The 2010 Midterm Elections

On November 2, 2010 at least 36 of the 100 seats in the Senate and all House seats are up for election. Though the Democrats have been dominant in the recent elections, maybe things are about to change. Since the vote on U.S. health care, CNN.com reports that more than 10 Democrats have reported trouble. Many will argue that these violent acts against Democratic Congress members are a political statement. It definitely seems that the population is expressing anger towards the health care plan, mainly a Democratic sponsored bill.

The House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer and South Carolina Democratic Representative James Clyburn spoke out against the attacks, quoting that democracy "is not about violence." It is not proven that it is only Republican citizens and not just a generally angered population. House Minority Leader John Boehner has made it public that he urges opponents to demonstrate legally. He makes a strong point that "If people are angry, they ought to register to vote and get involved in a campaign."

From shouting racial slurs to African-American House Democrats, to spitting on Massachusetts' Democratic Congressman Barney Frank and shouting anti-gay slangs when he is openly gay, the American population has gone too far. Be smart and voice your opinion legally at the voting booth.

Republican radio shows are voicing their opinions early that they may see some gained support for their party in the upcoming election. However, this may just be a false hope when in reality, Republicans have not held up well in recent elections. With the new revolutionary Tea Party, Republicans may also lose some of their votes to candidates of the Tea Party. The current party structure in Congress may not change much, but there is an evident change in the views of our population.

Here's a wild idea to help get us out of some debt: focus on business which is arguably the main driver of our economy. Get rid of some of the regulations and taxes on businesses in the United States, and try and get back the companies that left to produce cheaper in other countries. Bring more production to our homeland and maybe a stronger dollar would persuade banks to start lending. Any small change could lead to bigger progress in fixing our hurting economy.

Impractical Politics

America, you are living beyond your means. You spend more than you earn. You take on loans without establishing a way to pay them off. You aid others where you have not yet helped yourself. It is time you act responsibly. It doesn't matter whether you're politically liberal or conservative, what you need is to be politically practical.

To the Democrats of America: we need to cut spending. These cuts cannot come solely from the defense budget. The money that we save from these cuts or that we make from raised taxes cannot be funneled into welfare programs. Redirecting funds is not the same thing as removing them. We cannot afford the many programs you propose. Government has a responsibility to protect the welfare of its citizens, yes, but that is exactly what it is doing by being fiscally responsible.

To the Republicans of America: we need to raise taxes. We will never return to a smaller, decentralized government; we have gone too far. We cannot get by cutting programs alone. You need to allow taxes to be raised. By working together we can do more than by working individually. While some individuals are successful on their own, society can accomplish more if it cooperates.

To the disenfranchised of America: we need you involved. It is unlikely that your candidates will win; America is not structured to accommodate three parties. We need you to martyr yourselves. While your candidates may not win seats, your voices are heard and do influence American politics. It is better to see some gains rather than none at all.

To the apathetic of America: we need you to inform yourselves about the issues and then to participate in politics. Democracy cannot work without an informed and active citizenry. The government is not representing you unless you make yourself heard. It is in your own best interest to participate.

To the politicians of America: we need you to take responsibility. You need to convince Americans to vote for whom they think the best candidate is rather than who they think will win. You have to convince them of your issues, not of your popularity. Stop trying to please us. This may sound insane, like political suicide; it might be. It is necessary, the unpopular decisions are the ones most needed. We need to cut programs and raise taxes in order for democracy in America to remain viable.

Obama will be a one term president

Barring a complete reversal of the way President Obama is currently running his administration, Obama will be a one term president. Even if we ignore all of the recent polls showing significant drops in both his approval and the Democratic parties, the writing is still on the wall. We will ignore these poll results since we are just under 3 years away from the next presidential election and everyone knows that public opinion can change within a few weeks time. What we can't ignore however are President Obama's legislative priorities and lack of fiscal conservativeness.

