http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/02/25/AR2009022501756.html?hpid=opinionsbox1
Well Bill Kristol insists on talking again, so I guess we'll try to listen. Is he right on this? Is it essentially do or die time for Republicans wishing to affect policy outcome and remain relevant in national political discourse? What can Conservatives do to counterbalance the political force that is Barack Obama?
Wednesday, February 25, 2009
Candidate-Centered System, Meet Technology.
As this week’s readings have previously made clear, America’s electoral culture is rapidly transforming. In the decades just prior to the New Millennium, fear of internet-overexposure was absent from the worryings of America’s politicians. Now, with the advent of YouTube and other similar websites, this fear sits atop the list of many candidates’ concerns. This consequence of the Technological Era, however, is only one contributing factor to our current candidate-centered political culture.
This relatively new development in America’s political scene was nowhere more evident than in the 2008 Presidential election. Due in large part to influences we have discussed in previous weeks (e.g. the institution of direct primaries), citizens are focusing more on the aptitudes and faults of individual politicians rather than political parties when deciding which box to check. In response to this shift, the 2008 Presidential election featured a wide array of characters, all vying for their respective party’s nomination. On the Republican side, these actors included a Christian fundamentalist (Mike Huckabee), a Social progressive (Rudi Giuliani), a Maverick (John McCain), and the party’s preferred candidate (Fred Thompson). The most outstanding proof to the candidate-centered nature of our political system is that each of these men, though extremely ideologically diverse, was able to establish a great deal of national party support prior to and during the primary season. This demonstrates that none of the candidates were acting as an “agent” of the party so to speak, but that each man appealed to a certain portion of the Big-Tent organization that is the GOP. The fact that Fred Thompson’s (arguably the party elite’s preferred candidate) campaign disintegrated steadily from the beginning of the primary further demonstrates the affects of the candidate-centered system.
The same dynamic was evident in the Democratic race as well, though perhaps not to such a great degree. Early on in the competition, Hillary Clinton emerged as the candidate most likely to receive the party’s nomination. With more name recognition and a larger national base, Clinton seemed a logical choice for the Dems. However, as the primary season rolled on, the young and exuberant Barack Obama began to make a push. Winning the Iowa caucuses, and finishing second in the New Hampshire primary, Obama garnered a great deal of media attention in the early months of the race. With this increased exposure, as well as the electorate’s use of sites such as YouTube to view various campaign-trail moments, Obama’s popularity exploded. Many accredit this dramatic increase in support to the populace’s gradual acknowledgement of Obama’s speaking abilities and his optimistic outlook. Again, the candidate-centered aspect of America’s political culture is brought to the forefront. Barack Obama went on to receive the party’s nomination, and was ultimately elected as the forty-fourth President.
Throughout the primary season, both Obama and Sen. McCain (the GOP’s eventual candidate) managed to fare pretty well in the internet realm. Neither candidate was seriously damaged by any web-displayed campaign faux pa, and both had well-established internet support networks. The importance of a successful web-based campaign speaks loudly to the candidate-centeredness of our political system. Much of the electorate gets most of their political news from internet sources, so a strong net presence is now a requirement for any serious candidate. This is true not only at the Presidential level, but also at the Congressional and Senatorial level. In order to maintain a line of direct communication with constituents, all candidates must utilize technologies such as the internet. In turn, our candidate-centered culture is, for better or for worse, further perpetuated in a sort of cyclical nature; candidates use the internet to reach voters, voters know this, and thus expect it. Furthermore, candidates are constantly at risk of derailing their own ambitions by having leaked a simple misstatement or a piece of a private conversation on sites such as YouTube. While some characterize the increasing use of web resources as a potential death knell for political parties, others see it as a necessary evolutionary step for increasing political accountability. You decide.
*Note: I was not able to locate the Teachout article on E-Reserve, and thus could not complete the last segment of the assignment. There were links to several other articles, but the Teachout piece was not there.
This relatively new development in America’s political scene was nowhere more evident than in the 2008 Presidential election. Due in large part to influences we have discussed in previous weeks (e.g. the institution of direct primaries), citizens are focusing more on the aptitudes and faults of individual politicians rather than political parties when deciding which box to check. In response to this shift, the 2008 Presidential election featured a wide array of characters, all vying for their respective party’s nomination. On the Republican side, these actors included a Christian fundamentalist (Mike Huckabee), a Social progressive (Rudi Giuliani), a Maverick (John McCain), and the party’s preferred candidate (Fred Thompson). The most outstanding proof to the candidate-centered nature of our political system is that each of these men, though extremely ideologically diverse, was able to establish a great deal of national party support prior to and during the primary season. This demonstrates that none of the candidates were acting as an “agent” of the party so to speak, but that each man appealed to a certain portion of the Big-Tent organization that is the GOP. The fact that Fred Thompson’s (arguably the party elite’s preferred candidate) campaign disintegrated steadily from the beginning of the primary further demonstrates the affects of the candidate-centered system.
