party’s presidential nominee is that he combines his message of hope and “Yes We Can” with a savvy staff that understands the value and use of Web 2.0 social-media tools. His campaign effectively uses blogs, wikis, podcasts, event-planning tools, reviews, ratings, comments and rich media uploads and downloads — all of which engage constituents in ways that make them feel validated and important.” Obama’s successes can be easily linked with his efforts to reach out via new media websites. America needs relatable politicians, and new media makes even the president accessible with just one click.
New media offers newly-found power to individual campaigns as well as entire political movements, particularly of grassroots nature. The number of people identifying with political parties is waning, and the manifestations of grassroots movements such as the Tea Party, embody American dissatisfaction with the current party system. Voters feel disconnected from their candidates, and movements like the Tea Party seem to represent the desperate need for a connection that is otherwise not being satisfied by current political parties. Grassroots movements expose the frustrations of politically engaged citizens and often act as the means acquiring to needed change. The use of new media in grassroots movements has allowed the public to challenge the current political system with recognizable force. The Tea Party, for example, started when CNBC’s Rick Santelli went on a memorable rant about the Homeowners Affordability and Stability Plan. The broadcast quickly spread via Twitter and other social networking websites. Within weeks Santelli’s message had inspired a powerful series of Tea Party Protests, which eventually developed into the Tea Party that exists today.
Grassroots movements assist in the governance of a democracy because they echo the voice of the people, and the volume of this voice is measured by the amount of support the movement has. The Tea Party would not be as successful as it has become without the use of new media to spread its message. Gathering support and communicating the message of a campaign has become much quicker and easier with new technology. Technology and social media websites have lowered the cost of communication. Finding like-minded people is extremely accessible with social networking sites, and fundraising can be done through websites like Pay Pal. Democracy thrives on the participation of its people, and the information age has made getting involved quicker, easier and cheaper than ever before.
In order to sustain the success of a campaign, people must feel that they own the movement. When a movement provides the people involved with a sense of ownership, it gives them a sense of responsibility as well. To maintain success or to win an election, campaigns must utilize new media so that followers of the movement feel that they are responsible for the movement’s vitality.
The information age has reoriented public policy around the self. “What we live in is not the age of the extended mind but the age of the inverted self.” Politics is no longer a function of ideology but of identity. Individuals identify with a movement, which is seen as an expression of the manifestation of selfhood. In the information age, identity imposes ideological coherence rather than the ideology defining the ultimate meaning of a movement. The human condition for selfishness seems to have a whole new mechanism for infiltrating politics. However, when there are biased funds influencing media surrounding a campaign or political decisions, one has to ask themself: In an age where large corporations are capable of funding a particular policy or candidate who would benefit their personal agenda, what is wrong with an individual Twittering about political opinions for free?
These new technologies are intended to increase connectivity, and when used wisely, they serve their purpose. “A social network is crucially different from a social circle, since the function of a social circle is to curb our appetites and of a network to extend them. Everything once inside is outside, a click away; much that used to be outside is inside, experienced in solitude.” The repercussions of this relative to politics are that it allows individuals to unite quickly and acquire numbers of astronomical proportions in a short period of time, like the Tea Party. However, a Facebook petition is a much less threatening form of protest than a riot. The internet holds great potential to change American government for the betterment of its people.
Enlightening peoples’ government via new media should be seen for its potential to be a force for good. The key to exploiting the good of the Internet, while guarding against the bad, is to educate consumers and create a new generation of useful consumers. The internet is necessary to counterbalance the lack of representation in American politics, and further, it serves to uncover truths that would otherwise be kept under wraps by media outlets. New media provides the tools necessary to amplify the often-unheard voices of the American population. The future of politics includes new media as an important element of public relations, and this means the future of politics includes a solid platform for individuals to receive a democratic dose of attention.
“The growth of the cyber world has been both the most empowering and, to already unresponsive institutions, the most influential social change to penetrate society in the last 50 years.”
The internet is fundamental in renewing the populations’ interest in public affairs. The majority of Americans are skeptical of campaigns corrupted by ulterior motives and biased funding, intimidated by the growing polarization between the two main political parties, discouraged by institutions like the electoral college and political practices like gerrymandering. These dilute the potency of a singular vote. All of these contributing factors have resulted in growing apathy amongst Americans when it comes to issues involving their government. In 1961, 75 percent of the U.S. population had a high amount of trust in the government. “By 2003, according to a CNN/Time poll, that confidence had reached a low of 32 percent.”