Whats that? You say President Bush wasn't any better when it came to spending? I'll give you that President Bush was bad...but Obama is worse, and he's only had one year in office so far compared to Bush's eight. According to CNSNews and the last CBO report Bush averaged 20.4% spending of the GDP. Obama? Try 24.1% of GDP. That's a 3.7% increase in just one year! On top of that the the government under Obama had a deficit of 1.412 TRILLION dollars, compared to the previous high in 2008 of 458.5 billion dollars. While I'll give you that some of the spending during his 2009 term was carry over from President Bush's administration, Obama was still responsible for signing the $787 billion stimulus package, and with unemployment continuing to grow, that money was obviously not well spent. So lets go ahead and throw out the 2009 numbers for a minute since some of that was from President Bush's administration. Instead lets look at the projected numbers for the 2010 budget. 1.5 TRILLION dollars...not only is it not going down, he's actually managed to increase it over the previous year.

Now I'm like most people who think we spend too much money on health care, and I'd love to see some kind of reform in the system. However, I don't believe the time for that reform is now. President Obama's current health care reform, in his own words, is only projected to reduce the deficit over the next decade. That reduction in deficit is only in the billions over that time period. So here he is spending 1.5 trillion a year while at the same time touting that his health care reform bill will save us 200+ billion over the next 10 years. WOW, that's some kind of savings there! Sarcasm aside, President Obama needs to change his priorities over the next 3 years if he wants to even think of having a bid for reelection. Health care reform needs to happen, but not until after the economy is back on the mend and the unemployment rate goes down. I agree people are having a tough time paying for health insurance, but that's probably because over 10% of the population is jobless right now. Hard to pay for something when your out of work.

President Obama, you need to focus on the economy and unemployment rate, THEN you can move on to your social reforms.

Refocusing on Education

President Obama is pushing for a 3.5 billion dollar revamp of the Bush administrations No Child Left Behind Act. CNN.com reports that the goal of this overhaul is to change the focus entirely. The Bush administration created the bill back in 2001 and did so in order to track school progress and success with standardized tests in grades 1 through 8. The law was ultimately a failure. The plan was to have every student in the country on their grade reading level by 2014; but it wasn't funded nearly as much as it should have been. Now the Obama administration wants to, instead of having every student at their grade reading level by 2014, make sure that by 2020 everyone graduating high school is college or career ready. They want to make sure that teachers and principals are effective; and if they aren't, that theyre being fired. Instead of dummying down our expectations so that every student, teacher, and school can easily reach them without putting forth any real effort, the Obama campaign wants to strain the system. They want to reestablish the US among the smartest countries in the world, a list that we have fallen too far down on.
Its about damn time that the government did something about our education system. Teachers are way under paid, our work force is getting dumber, and we as a country are too busy focusing on our military and GDP. The youth represent the future, and education is only going to brighten that. Enough with kids dropping out of school or not going to college because their teachers made them hate learning; enough with teachers under achieving or being under paid; and enough with the belief that teachers are all the same because they are not. Great teachers are extremely rare, but have the potential to inspire children and young adults to do incredible things. The future lies in the minds of this country's youth, their future lies within their education, their education lies in the hands of their teachers; so in the end the teachers have the ability to influence the future, lets start paying them like their job has some significance.
I mean how many times do you drop a class because of a teacher? Or even pick a class because of a teacher? Imagine if you could have done that in elementary school? College has options, whereas middle school and high school really do not. Now Im not saying that teachers are always the reason why kids drop out of school or dont do well in classes, because that simply is not the truth. Some kids just do not try, they bluntly do not care; and there isnt much to be done about that. But lets say we removed every single ineffective teacher and replaced them with inspirational ones. Would we see improvements in grades, graduation rates, college attendence, etc.? You bet.