The same dynamic was evident in the Democratic race as well, though perhaps not to such a great degree. Early on in the competition, Hillary Clinton emerged as the candidate most likely to receive the party’s nomination. With more name recognition and a larger national base, Clinton seemed a logical choice for the Dems. However, as the primary season rolled on, the young and exuberant Barack Obama began to make a push. Winning the Iowa caucuses, and finishing second in the New Hampshire primary, Obama garnered a great deal of media attention in the early months of the race. With this increased exposure, as well as the electorate’s use of sites such as YouTube to view various campaign-trail moments, Obama’s popularity exploded. Many accredit this dramatic increase in support to the populace’s gradual acknowledgement of Obama’s speaking abilities and his optimistic outlook. Again, the candidate-centered aspect of America’s political culture is brought to the forefront. Barack Obama went on to receive the party’s nomination, and was ultimately elected as the forty-fourth President.
Throughout the primary season, both Obama and Sen. McCain (the GOP’s eventual candidate) managed to fare pretty well in the internet realm. Neither candidate was seriously damaged by any web-displayed campaign faux pa, and both had well-established internet support networks. The importance of a successful web-based campaign speaks loudly to the candidate-centeredness of our political system. Much of the electorate gets most of their political news from internet sources, so a strong net presence is now a requirement for any serious candidate. This is true not only at the Presidential level, but also at the Congressional and Senatorial level. In order to maintain a line of direct communication with constituents, all candidates must utilize technologies such as the internet. In turn, our candidate-centered culture is, for better or for worse, further perpetuated in a sort of cyclical nature; candidates use the internet to reach voters, voters know this, and thus expect it. Furthermore, candidates are constantly at risk of derailing their own ambitions by having leaked a simple misstatement or a piece of a private conversation on sites such as YouTube. While some characterize the increasing use of web resources as a potential death knell for political parties, others see it as a necessary evolutionary step for increasing political accountability. You decide.
*Note: I was not able to locate the Teachout article on E-Reserve, and thus could not complete the last segment of the assignment. There were links to several other articles, but the Teachout piece was not there.
Wednesday, February 18, 2009
Under Fire, Burris Refuses to Resign
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/02/18/AR2009021802475.html
So apparently everything Rod Blagojevich touches turns to shit. He's like Midas, but far less lucrative. Now, is it just me, or is Roland Burris getting the short end of the stick here? I mean, to expect a guy who has to deal directly with Rod Blagojevich to remain squeeky clean seems impractical. Chances are that every person associated with the Chicago political machine has been forced to confront morally sticky issues at some point. Merely considering raising money for the former Governor does not, in my opinion, expell Burris' legitimacy. What else could he have done?
So apparently everything Rod Blagojevich touches turns to shit. He's like Midas, but far less lucrative. Now, is it just me, or is Roland Burris getting the short end of the stick here? I mean, to expect a guy who has to deal directly with Rod Blagojevich to remain squeeky clean seems impractical. Chances are that every person associated with the Chicago political machine has been forced to confront morally sticky issues at some point. Merely considering raising money for the former Governor does not, in my opinion, expell Burris' legitimacy. What else could he have done?
Reform and Faction
In the past thirty years or so, our country’s political process has evolved considerably, producing a wide range of consequences. One of the most evident transformations is seen in the nomination process of potential candidates for various offices, particularly the Presidency. For much of our nation’s history, candidates were chosen by political elites through an institution known as caucuses. In this system, a small group of party officials and strategists nominated the candidate they viewed as the most viable to promote the party platform and ultimately get elected. This form of nomination, however, eventually came to be regarded as elitist and exclusionary by the voting populace. Because of this, our nation gradually shifted from the caucus model to that of primaries. Intended to transfer the power of choosing a party’s candidate into the hands of the people, the primary system has provided some unanticipated results.
By allowing the electorate to choose between potential candidates several months before the general election, the primary system places a great deal of emphasis on momentum. If a candidate can manage to campaign properly in early primary states and win that state’s election, much of the nation follows suit in their own voting tendencies. Thus, candidates use an inordinate amount of resources on these few early primaries as means of trying to influence voters throughout the nation. This is viewed by many as providing an undue amount of influence to states whose populations are small and non-representative of the nation as a whole.