Americans’ distrust in their government stems from the inability to trust in campaigns that are funded by private interests. The Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission case has further empowered wealthy institutions to infiltrate their partiality into campaign advertisements that fail to concentrate on the needs of the citizenry. American negligence to politics partially stems from the corrupt campaign ads full of slander often funded by these very companies who invest in particular policies or candidates because of the direct effect on their businesses. The United States Supreme Court in the Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, turned down recent accusations against these companies, “a bitterly divided Supreme Court […] ruled that the government may not ban political spending by corporations in Candidate elections.” The decision struggled to pass as it granted corporations the power to influence the political market of the U.S. “The difference between selling a vote and selling access is a matter of degree, not kind […] and selling access is not qualitatively different from giving special preference to those who spent money on one’s behalf.” Allowing companies to finance politicians and policies, ultimately privileges wealthier agencies to manipulate the electorate in their favor. Hence, numerous Americans are apprehensive to vote because the information accessible to them is typically influenced by economic concerns.
In the recent November 2010 election in California, for example, the expenditures of particular institutions, like the Texas oil companies who endorsed Proposition 23, were blatantly associated with the policy because it held the potential to benefit their sales. Whether directly tied to a policy like Proposition 23, or a candidate, supporters are invested in particular policies and candidates because they promote or obstruct their personal agendas. Further, it is hard to tell who to believe when “Yes on 23” commercials are telling the viewer that voting yes will save their jobs, and “No on 23” commercials convince the viewer that the environment will be destroyed if they vote yes. Although corporations should have the right to provide information to the American public, no matter the biased intentions, Americans possess the right to think for themselves and to fully understand the source of this information. The fine print that flashes on the bottom of a campaign commercial, or the miniscule writing on the bottom of a yard sign is not prominent enough to overpower the undue influence that wealthy campaign contributors have. The confusing advertisements and the often-offensive presentation of information made available to the American public during political campaigns, discourages their trust in their media sources.
In addition to policies such as Proposition 23, candidates themselves are made to appear untrustworthy and difficult to relate to. The most popular way to generate support during the short campaign period is to employ negative advertising against an opponent since the image of a candidate is a fundamental part of persuading voters. “We have today a system that rewards politicians for conflict and confrontation, and encourages them to demonize opponents.” For example, in the recent gubernatorial election in California, 35 days before the election, it was brought forward that republican candidate, Meg Whitman, employed an illegal immigrant as a housekeeper for nine years. This personal information seemed to, in the end, be more memorable than any of the millions of dollars Whitman spent on commercials. The predominance of defamation morally degrades the political system, which in turn dissuades the general public from feeling allegiance to any candidate. Americans are looking for a relatable candidate, and it is difficult to connect to candidates when they are portrayed as criminals. Further, Americans are distanced from government officials and this abstract relationship between representatives and constituents attributes to the lack of interest in the general public.
Even those who typically feel enthusiastic about a candidate tend to have their own hidden incentives. For instance, Whitman’s alleged housekeeper hired Gloria Allred as her lawyer for the lawsuit against Whitman. Coincidently, “Ms. Allred was a personal friend of Jerry Brown, […] and had donated to his past campaigns. ‘So there’s a clear relationship and party affiliation that’s undeniable.’” Allred’s involvement exemplifies exactly how financial investment in a candidate enables her private agenda with Brown. Allred clearly had more invested in Brown’s candidacy than just money; therefore, she utilized her power to influence the decisions of voters. Although she is entitled to do so, her financial influence corrupts the perspective of a voter. How can the public trust information provided to them if it is tainted with the prejudice of individuals or private companies?
The internet has proven to be an effective anecdote for this issue. The internet allows for information to circulate that would otherwise be limited by the nature of media, which is funded by private entities. The internet allows like-minded citizens to come together quickly with social networking sites like Facebook and Myspace. The internet does not tailor content to fit a particular political agenda, nor does it inhibit individuals from expressing their opinions. With the power of the internet, public interest in governmental issues has been revived because information is accessible to everyone, and communicating the importance of a particular movement has become easy to do. Supporting a political movement now comes at the expense of clicking a button. Individual citizens have power and influence over their government. Making a difference and being heard is a possibility for just about anyone with a blog or a Facebook these days. The result is that political interest has been revived.