Political Parties, Elections and Interest Groups: The unequal distribution of wealth among single women of color

Political Parties, Elections and Interest Groups: The unequal distribution of wealth among single women of color

The unequal distribution of wealth among single women of color

In a new report by the Insight Center of Economic and Community Development we find out some staggering statistics. Black and Latino women in the United States are earning far less than their single white female peers. The annual median wealth of a Black women was $100 dollars and female Latino women had a median wealth of 120$. In contrast the annual median wealth of a single white woman was 41,500 dollars. This is not a slight difference, but one showing substantial inequality in income and assets. The report concluded that about half of Black and Latino women had negative wealth, indicating that their debts were more than their assets. The growing problem of debt among Americans is growing, especially among minorities, and this study highlights that problem even more. This study indicates what could be serious setback to the future generations of minorities in this country. There seems to be a serious problem in the disruption of wealth among races and gender, which is inhibiting the prospect of racial equality in the United States. This study comes as and argument for more social programs that directly help benefit minority groups who are not getting the same opportunities to increase wealth as their white counterparts. Affirmative Action and other similar programs are always being argued, but I personally can’t see how these programs could not be addressed. It is apparent that this inequality among races is only going to further damage the status of minorities in the United States and slow the economy as a whole. It is imperative to do something about this and do something now!!!

War on Soft Drinks Bubbles out of Schools

I hope everyone is ready for a new pointless tax!!!! Do you enjoy drinking soda? Well get ready for a new tax on all those sugary beverages. "New York has revived a proposal to impose a penny per ounce tax on sweetened beverages" Colorado and Illinois already have these taxes and California is currently considering it. Former President Bill Clinton had brought this issue to the forefront when he tackled the issue of child obesity and soda vending machines in schools. Now the need to deter adults from buying these beverages is being addressed. A 2 liter bottle of coke would cost 62 cents more then whatever it costs now. But does this slight price increase really have any chance of reducing the demand for soda? Most New Yorkers actually support this tax, but that doesn't mean it will do what its proposed to. The issue has been floating around the federal level but is left to individual states to decide what to do. I personally don't drink soda but if I did, then I don't really think it would make a difference. I don't think that would make a difference to anyone to be quite honest. How much would that mean for extremely sugary drinks like energy drinks? Many will be surprised to find out that Vitamin Water will be taxed just as much as coke considering the hidden amount of calories and grams of sugar it has. According to Wall Street Journal, these taxes will help to pay for President Obama's health care reform. is this a valid response to American obesity or is legislation completely off base here?


Link used: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/03/08/eveningnews/main6279674.shtml?tag=contentMain;contentBody
http://www.livescience.com/health/090512-soda-tax.html

Extending unemployment insurance

The job market within our economy has not been doing well lately. The unemployment rate has been increasing in the past few years. The amount of unemployed persons within the United States is still growing to this day. When there are so many people who continue to lose their jobs something needs to be done. Our own people are on their own to fend for themselves and come up with a way to pay for the cost of living.

This week the senate brought up a bill that would extend the unemployment insurance for persons unemployed in our country. This help from the government is for long term unemployed American citizens. It will consist of tax breaks and extend health insurance subsidies for the unemployed. It will give unemployment checks out to the long term unemployed past the original twenty six week unemployment packages. According to yahoonews.com and foxnews.com the estimated cost of this extension will be about $66 billion. This will add to the already $1.6 trillion budget.

It seems to me that there are not many people supporting this bill outside of the democrats. They say that this bill is going to renew many tax cuts. They also say that this bill will help to preserve jobs in this emergency state. Another point was that it is heartless to stop helping out the unemployed and to cut these people off. The comment from the White House Press secretary about the bill was “This is one more step forward as we fight to get American people back to work and support families that have been hit the hardest in these economic times”.

With all of this said I cannot agree. I know that unemployment is a big problem; however, there is no need to just keep handing out money to the unemployed. People need to get jobs to get out of the situation that they are in. If they are just being supplied money than many people will not work towards making money. They will just continue to get money handed to them. This bill does not talk about helping create jobs or finding more jobs for the unemployed it only gives out money to them. How does this help in the long run? This bill is only acting in the here and now, not for the future. The billions that would go into this would not be worth it if it only puts us more in debt in the long run and doesn’t create jobs for these unemployed people. This bill shows many of the stimulious bill qualities from last year, which did not help our economy very much. Do we really want to put ourselves more in debt with a bill that only helps within the moment??????