This also leads us to address the issue of “front-loading.” Many of the most populous states (e.g. California, New York, Ohio) have bumped their primary elections to earlier dates so as to exert more influence on the Presidential nomination process. Thus, candidates are forced to campaign vigorously in these states, often neglecting issues and voters found elsewhere. This often results in rendering many later state primaries inconsequential and unimportant.
In further attempts to reform the electoral process, the federal government has instituted several regulations on campaign finance. Beginning in 1971 with the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA), which was further amended in 1974, government attempted to restrict the amount of money that could be contributed to a candidate’s campaign. This law limited the amount that could be contributed by individuals, political action committees (PACs), and corporate entities. However, though the act attempted to restrict the amount of money that could be spent by individuals and groups independent of the campaign, the Supreme Court found this to be unconstitutional. As a result, though citizens were limited in their contributions to candidates directly, they were unfettered in the amount they could spend privately in favor or a specific candidate. Also, an amendment to the law allowed parties to spend an unlimited amount on party activities which translated to direct assistance to specific candidates. Thus, while citizens and PACs were somewhat limited in their freedom to contribute to candidate’s campaigns, they could donate huge amounts to the parties.
This system created a multitude of loopholes. As a result, candidates were still largely reliant on the “soft money” provided by their parties, and remained indebted to special interests. Though the McCain – Feingold legislation, passed in 2002, attempted to eliminate some of these loopholes by further restricting the maximum contributions of citizens and PACs, it opened the door to non-profit and tax-exempt groups to donate unlimited amounts to parties. These entities, known as “527 groups,” have essentially picked up the slack left by PACs and large corporations. As a result, special interests still dominate in the realm of fundraising, though candidates do depend on individual contributors more than they have in the past.
The very issue we have discussed here was addressed by the Founding Fathers during our nation’s first years: the influence of faction. While nomination process reform and campaign finance reform is intended to alleviate the influence of factious entities, it has, in some ways, strengthened them. By depending on special interest groups for a large chunk of their campaign finances, politicians are often inclined to treat these groups preferentially. In effect, special interests are able to purchase representation. This serves as the very basis for the idea of factions. While these groups represent a relatively small portion of the populace, legislation often tends to favor their causes. By relying on these sources for funding instead of a candidate’s party, as was the custom prior to 1971, the power of national parties has also decreased. An increase in private donations to particular candidates also serves to weaken party influence on candidates. In other words, campaign finance reform has dramatically changed our nation’s political structure. The legislation has increased the influence of special interest groups (factions) and decreased the influence of parties, resulting in a shift from citizen-oriented public policy to interest-oriented public policy. Needless to say, this development has rendered many citizens skeptical of the importance of their role in the political process, and surely has left the Founding Fathers kicking and screaming in their graves.
By allowing the electorate to choose between potential candidates several months before the general election, the primary system places a great deal of emphasis on momentum. If a candidate can manage to campaign properly in early primary states and win that state’s election, much of the nation follows suit in their own voting tendencies. Thus, candidates use an inordinate amount of resources on these few early primaries as means of trying to influence voters throughout the nation. This is viewed by many as providing an undue amount of influence to states whose populations are small and non-representative of the nation as a whole.
This also leads us to address the issue of “front-loading.” Many of the most populous states (e.g. California, New York, Ohio) have bumped their primary elections to earlier dates so as to exert more influence on the Presidential nomination process. Thus, candidates are forced to campaign vigorously in these states, often neglecting issues and voters found elsewhere. This often results in rendering many later state primaries inconsequential and unimportant.
In further attempts to reform the electoral process, the federal government has instituted several regulations on campaign finance. Beginning in 1971 with the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA), which was further amended in 1974, government attempted to restrict the amount of money that could be contributed to a candidate’s campaign. This law limited the amount that could be contributed by individuals, political action committees (PACs), and corporate entities. However, though the act attempted to restrict the amount of money that could be spent by individuals and groups independent of the campaign, the Supreme Court found this to be unconstitutional. As a result, though citizens were limited in their contributions to candidates directly, they were unfettered in the amount they could spend privately in favor or a specific candidate. Also, an amendment to the law allowed parties to spend an unlimited amount on party activities which translated to direct assistance to specific candidates. Thus, while citizens and PACs were somewhat limited in their freedom to contribute to candidate’s campaigns, they could donate huge amounts to the parties.
