Albert Lyman Government 110 Professor B.

Bannon October 7, 2011 Take Home Exam One

1. Tell me what letter grade (A thru F) would you give Barack Obama for his performance as President. What do you like and dislike about his presidency? I would give President Barack Obama the letter grade of a C. Thus far in his presidency, with his first term close to coming to an end, he strikes me as a president who has not done too much that could be considered ground breaking. He has not been one of the best American presidents, like Kennedy or Roosevelt, but he has also not been one of the worst he is somewhere right in the middle. Some of his most prominent policy decisions include changes in tax policies, a push to reform the healthcare system and most notably, beginning negotiations for substantial reductions in the world s nuclear arsenal in hopes of getting rid of all of them someday. This is, to me, one of the most important things he has done in his presidency; however I feel that not as many people are aware of it that should be. He is working with countries like Russia to try to get rid of a lot of the Cold War era nuclear warheads which have just been sitting around in hangars. Each country has enough nuclear warheads to destroy the world over a few times, but after the first time, does it really matter? Is it necessary to have this many? No. These are weapons that pose a tremendous threat to the entire world, and the sooner we begin to get rid of them, the better. While Obama s push to eventually extinct all nuclear weapons from the world could never be completed in his presidency or even for presidents to follow. It is my hope, though, that eventually there will be no more nuclear weapons on the world and if this happens, it will have been, in part, thanks to President Obama getting the ball rolling. An aspect about President Obama s presidency which I have not liked, is his inability (it seems) to be able to control the House and Senate and truly be, the President. In my opinion, his inability to do this, does not make him a bad president, because good presidents have had to deal with uncooperative Senates and House of Representatives before, but he has not handled it well, and it has had an effect on his presidency. Despite his attempts at creating bipartisan policies, he has been able to get very little passed in the House and even less so in the Senate. The first time I sensed urgency and a dedication to get something passed was in his speech about his jobs plan. His repetition of you need to pass this bill and things similar finally showed me a sense of urgency and truly wanting to take control of his Senate

and House, and get something done.

2. Which of the three 2012 budget options is the best choice? Why is your option the best choice? Why is your option better than the other two? The only logical place to spend the $30 billion in tax cuts is in option 2: Fund projects for clean energy, dams, highways and mass transit systems that could create new jobs. When President Obama proposed this in his new jobs act, I was sold. President Roosevelt did something similar with his New Deal in the early 1930 s in order to help Americans try to recover from the Great Depression. While America is not in as bad of shape as it was in the Great Depression, there are still millions of Americans who are in need of the same help that Americans received in the early 1930 s. History has shown us that something similar to this has worked once for America before, so the government should do it again. In his speech on getting Americans back to work, President Obama even touches on the fact that America is no longer the technologically advanced place that we once were. Building a world-class transportation system is part of what made us an economic superpower. And now we re going to sit back and watch China build newer airports and faster railroads? At a time when millions of unemployed construction workers could build them right here in America (Obama, American Jobs Act Speech). If the government spent this $30 billion on project funding, then America could return to the world-power that it once was. America as a whole has some catching up to do with the times and with that catching up, renovation. Improved roads, more advanced trains and transit systems could be just what America needs to begin its return as a world power. Not only is this a plan which the government should use anyway, it is a much better option than options one and three. The last thing wealthy Americans need more of is tax cuts they received enough of those in the Bush Presidency, and did they invest money in businesses to create more jobs then? No they did not. History has proven that this does not work, so it would be ridiculous to give wealthy Americans more tax cuts when the people who need the cuts are those with incomes of $250,000 and less, not more. While option three is by no means a horrible option, it would have much less of an impact on the country as a whole than option two. While taking away from the national deficit is certainly never a bad thing, it is not enough money to make a huge difference. The deficit is already around $1.5 trillion what good does losing $30 billion do? Like I said, it is never a bad thing, but that money could be spent in places where it would be much more appreciated and have a more significant impact on Americans.

