Herman and Chomsky could be true when we relate their idea with Gan’s notion that (people behind) media tend to have ethnocentrism, and even possessed with patriotic spirit when there are political conflicts between the country where media is originally produced and its foreign countries as their perceived enemies. It is quite common in outside of America that US’ media is described as having double standard in judging political issues, in which there are two perceived conflicting messages conveyed through the media. For example, US government – through the power of global media—convincingly declare the world about the necessity of human right, but certainly the government has different face when one of the state’s allies are attacked by foreign enemy. This is also the case when the state has interests in geo-politic, natural resources, or would like to barricade the influence of communism ideology during the cold war period. Media coverage in Gulf, North-South Vietnam and Indonesia-East Timor wars, and many more, as revealed by Herman and Chomsky are quite conclusive that media serves as tool of governmental official’s propaganda for many years.... ... middle of paper ... ...ystems ire flexible, in the sense that they need to adopt with audience’s situation (interest, beliefs, political circumstance, etc.).
An intrinsic element in the success of a democratic society is the willingness of the people to be self-governing. In modern America, to say that we have a government that is for, by, and of the people does not mean that each citizen is autocratic and simply 'takes the law into his or her own hands,' but rather that each citizen has the responsibility to actively participate in this large-scale experiment known as American Democracy. Therefore, the problem of declining voter participation is a serious one indeed. Several reasons for this enigmatic conundrum of voter apathy have become apparent in recent years. In many presidential elections, numerous Americans have found themselves compromising their views and voting not for the candidate with whom they resonate best, but rather for the candidate who they dislike the least.
This issue will be discussed further in the American politics part of this essay. Pressure Groups In Britain Stereotype has it that the relationship between pressure groups and the government is adversarial. However pressure groups often prove they are very useful by providing information to government ministers and civil servants if they lack information on policies, particularly controversial issues. Pressure groups provide a “Pro and Anti” argument when controversial issu... ... middle of paper ... ...oice if they do not intend to join a political party. Moreover it is essential to realise pressure groups intend to influence policy, not control it.
This can be contrasted with the newer thinking (and to a lesser extent, the practice) within governments and the bureaucracy of insisting that public organisations must demonstrate more foresight, responsiveness, innovation and prudent risk taking, while being granted more authority and freedom from rules and procedures and held more strictly accountable for results. In short, the negative blaming approach typically followed in parliament does not fit well with the more constructive, learning approach being promoted within the APS. The role of partisanship in parliament is controversial. For some commentators competition among parties provides the incentives and energy which drive the parliamentary process and ensure that the deficiencies in performance of governments are revealed. Critics see prevailing partisan approaches to the enforcement of political accountability as too ritualistic, narrow, negative and theatrical.
The idea of a governing body drawing its power directly from its constituents has been undermined by the corrupt nature of modern politics where politicians act out of self-interest. While the Constitution and later amendments had every intention of securing basic liberties, certain limitations later undermined the original intentions of the founding fathers to give power back to the people by placing the larger majority of power in the hands of the state. Federal limitations to certain amendments, known as federal mandates, have taken power away from the masses. To secure democracy and avoid further abuses of power by the judicial courts, an amendment should be made to the Constitution prohibiting the federal government from putting down mandates that directly interfere with the power given to the states by law. Federal politicians use desultory commands as leverage to ensure that the states comply with their wishes.
Lobbyists use money and cost-effective strategies to sway the opinions of lawmakers. Others see lobbyists as effective, political tour guides who help pass legislation. An analysis of the lobbying process reveals the outcomes are often times ethical, but chiefly controversial. This leaves us with a heated debate; should Congress tighten their restrictions on lobbying? Lobbying didn’t become popular until the twentieth century.
Introduction A. Opening; There are a number are numerous political philosophies that are employed in today’s government, one such philosophy is utilitarianism. It was originally conceived by Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832), and later revised my John S. Mill (1806-1873). The reason why the dates are included is that readers may understand that this is an old system, which should be all together abolished in the Government. B. Thesis; Here I will examine a couple of examples on the way utilitarianism is used in both the government and judicial sectors and while some believe that a utilitarian view keeps Americans safe, in reality it is outdated and destructive to America.
At the same time, federalism has deeply impacted the political arena in the US by forcing politicians for negotiate with various power bases on every level of government. Despite its flaws a federalist system of government gives countries the flexibility and autonomy needed establish a successful nation, qualities not found in a unitary government.
In the comparison of interest and pressure groups it is apparent that although they created resentment in the inner layers of government, they were necessary to the development and progress of the political system. According to David B. Truman in the excerpt from The Governmental Process he demonstrates the need, influence and the importance of containment of lobby groups. Although lobby groups are separated into organized groups and unofficial groups, he considers them both equally important and dangerous interest groups. Through his writings he also demonstrates his opinion that political parties are only a large form of an interest group. Political parties don’t have as many concurrent attitudes because of its influence on impressionable people and its size, but nevertheless it is an interest group.
Having the representation of the legislative bodies allows for intervention of state governments to be combated with the federal power. With the Civil Rights Movement, A. Philip Randolph forced compromise with the federal government for his demands when proposed a mass march on Washington. When concentrating change efforts to... ... middle of paper ... ...orce decisions. The strengths of taking the concentrated focus on the legislative bodies provides strengths like the federal government being allowed to “flex its muscles" when a policy is trying to be implemented and the strategic application when trying to tackle a change. The weaknesses of concentrating on the legislative bodies include; timetables can be very gradual and the right circumstances need to be in place for a massive push from the legislative bodies.