This system created a multitude of loopholes. As a result, candidates were still largely reliant on the “soft money” provided by their parties, and remained indebted to special interests. Though the McCain – Feingold legislation, passed in 2002, attempted to eliminate some of these loopholes by further restricting the maximum contributions of citizens and PACs, it opened the door to non-profit and tax-exempt groups to donate unlimited amounts to parties. These entities, known as “527 groups,” have essentially picked up the slack left by PACs and large corporations. As a result, special interests still dominate in the realm of fundraising, though candidates do depend on individual contributors more than they have in the past.
The very issue we have discussed here was addressed by the Founding Fathers during our nation’s first years: the influence of faction. While nomination process reform and campaign finance reform is intended to alleviate the influence of factious entities, it has, in some ways, strengthened them. By depending on special interest groups for a large chunk of their campaign finances, politicians are often inclined to treat these groups preferentially. In effect, special interests are able to purchase representation. This serves as the very basis for the idea of factions. While these groups represent a relatively small portion of the populace, legislation often tends to favor their causes. By relying on these sources for funding instead of a candidate’s party, as was the custom prior to 1971, the power of national parties has also decreased. An increase in private donations to particular candidates also serves to weaken party influence on candidates. In other words, campaign finance reform has dramatically changed our nation’s political structure. The legislation has increased the influence of special interest groups (factions) and decreased the influence of parties, resulting in a shift from citizen-oriented public policy to interest-oriented public policy. Needless to say, this development has rendered many citizens skeptical of the importance of their role in the political process, and surely has left the Founding Fathers kicking and screaming in their graves.
Wednesday, February 11, 2009
Tennessee House Member Wins Top Job, but Loses Party
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/11/us/11tennesee.html?ref=us
Tennessee lawmaker, Kent Williams, betrayed the Republican party last week by helping to get himself elected as the state's Speaker of House by a one vote majority. While Republicans, who controlled the body as of Monday, were backing Rep. Jason Mumpower to serve as Speaker, Williams, along with forty-nine Democrats, agreed to elect him instead. This is a really crazy story. I hadn't heard anything about the situation in Tennessee's Legislature prior to finding this article, so I think it's pretty exciting. Read it and let me know what you think. Is this further evidence of the decentralization of America's major political parties?
Tennessee lawmaker, Kent Williams, betrayed the Republican party last week by helping to get himself elected as the state's Speaker of House by a one vote majority. While Republicans, who controlled the body as of Monday, were backing Rep. Jason Mumpower to serve as Speaker, Williams, along with forty-nine Democrats, agreed to elect him instead. This is a really crazy story. I hadn't heard anything about the situation in Tennessee's Legislature prior to finding this article, so I think it's pretty exciting. Read it and let me know what you think. Is this further evidence of the decentralization of America's major political parties?
Decentralized, Not Disorganized
As discussed in this week's readings and lecture, the decentralization of America's political parties has had, at times, a crippling effect on the abilities of these organizations to act in concert on various issues. At the same time, however, this decentralization appears to be an essential evolutionary course for parties attempting to reconcile the many opinions and preferences of an ever-growing populace.
One can no longer argue that the major political parties (Republicans and Democrats) represent single segments of the population as they may have in the past. For example, Republicans, though generally regarded as the party of the rural and well-off, have, in recent years, gained a large contingent of the Latino vote. Prior to the 2004 Presidential election, the Latino vote was often taken for granted by Democrats, as the party has historically represented the interests of minority and urban voters. Likewise, the Democratic party has, in the past decade, extended its base to encompass a larger number of rural (more specifically, agriculturally-minded) voters in need of Federal assistance for struggling farms. These two minor examples help to illustrate the diverse needs and preferences parties are forced to address in their attempts to maintain a loyal voting base. As this is the case, decentralizing parties along local, state, and national lines is absolutely necessary if the organizations wish to satisfy voters at all levels, and thus, accomplish their ultimate goal of winning elections.
This decentralization, however, does have negative effects on the abilities of parties to act cooperatively in achieving preferred public policy. It is impossible to argue that the issues most pertinent to Republican voters in the backwoods of Louisiana are entirely compatible with Republicans on Capitol Hill. These discrepancies then pose a substantial obstacle to the recruitment of universally acceptable candidates, as well as to the overall image of the party and its platform.