Roberts Slams 'Pep Rally' Scene At State Of Union

I am sure that everyone has heard about the supreme courts ruling in the Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission case. That will definitely have a large impact on elections. The real thing that caught me off guard about all of this was how the Supreme Court Justice's and Chief Justice John Roberts were angered by President Obama's comments and felt the entire state of the union event was a "pep rally". It also seemed odd how Chief Justice Robert's felt the need for Supreme Court Justice's to be present at these state of the union events was outdated and unneccessary.

It is understandable that Chief Justice Robert's feels disrespected because anyone in his situation would likely feel the same way. However, for him to criticize the President's choice of where he was to address this important case ruling does not make sense. Either way President Obama would have voiced his thoughts on the matter. It would be somewhat cowardly to do it through media outlets. It also would not come across and get the same public reaction if he had spoken to the supreme court justices in private either. It was a state of the union address. The ruling in this case was very important and definitely should have been mentioned.

As far as the Supereme Court Justice's not wanting to be present at the state of the union event's anymore, I think that is a childish move. They work in one of the most cut-throat societies in the world and their job entails making decisions on cases that will affect hundreds of millions of people. They have a right to be upset, but for them to think that they should not have to be subjected to public criticism in public is immature. The more importance a job carries usually translates into more criticism and public scrutiny.

This court ruling will have a large impact on elections, interest groups and political parties. I know that all of the Supreme Court Justice's are intelligent people with years of experience in the field of law. However, I feel that they got this decision wrong. They may have opened up a door to another set of problems. It seems like all this talk and movement towards government regulation may have caused some counter moves, like the ruling in this case, to balance things out. Corporate greed and frugal management are some of the reasons our country is in this mess. Allowing them to spend large amounts on their interest's in the political arena has never seemed like a good idea.

When a ruling is in place for over a hundred years it might be a good thing. It did not damage, disgrace or unfairly treat anyone or anything. It kept big business out of politics. Political campaigns are already at all-time high costs, so why would a ruling be made to allow even more spending and financial aspects to be involved?

Here's the link to the article I read:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=124537470

Senators: Lift Ban on Gays Donating Blood

As the times are changing and gay marriage is being more socially acceptable in cultures, 18 Democratic Senators around the United States are ready to address another discrimination due to sexual-orientation. Unfortunately, men who have had sex with other men between 1977 and the present are unable to donate blood despite their impeccable health due to the 1983 ban. Blood that is donated goes through a very lengthy scientific testing process and has never proven blood from men who have had sex with other men to be harmful. Gay rights is a very prominent political issue and the abolition of this ban will be another step forward for gay right activists. I understand that during the high risk period of HIV/AIDS this policy was set because of the community belief that gay men were having unprotected sex and continuously spreading the virus. But times have changed and protection as well as awareness is every where. Heterosexuals are just as sexually risky as homosexual males yet they can donate as much blood as they wish. Without any scientific proof, how can a high-tech society like ours, back up this clearly discriminatory ban? Blood banks need donors, and turning away healthy individuals because of their sexual orientation is unconstitutional. My question is will the Republicans jump on the banwagon, haha no pun intended ;), and recognize the constititutional violation or will conservatism once again take over? Where is the FDA on this issue and how has this policy not been addressed until now? Personally, I believe everyone should be able to donate blood and using a silly defense like "I don't want to recieve a transfusion of gay blood" is ignorant. People never know who the donor is, just that they need it to save their lives. When it comes down to saving a life a silly matter like this shouldn't be a factor. Yay for the democrats in moving forward and trying overcome sexual orientation discrimination! What do you think about the issue? Should men who have had sex with another man be allowed to donate blood or is the ban in place for a reason?

Left rallies against Blanche Lincoln

Could it be that a politically disappointed left wing of the Democratic Party is finally getting angry enough to funnel money into "change"? According to Politico.com the left wing of the Democratic party has decided that President Obama's mandate for change is being blocked not just by members of the Republican party but by Democratic Congressmen (in this case Congresswomen) such as Blanche Lincoln the incumbent Senator running in Arkansas.