“There was an astonishing 11 percentage point increase of voter turnout in 2004. While there may be socio-political factors involved that can explain this sharp hype, it is interesting to note that one difference between the world of 2000 and the world of 2004 is accessibility and popularity of internet applications such as online petitions and online networking.”
The most successful public servants are those who utilize this new media to effectively carry out their message. “Take Barack Obama. The reason he is the Democratic Party’s presidential nominee is that he combines his message of hope and “Yes We Can” with a savvy staff that understands the value and use of Web 2.0 social-media tools. His campaign effectively uses blogs, wikis, podcasts, event-planning tools, reviews, ratings, comments and rich media uploads and downloads — all of which engage constituents in ways that make them feel validated and important.” Obama’s successes can be easily linked with his efforts to reach out via new media websites. America needs relatable politicians, and new media makes even the president accessible with just one click.
New media offers newly-found power to individual campaigns as well as entire political movements, particularly of grassroots nature. The number of people identifying with political parties is waning, and the manifestations of grassroots movements such as the Tea Party, embody American dissatisfaction with the current party system. Voters feel disconnected from their candidates, and movements like the Tea Party seem to represent the desperate need for a connection that is otherwise not being satisfied by current political parties. Grassroots movements expose the frustrations of politically engaged citizens and often act as the means acquiring to needed change. The use of new media in grassroots movements has allowed the public to challenge the current political system with recognizable force. The Tea Party, for example, started when CNBC’s Rick Santelli went on a memorable rant about the Homeowners Affordability and Stability Plan. The broadcast quickly spread via Twitter and other social networking websites. Within weeks Santelli’s message had inspired a powerful series of Tea Party Protests, which eventually developed into the Tea Party that exists today.
Grassroots movements assist in the governance of a democracy because they echo the voice of the people, and the volume of this voice is measured by the amount of support the movement has. The Tea Party would not be as successful as it has become without the use of new media to spread its message. Gathering support and communicating the message of a campaign has become much quicker and easier with new technology. Technology and social media websites have lowered the cost of communication. Finding like-minded people is extremely accessible with social networking sites, and fundraising can be done through websites like Pay Pal. Democracy thrives on the participation of its people, and the information age has made getting involved quicker, easier and cheaper than ever before.
In order to sustain the success of a campaign, people must feel that they own the movement. When a movement provides the people involved with a sense of ownership, it gives them a sense of responsibility as well. To maintain success or to win an election, campaigns must utilize new media so that followers of the movement feel that they are responsible for the movement’s vitality.
The information age has reoriented public policy around the self. “What we live in is not the age of the extended mind but the age of the inverted self.” Politics is no longer a function of ideology but of identity. Individuals identify with a movement, which is seen as an expression of the manifestation of selfhood. In the information age, identity imposes ideological coherence rather than the ideology defining the ultimate meaning of a movement. The human condition for selfishness seems to have a whole new mechanism for infiltrating politics. However, when there are biased funds influencing media surrounding a campaign or political decisions, one has to ask themself: In an age where large corporations are capable of funding a particular policy or candidate who would benefit their personal agenda, what is wrong with an individual Twittering about political opinions for free?
These new technologies are intended to increase connectivity, and when used wisely, they serve their purpose. “A social network is crucially different from a social circle, since the function of a social circle is to curb our appetites and of a network to extend them. Everything once inside is outside, a click away; much that used to be outside is inside, experienced in solitude.” The repercussions of this relative to politics are that it allows individuals to unite quickly and acquire numbers of astronomical proportions in a short period of time, like the Tea Party. However, a Facebook petition is a much less threatening form of protest than a riot. The internet holds great potential to change American government for the betterment of its people.
Enlightening peoples’ government via new media should be seen for its potential to be a force for good. The key to exploiting the good of the Internet, while guarding against the bad, is to educate consumers and create a new generation of useful consumers. The internet is necessary to counterbalance the lack of representation in American politics, and further, it serves to uncover truths that would otherwise be kept under wraps by media outlets. New media provides the tools necessary to amplify the often-unheard voices of the American population. The future of politics includes new media as an important element of public relations, and this means the future of politics includes a solid platform for individuals to receive a democratic dose of attention.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)