For evidence of this, one must look no further than to the 2008 Presidential election. Many Republicans were outraged when Sen. John McCain received the party's nomination due to the legislators moderate voting record. Many strategists (e.g. Carl Rove, Bill Kristol, etc.) felt that McCain did not appeal enough to the party's "Christian-Conservative base," a segment of the party that was instrumental in securing victory for Bush in 2000 and 2004. Others, however, argued that McCain's moderate stances legitimized him as a candidate for the large sector of the voting public who would characterize their own political opinions as moderate. However, McCain lost the election, and some have attributed his trouncing to losing the support of Christian-Conservatives, as well as other, more socially-conservative segments of the party.
Thus, decentralization may have proved itself the death-knell for Republicans in 2008. However, it is still difficult to imagine a successful party who caters to only one or two key groups within the organization. Such preferential treatment would surely alienate the neglected portion of the party, causing more harm than good.
As our major parties stand now, the issue of leadership is somewhat clouded. The Democrats have sensibly united behind a single, dominant leader, President Barack Obama. This is nothing new, as the administration's party invariably looks to the President as the party head. The Democratic National Committee's Chairman, Tim Kaine, is also viewed as a party leader, though his duties consist of more day-to-day party activities than actual public policy. Leadership in the Republican party, however, is not so well-defined. Following the party's loss in the 2008 Presidential election, the Republican National Committee appointed a new Chairman, Michael Steele. The party's first African-American Chair, Steele is now viewed by many as the nation's top Republican. By title, this is absolutely true. In practice, however, Steele does not yield nearly as much direct influence on voters as political pundits such as Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity. As this is the case, many Republicans at the state and national levels are looking to these talking heads as a means of gauging the current political attitudes of the electorate. This has been increasingly apparent in recent weeks, exemplified especially by the exchange between Limbaugh and Congressman Phil Gingrey on Limbaugh's daily radio show last week http://punditfight.blogspot.com/2009/01/chris-matthews-discusses-rush-limbaughs.html . Whatever the case, Republicans will have to find stronger, more viable leadership in the coming months if they hold any hope of regaining control of the Legislative and Executive branches.
One can no longer argue that the major political parties (Republicans and Democrats) represent single segments of the population as they may have in the past. For example, Republicans, though generally regarded as the party of the rural and well-off, have, in recent years, gained a large contingent of the Latino vote. Prior to the 2004 Presidential election, the Latino vote was often taken for granted by Democrats, as the party has historically represented the interests of minority and urban voters. Likewise, the Democratic party has, in the past decade, extended its base to encompass a larger number of rural (more specifically, agriculturally-minded) voters in need of Federal assistance for struggling farms. These two minor examples help to illustrate the diverse needs and preferences parties are forced to address in their attempts to maintain a loyal voting base. As this is the case, decentralizing parties along local, state, and national lines is absolutely necessary if the organizations wish to satisfy voters at all levels, and thus, accomplish their ultimate goal of winning elections.
This decentralization, however, does have negative effects on the abilities of parties to act cooperatively in achieving preferred public policy. It is impossible to argue that the issues most pertinent to Republican voters in the backwoods of Louisiana are entirely compatible with Republicans on Capitol Hill. These discrepancies then pose a substantial obstacle to the recruitment of universally acceptable candidates, as well as to the overall image of the party and its platform.
For evidence of this, one must look no further than to the 2008 Presidential election. Many Republicans were outraged when Sen. John McCain received the party's nomination due to the legislators moderate voting record. Many strategists (e.g. Carl Rove, Bill Kristol, etc.) felt that McCain did not appeal enough to the party's "Christian-Conservative base," a segment of the party that was instrumental in securing victory for Bush in 2000 and 2004. Others, however, argued that McCain's moderate stances legitimized him as a candidate for the large sector of the voting public who would characterize their own political opinions as moderate. However, McCain lost the election, and some have attributed his trouncing to losing the support of Christian-Conservatives, as well as other, more socially-conservative segments of the party.
Thus, decentralization may have proved itself the death-knell for Republicans in 2008. However, it is still difficult to imagine a successful party who caters to only one or two key groups within the organization. Such preferential treatment would surely alienate the neglected portion of the party, causing more harm than good.