Senator Lincoln has certainly been on the wrong side of the issues according to those on the left, including refusal to support card check legislation, efforts to block the EPA from regulating greenhouse gases and a variety of other hot button issues. Senator Lincoln is also being criticized for her opposition to the public option as well as cap and trade emissions policies. Daily Kos founder Markos Moulitsas wrote of Lincoln's opponent "Bill Halter will rescue the Democratic establishment from itself and help us hold a seat Lincoln is guaranteed to lose". This view is one that is currently being shared by many on the left with Lincoln's primary opponent Bill Halter being able to raise over $5 million from the likes of Sierra Club, AFL-CIO, Communications Workers of America, United Steel Workers, Progressive Change Committee, as well as a host of other interest groups.

This is shaping up to be a huge battle between a first term lieutenant governor and someone many on the left view as a protector of corporate interests and obstructor to change. I would like to take this minute to remind Senator Lincoln that the American people overwhelmingly voted in the mandate of change in the 2008 election and if she chooses to continue with her conservative policies she might want to consider running as an Independent or switch to the other sides of the aisle. This effort by organized labor/PAC's etc. is commendable and wouldn't it be great if more people who said they represented a party and who consistently chose viewpoints that differed greatly from the party were then purged through competitive primaries such as this one?

I will certainly be watching anxiously election returns on this one.

Cory Flack

Abortion being a key factor in health overhaul.

I know that it's not everyone's favorite topic to discuss, but abortion has somehow got itself back into the political limelight after a little hiatus. More important issues like a recession and military efforts have been receiving more discussion over the past couple of years, but abortion is back and playing a large role in one of the biggest bills this country may ever come across.
Some members of the house and senate have big decisions looming for them. They can vote for the healthcare bill (that now will only require 51 votes in the senate) and go against their pro-life belief or not vote for it and play a large role in the possible demise of a bill that would drastically change our country.
A lot of the pro-life supporters view this healthcare bill as a proponent for abortions. They point to a $7 billion investment to community health centers that may or may not offer abortions. Abortions are not even discussed in the healthcare bill and many politicians have stated that this healthcare bill will not include abortions because of the same stance they have had for the last 30 years. That stance being that the federal government will not pay for abortions.
This scenario is very interesting on both ends because you have two groups of people that can look somewhat hypocritical. Some politicians can look hypocritical by voting for something that seemingly goes against one of their core beliefs (pro-life). You also have the pro-life supporters who are against a bill that would provide health insurance to millions. Considering how many people die every year from lack of health insurance it would seem that anyone voting this bill down would be the opposite of pro-life. I know pro-life pertains to abortions, but it is hard to not look hypocritical when you claim to be pro-life; yet you vote a bill down that would undoubtedly save lives.
Abortion is not an easy topic to debate at all. However, I feel it is not big enough to get in the way of passing this monumental healthcare bill. There have been way too many obstacles already and one more is not needed. The pro-life supporters need to put their pride and religous beliefs on hold for a couple more months. This bill needs to be passed. Millions of people may miss out on the opportunity of a lifetime because of old values that some people will never let go off.

Here's the link to the NPR article:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=124265069

It is time again for the annoying polling calls, endless ads, and verbal sparring that is the American electoral process. The November 2010 Mid-Term elections are fast approaching, with many politicians already at work campaigning. Up for grabs in the Senate are 36 vacant seats. If the special election of Republican Scott Brown was any indicator of the way mid-term elections might go, the Democratic Majority in the Senate could be challenged. These elections will be intriguing to watch, in a political era were one misstep can ruin a candidates chances. Already months before November there have been mistakes made by candidates that could prove to be detrimental in many races. Advances in technology, economic instability and general discontent with government have made this 2010 mid-term election candidate especially vulnerable to criticism, exposure, and the possible detrimental down fall of their candidacy. Gaffs while increasing a candidate’s exposure also put them under extreme scrutiny in the public eye. Will Gaffs cost election for some or only give them increased publicity.

