City Politics, Edward Banfield And James Wilson

In 2013, the NFL’s Vikings and the The Minnesota Metropolitan Sports Facilities Authority (MSFA) agreed to construction guidelines for the new Vikings stadium. Replacing the eyesore of the Hubert H. Humphrey Metrodome, the new stadium called for a modern design with a glass façade that would reflect Minneapolis’s downtown. While the design seemed innocuous to most, ornithologists immediately objected to the plan: large expanses of glass would confuse migrating birds by reflecting the sky. The birds would careen into the stadium, injuring or killing themselves. The Minnesota Audubon Society became a champion for the issue, launching a campaign calling for the stadium to be constructed with less reflective, bird-safe glass. The installation

In his monograph, William Cooper’s Town: Power and Persuasion on the Frontier of the Early American Republic, Alan Taylor uses the life of William Cooper, a man who rose from humble beginnings to become a land speculator and a member of the U.S. Congress, to depict the transitions that occurred on the frontier of the early American Republic. He proves that William’s life is a pure example of the transition happening in the frontier communities of America, in terms of politics and society. In Taylor’s thesis, the American Revolution created opportunities for new men to make money and to build a name for themselves. The Revolution left behind a legacy of equality, and with the expansion of the settlers, values of the colonial past were questioned,

“Sometimes the easiest way to solve a problem is to stop participating in the problem”

Political machines and the reformers who rallied against them had incredible influence in urban politics in the 19th and early 20th century. Each, however, has been labeled as corrupt monopolies and are seen as selfish towards their own goals. While there are tactics that worked to help cities grow stronger, the value of equal voting for all citizens was compromised in each regime’s quest for power.

Summary: In Chapter 1, Hudson addresses the distorted views of democracy from modern-day Americans. He explains how separation of power within the government lessens the power of American citizens and ultimately alters the ideology behind a true democracy into what we have today.

Government, all the way from Capitol Hill down to the small cities across the nation, is filled with the elected officials who represent the citizens of that city and state. When people think about who represents them, who comes to mind first? The Senator? The Representative? The mayor? Despite being categorized at different levels of the government, state and federal, each of these officials are tasked with representing their state and hometowns, and each of their jobs is just as important as the other. Their job, in short, is to represent the interests of the people who elected them into office. In this essay, I will identify the individuals who represent me and evaluate the extent to which I feel represented.

In 1863, Abraham Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address defined the American government as an institution “of the people, by the people, [and] for the people”. Lincoln had an idealistic view of the government as an instrument for societal change. He, as well as the founding fathers, intended for the government to act in support of the people’s will or the majority rule. This democratic definition of the government has remained true throughout the course of American history. By placing all of its power on its citizens, the government itself did not decide the course of history but rather followed it. This follower mindset is seen through the government’s positive interactions with marginalized groups’ who in their attempts to overcome exclusion gained

In contrast, hyperpluralism is a theory that explains politics in a more relatable way. No one governs instead power is “thinly scattered”. Lawrence states how “the exercise of political power has become a highly competitive tug-of-war between institutions, policymakers, political parties, numerous interest groups, and voters” (14). There are ample amounts of evidence in California politics. There are several components that contribute to this evidence such as individualism in political life, growing diversity of group interests, and a change in the “nature of majoritarian

When I think about a political community, I usually associate it with elections, politicians, and advertisements that bad mouth candidates from the different political parties. Politicians try to persuade citizens to vote for them by making promises that they may never fulfill. But a political community is more than that. A comparison of Aristotle and John Locke’s nature and purpose of a political community has given me a new insight. I learned that, even though the political community is responsible to provide security, its main purpose is aimed for the highest good of all its citizens, which is virtue and happiness.

The United States has experienced fundamental changes that are dramatically detrimental to democracy. Voters’ ability to define political discourse has been so diminished that even decisive election results like Barack Obama’s in 2012 have little impact. That’s because powerful interests — freed to, in effect, buy elections, unhindered by downsized and diffused media that must rely on revenue from campaign ads — now set the rules of engagement. Lobbying involves working to bring pressure to bear on policy makers to gain favorable policy outcomes. In order to accomplish their goals, interest groups develop a strategy or plan of action and execute it through specific tactics. The particular strategies developed and the specific tactics used, however, vary widely both among and within political

This Federalist arguments on the limitations of mass participation also has its merits in a modern context, where voters are often indifferent, uninformed, and easily manipulated in an increasingly technological world. What Fishkin defines as “rational ignorance,” in which citizens are not motivated to go out of their way to learn and form rational opinions on policies, supports Madison’s fears. One aspect of rational ignorance illustrates the tendency of voters to vote only on policy issues relevant to them. For instance, farmers under a mass participatory system may vote only on issues related to agriculture, while remaining ignorant on other issues

The U.S. government’s expansive role in public policy is caught in a swirl of conflicting cross-currents. On the one hand, popular expectations about government’s

Politics is an integral part of our society, and in order for the citizens of any society, or a county to protect their rights and interest, electing the right people, and right theories are necessary. When it comes to government, Elitism and Pluralism are two systems which can be used as a structure of how the powers will be distributed. While the theory of Elitism prefers the distribution of power to be based on wealth, ancestry and intellect; Pluralism theory is much more diverse in the distribution of power, as it ensures equality for everyone, regardless of any differences. Pluralism serves as the model of modern western democracy. In the case of Baltimore, the pluralist theory is much more efficient due to its views on authority, rights

The government in the United States supposedly revolves around American ideals such as equality and diversity; however, this is simply not the case as perpetuated by class inequalities. The meaning of democracy has been skewed in the United States to represent something entirely different than it did in 1776. Today, American democracy behaves more like an aristocracy, where the upper class exercises power within the government and state, influencing discourse and therefore the laws and resources in our country, which are purportedly “for the people”. Democracy is presumed to provide everyone with equal political power, but the government in today’s America, although seemingly following this ideal model, does not. Instead, the elite upper class has a monopoly over the political influence and are the sole benefactors from public policies due to their influence over the policy making process. The upper class has an overall benefit from class inequality, as it greatly impacts American ‘democracy’ through the significant power gained through money and status, leadership roles that impact government, and the influence in the policymaking process that creates upper class advantages.

Many of the theories covered this term view “policy subsystems,” as a relatively small group of administrators, legislators, and lobbyists who controlled basic public