As our major parties stand now, the issue of leadership is somewhat clouded. The Democrats have sensibly united behind a single, dominant leader, President Barack Obama. This is nothing new, as the administration's party invariably looks to the President as the party head. The Democratic National Committee's Chairman, Tim Kaine, is also viewed as a party leader, though his duties consist of more day-to-day party activities than actual public policy. Leadership in the Republican party, however, is not so well-defined. Following the party's loss in the 2008 Presidential election, the Republican National Committee appointed a new Chairman, Michael Steele. The party's first African-American Chair, Steele is now viewed by many as the nation's top Republican. By title, this is absolutely true. In practice, however, Steele does not yield nearly as much direct influence on voters as political pundits such as Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity. As this is the case, many Republicans at the state and national levels are looking to these talking heads as a means of gauging the current political attitudes of the electorate. This has been increasingly apparent in recent weeks, exemplified especially by the exchange between Limbaugh and Congressman Phil Gingrey on Limbaugh's daily radio show last week http://punditfight.blogspot.com/2009/01/chris-matthews-discusses-rush-limbaughs.html . Whatever the case, Republicans will have to find stronger, more viable leadership in the coming months if they hold any hope of regaining control of the Legislative and Executive branches.
Wednesday, February 4, 2009
Political Party: A "Definition"
As the professor explains in this week’s reading notes, the question of defining the term “political party” seems simple. We have been exposed to the idea of political parties for as long as we can remember, and most of us have no orientation towards any other political system. However, when asked to explicate a definition of the term, things get a little sticky. As mentioned in the reading notes, it is difficult to discern what exactly constitutes a political party. Entities such as special interest groups are universally recognized as influential in Washington, but they are not considered actual political parties. Distinctions such as this are what make it difficult to label political parties. However, based on my knowledge and opinions, I have formulated what I feel is a suitable definition of the term. To me, a political party is a body of socially and economically like-minded individuals, united on common ground, to advance their societal goals and preferences through direct political means. In other words, a political party is a group of people who share many of the same views and attempt to assert those views through “inside” political action (i.e. getting elected to office). As mentioned in the notes, it is important to realize that parties are constituted by more than just elected officials. Voters and supporters play just as crucial a role, though all share the same ultimate goal of having elected members of their own party, and thus, all are included in my proposed definition.
Michael Steele Gives First Interview as RNC Chairman
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,486585,00.html
Michael Steele is oficially the new head of the Republican Party. The significance of this is pretty self-apparent. What are some of you opinions regarding the GOP's selection of its first African American Chairman? It obviously comes at a time of racial and social progress in America, but will it actually work to reform the image of the GOP as an "ol' boys" club? By the way, I apologize for the source. It won't happen again.
Michael Steele is oficially the new head of the Republican Party. The significance of this is pretty self-apparent. What are some of you opinions regarding the GOP's selection of its first African American Chairman? It obviously comes at a time of racial and social progress in America, but will it actually work to reform the image of the GOP as an "ol' boys" club? By the way, I apologize for the source. It won't happen again.
Expectations for "Party Politics in America"
As with most classes we political junkies take throughout our college careers, “Party Politics in America” appears poised to present us with some unique and interesting challenges. Surely, any class that starts its first week with the Federalist Papers and a (quite lengthy) George Washington address can only be setting us up for an inevitable death-blow. However, courses such as these (ones with rigorous reading schedules and high expectations) are invariably the ones from which we take the most. As this is the case, we often approach these classes with a specific set of expectations or goals for ourselves, as well as the class.
In regards to “Party Politics,” I have developed a few expectations/goals of my own. The first is that the course material be at least comprehensible to me. This should not be a problem, as this isn’t my first political rodeo. However, this is my first party politics class, so some terms are sure to be new. My second goal is to gain a fair amount of knowledge in regards to political party development and party dynamics. We Americans live our entire lives aware of the party system, but very few ever truly come to understand how or why we got here. My third and final goal is to become more familiar with the modern learning techniques practiced in this class. I have used D2L in the past, but never to this extent. Also, blogging is essentially foreign to me, and learning it seems a very valuable skill in today’s interconnected world. I trust that the professor and TA will help immensely in realizing these goals, and I look forward to giving it all a try.
In regards to “Party Politics,” I have developed a few expectations/goals of my own. The first is that the course material be at least comprehensible to me. This should not be a problem, as this isn’t my first political rodeo. However, this is my first party politics class, so some terms are sure to be new. My second goal is to gain a fair amount of knowledge in regards to political party development and party dynamics. We Americans live our entire lives aware of the party system, but very few ever truly come to understand how or why we got here. My third and final goal is to become more familiar with the modern learning techniques practiced in this class. I have used D2L in the past, but never to this extent. Also, blogging is essentially foreign to me, and learning it seems a very valuable skill in today’s interconnected world. I trust that the professor and TA will help immensely in realizing these goals, and I look forward to giving it all a try.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)