3. Like everyone else, the founders of the United States made some important contributions and screwed other things up. What did the founders do well and what did they do badly? There were many lasting, important contributions that the Founding Fathers made to the United States. The Founders created a form of government that, for the time period, was completely revolutionary. After a successful war for their independence, in which they defeated a great imperial power, England, they were able to develop a lasting form of government, which was free of all the things about England s government which made them leave in the first place. If the Founders had not not done the things right that they had, their government probably would not have lasted as long as it did, but because they did these things right, the government has lasted for almost two hundred and thirty years. The Founding Fathers were able to write a Constitution which has survived for more than two hundred years of political battle and disagreement. This constitution has endured the test of time, being able to sustain a complete change of culture. Through it all though, the Constitution stayed, and still remains the foundation of our government. Another key aspect of the government created by the Founding Fathers is there is freedom of religion. In all other civilizations leading up to America, that didn t have an established religion. In all of these other cultures, including England s, if you were caught practicing another religion, you could be jailed or even killed. One of the main reasons the pilgrims came to the United States in the first place, was to escape the chains of required religion and still today, Americans are allowed to practice whatever religion they want freely without any risk of injury. Also, the United States democracy was the first form of government that wasn t led by one person, a king or a queen. The Founders were able to establish a form of government which had gave three groups of people equal power in order to maintain fairness and hold everyone accountable. Through these three groups, political parties were established as a way for people who hold similar ideas to get together, and be able to voice those opinions together, fairly. This is like nothing no civilization had ever witnessed before. Despite all of the successes of the Founding Fathers, there were a few things that they were not able to get right. First and foremost, they were not able to create equality among different groups of people. Slavery would continue to go on for many years to come, and would ultimately lead to the only true flaw in our government, the Civil War. If they had done a better job handling slavery and the treatment of African-Americans, then perhaps they would have been more successful and the Civil War may have never happened. Blacks were not the only group that didn t receive fair treatment from the founders though women and Native Americans didn t see equality until long after all of the Founding

Fathers had died. Clearly, at the time, they didn t see the treatment of all three of these groups as a main concern, but now that we look back at it and study them, it is clearly something they should have worked to establish some sort of ground rules towards these groups so that they would have been treated more fairly sooner than they were. Finally, while the Constitution has survived the test of time which is amazing, democracy is still an incredibly difficult form of government in which it is very difficult to make changes. Because there are three different groups which all have equal power (the three branches), it is often very difficult to get bills or acts passed because with so many people involved in the process, one of the people along the way has to have a problem with something, slowing things down. The Fathers should have found a way to make it easier for things to pass through the House, Senate, the President and the Supreme Court. If they had done this, it is possible, especially in today s day and age, that more may be able to get accomplished.

4. In Profiles in Courage, John Kennedy praises United Senators who voted against the wishes of their constituents in order to do what the legislators thought was right for the country. In a representative democracy, is it right for legislators to resist the will of their constituents even if the senators believe the people of their state are wrong? Cite specific examples from the book. I believe that as an American citizen, I will always want my senator to vote in ways which represents how I, or the majority of my community would vote, no matter what. A senator should never go against the will of his constituents. People who argue that a senator does have the right to go against the will of his constituents would say that as long as they truly felt that their vote was the what was best for the country, it was ok to go against his constituents wishes. As our Introduction to American Democracy professor has taught us so many times in class, Senators and members of the government work for the people, so it is their job to vote how their constituents would vote. The American people give a lot of freedom to our representatives to go into the Senate and vote how we would vote, to truly represent us, and when they do not, it can be upsetting. If a senator feels that his people are voting in the wrong way, then it is his job to go out and convince the people why. Sometimes the people just don t know all of the facts, or need something clarified, in which case a senator speaking to them would be extremely helpful. In Profiles and Courage, John F. Kennedy discusses the courage which Senator Sam Houston showed in 1854 when voting about whether or not to repeal the Missouri Compromise. If repealed, and it was expected to, residents of the territory from Iowa to the Rockies would be able to determine, themselves, whether or not slavery would be legal. Senator Houston was the first Senator of Texas a