2010 Senate Race Gaffs

Arkansas: State Senate Minority leader Kim Hendren (R) ,who is set to run against the incumbent Blanche Lincoln, has gotten into so some trouble for referring to Senator Chuck Schumer (D) from New York as “the Jew”. Hendren was the guest speaker at a 2009 Pulaski County Republican Committee meeting, during which he was answering questions from his constituents mainly questions about tax increases Hendren supported in the Arkansas Senate. Especially a cigarette tax increase and Hendren’s refusal to sign the “no tax pledge” were in question. In today’s world of Twitter, Texting and Blogging, everything a politician says is accounted for, one tweet from the meeting said that “Hendren is getting eaten alive. It’s getting ugly” during the question and answer session. (Tolbert The Tolbert Report)

At one point during the meeting a question about an appearance of Senator Chuck Schumer on MSNBC during which he stated “The hard right, which still believes that when the Federal Government moves, we chop off its hands, still believes in the traditional values kind of arguments, in strong foreign policy, all that is over.” Well addressing these statements Kim Hendren referred to Chuck Schumer as “the Jew” or “that Jew”. This Gaff while seemingly significant in its own accord was made worse when Hendren apologized about his statements to the Arkansas Blog The Tolbert Report by stating ““At the meeting I was attempting to explain that unlike Sen. Schumer, I believe in traditional values, like we used to see on ‘The Andy Griffith Show.’ I made the mistake of referring to Sen. Schumer as ‘that Jew’ and I should not have put it that way as this took away from what I was trying to say.” Hendren offered up another excuse to an Arkansas paper by saying that “he referred to Sen. Schumer as a Jew because he had trouble remembering his name” (Tolbert The Tolbert Report)

Arkansas incumbent Blanche Lincoln in all reality does not face the likelihood of defeat. However, candidate Hendren has been given free publicity from his Gaffe; he’s made it all the way to national news.

Nevada- It is impossible not to bring up Harry Reid (D) when talking about the political blunders that have been made by 2010 senatorial candidates. While Reid is the senior Senator from Nevada, serving in the Senate since 1987 he made a significant blunder. In the novel Game Change by John Heilemann and Mark Halperin they refer to some racial comments Reid made about Barack Obama. According to the book Reid described Obama as “light-skinned' African American 'with no Negro dialect unless he wanted to have one, whom many voters would embrace. (Powers January 11, 2010) While these statements were made privately and Reid has apologized for them the damage was still done. Republicans have used Reids off hand remarks to their fullest advantage, claiming double standards within parties. There was no shortage of coverage over Reid’s comments, his incumbicency could be hurt. “In Nevada, where 77% of eligible African Americans voted in 2008” what are those people thinking of Harry Reid now. The idea that he is an out of touch older white male is deferentially an issue. He apologized for his remarks and has the support of the Democratic party

.

The issue of his comment isn’t going to go away the Tea Party group has announced “that it would launch $100,000 in anti-Reid TV ads this week in Nevada.” Reid’s comments have the potential to cost him the election.

These are just two examples of how incredibly difficult the 2010 elections have the potential to be. It is already estimated that this campaign season will be the most expensive in history and that is without a presidential candidacy. All candidates are under the microscope which could have potential to take away from the real issues. While both these men made truly distasteful remarks does that fact nesicarily negate their competency to do the job? On the same token the press exposure from these missteps is immense which could benefit some of the lesser known candidates. The distaste Americans feel for the political system is being surmounted by the availability of technology. This will certainly be an interesting election season, who knows what someone will say or mess up next.

Powers, Ashley. "Reid's remarks threaten to change his game." The LA Times, January 11, 2010: http://articles.latimes.com/2010/jan/11/nation/la-na-reid11-2010jan11.

Tolbert, Jason. Sen. Kim Hendren: Without a Teleprompter! (UPDATE II – Hendren’s New Explanation. May 2009 The Tolbert Report. http://tolbertreport.com/2009/05/14/sen-kim-hendren-without-a-teleprompter/ (accessed March 2, 2010).