born and bred Southern democrat. However when it came to the voting, Senator Houston did not vote for his people, and despite this being a bill which was definitely going to be passed, he voted against it. While I am by no means saying I support slavery, he never should have voted against this bill. It is admirable, but as the first senator of Texas, it was not his job to vote for what he thought was right, it was job to vote for what his people thought was right. If he wanted to vote against this bill and have it be accepted, he should have been a senator in Texas. Sam Houston must have known the bill would pass, he must have known that not a single other Southern Democrat would join him, he must have known that, as a rumor of his position had spread the previous week, the Richmond Enquirer had spoken for his constituents in declaring, Nothing can justify this treachery; nor can anything save the traitor from the deep damnation which such treason may merit (Kennedy, 95). The vote ultimately passed 73 to 3 and Houston was left being hated by the majority of his constituents. While his courage to take a risk and vote against his constituents his admirable, it didn t make a difference in history either way because the bill was passed and because its his job to vote how his people want him to, and he did not do that. A similar situation occurred for Robert A. Taft when he was strongly opposed to the Nuremberg War Crimes Trials. He felt that trying people for crimes which were legal when they were committed was a direct violation of the Constitution. He was only trying to protect the Constitution and avoid disobeying it, but everyone saw him as unpatriotic and a traitor. He had been trying to run for president, but his stand on the trials led to a unsuccessful campaign and he was not elected. He tried to stand up and avoid getting back at the enemy (the Nazis) through vengeance. Unfortunately, this was a time period in American history where nearly everyone hated the Nazis and agreed with the trials. His support was few and far in between, and he would never become president something he had dreamt about for a very long time.

5. In Profiles in Courage, Kennedy honors the careers of several U.S. Senators. Which two Senators do you admire most? Why those two? Which senator should not have been on the list? Why not? Before I discuss those senators which I admire the most of all that John F. Kennedy talked about, I am going to discuss the one senator which I felt should not have been in Kennedy s collection of admirable senators. Daniel Webster, at first, seemed like a legitimate candidate to be one of the most admirable senators in Kennedy s collection, but that was completely ruined when Kennedy started talking about how he felt that he was greatly underpaid. I believe that in no way should he be

considered an admirable senator when he accepted favors not as gifts but as services which he believed were rightly due to him. I don t care how good of a senator you are; I lose all respect for someone like this. Daniel Webster s sense of entitlement is one of the main problems in politics today. For some reason politicians forget that they are working for us, the people. Senator Daniel Webster was a senator of and for the people and should in no way have felt a sense of entitlement. This take away all of the respect he had earned as a political person. He wasn t doing his job; therefore, he should not have been on Kennedy s list of admirable senators. One senator whose career was rightly highlighted in Kennedy s book was, George Norris. This is someone who I believe truly represents American politics and what it should be about. One reason why I admire him the most is he was willing to stand up to people with more power than him. In 1910, as a young representative, he proposed and surprisingly was able to pass a reform bill which stripped most of the power from Speaker Joe Cannon ( Czar Cannon). While this made him very unpopular with Cannon, it showed that he was willing to stand up to someone more powerful than him, and not be afraid. What I liked most about Norris though, was his willingness to truly work for the people. In 1917, when President Woodrow Wilson asked Congress permission to put guns on ships even though the U.S. wasn t technically in the war yet, most Americans were for it, and ready to go to war. But Norris was against and him and another congressman were able to get Congress to deny Wilson the right. This however didn t last long because as President, Wilson is Commander in Chief and had the power to put the guns on the ship without Congress s approval. What I like about what Norris did though, was when he realized he wasn t voting for the people, he was voting for what he thought was right, he wrote to the Governor of Nebraska and offered to resign from the Senate. He wasn t doing what was in the people s best interest. While the Governor was deciding, he went around to his constituents to explain his point of view and try to sway them. This is a perfect example of what a Senator should do for his constituents, and I wish more senators, especially my senator from home, would act like this. The final Senator which I admired most from Profiles in Courage was, John Quincy Adams. Not only was he one of the most important men in the history of the country, but he did not let the chains of political parties shape his ideas and mold how he acted. Adams entered Congress as a Federalist in 1803 until finally in 1807 when he finally made his final split with them. On almost every single issue, he voted against his party, never conforming to their ideas just to remain in the party. More politicians nowadays should look to how John Quincy Adams worked as a model for how they should work in Congress.

Politicians cannot be afraid of sticking with their political parties. They must be willing to step out, and stand for what is right.