Blogging Schedule

Please be sure to post by Thursday of the week you signed up for (or were assigned). Be sure to read and comment on the postings of your classmates. You may post more than the two required posts!!!

Week of 3/1
Jane S.
Amber L.
Mike C.
Cory F.

Week of 3/8
Amber L.
Mike C.
Nicole W.
Cory F.

Week of 3/15
Brett P.
James G.
Quinn W.
Chris S.

Week of 3/29
Jane S.
Chris S.
Dave T.
Jonathan A.

Week of 4/5
Nicole W.
Kendra B.
Erin R.
Melissa M.

Week of 4/12
Tristan N.
Shawn H.
Nate G.
Grant L.

Week of 4/19
Brett P.
James G.
Dave T.
Erin R.

Week of 4/26
Kendra B.
Melissa M.
Tristan N.
Shawn H.

Week of 5/3
Jonathan A.
Nate G.
Timothy P.
Chris R.

Week of 5/10
Grant L.
Timothy P.
Chris R.
Quinn W.

Blog on!

The Political Spectrum

We touched on the political spectrum in class today and I felt I would give my own interpretation.

There have been thousands of explanations of the political spectrum. Sites such as Moral Politics and Political Compass give their own unique interpretations of the spectrum. Political compass divides beliefs between "authoritarian" v. "libertarian" and "left v. right." It sees the divide between left and right to be economic, while authoritarianism and libertarianism are seen to be differing levels social governance. Moral Politics on the other hand draws a line between moral dimensions. Moral order is seen to be how much moral authority one believes another has over others, which defines which political ideal one ascribes to. Moral rules is seen to be what controls must be put into place in order to achieve that ideal, whether you believe in collective or individual initiatives. In the end, most systems balance an idea of individualism v. collectivism or self-sufficience v. state-reliance.

I have provided a diagram of my own system below.

I divide the political spectrum into social controls and economic controls. The majority of Americans are centrists whose opinions do not stray far from the moderate center. They believe in a mixed economy with varying levels of government intervention and balanced social controls that provide ample protection while providing a certain level of freedom. Populism is an ideology that stresses government control of both social and economic freedoms. Statism and communism fall within the realm of populism. The opposite of this, libertarianism, is an ideology that stresses self sufficiency and individual rights. Survivalism, objectivism, minarchism and anarchism are all encompassed by libertarianism. These two ideologies are more extreme than conservatism and liberalism because they stress the freedom or control of both axises.

Conservatism and liberalism are the most popular ideologies in America and are represented by the Republican Party and the Democratic Party respectively. There is a battle over whether social or economic concerns are most important and which should be regulated raging in America. Conservatives argue for social controls while supporting a free market system. Liberals argue for economic controls while supporting a free society. Fascism is an extreme form of conservatism while socialism is an extreme form of liberalism. To be a conservative or liberal in America is to lean in either direction, it is rare to find someone who is purely one or the other. The Health Care Industry is a current example as to how these ideologies come into play. To properly understand each side's reasoning, one must understand the issue. It seems odd that Conservatives would be against Health Care if it was a social control, but it must be realized that it is economic. Health Care is a commodity to be bought or sold in a market or distributed by government. Conservatives argue that a free market is more efficient and that it is an individual responsibility to provide one's own health care. Liberals argue that government regulation will protect individuals and ensure that health care is provided for them.

It is important to remember that a state's political system does not define it's position on the political spectrum, only it's policies. This is largely forgotten by other systems. A military dictatorship does not have to regulate an economy or impose strict restrictions on its citizens. On the other hand, a representative democracy can strictly regulate an economy and impose strict restrictions on its citizens. I have listed four ideologies: communism, fascism, socialism and anarchy. These are not political systems, they are ideologies. Communism is a belief that an economy as well as the lives of its citizens should be regulated by the state. Fascism is a belief that the lives of citizens should be strictly regulated while the economy should not. Socialism is a belief that an economy should be strictly regulated while citizens should live freely. Anarchists believe that there should be no regulations on either economy or citizens. The world has never seen a pure form of any of these ideologies manifest into reality.