I believe the author was trying to show that even though there are still segregation problems, the United States is coming a long way in that issue. What really stuck out to me in the end of the interview was how baffled Standweiss was because our president only checks one box when it comes to his race, even though he is a mixed individual. I’m not depicted that any race is better than others, but it seems like President Obama believes he can make a bigger difference being classified as African American, rather than Caucasian, like Clarence King. Works Cited: "Festival of Books." Interview by Murry Fromson.
John F. Kennedy was elected the youngest and first Roman Catholic President of the United States on November 8, 1960. After being elected JFK started composing his inaugural speech on a yellow legal notepad, seeking help from his friends and those around him (Our Documents). On January 20, 1961 President John F. Kennedy delivered his first and only inaugural speech. Kennedy’s inaugural speech was the fourth shortest, at a total of just 1,364 words and a total time of thirteen minutes and fifty-nine seconds (JFK). Just after serving as President of The United States for one thousand days, on November 22, 1963, President
Jess Seng Mr.Nassida AP History 15 April 2012 Liberal or Conservative Liberals and Conservatives have some really unique qualities to them. Liberals tend to lean more towards Patriot ideals such as the rejection of nobility and organized religion, as well as the right to life, liberty, and property. Conservatives, like the Tories, believed there should be minimal, gradual change in the country and they supported monarchies. FDR and Hoover might not show signs of all these things, but the main ideas of each still linger in today’s political parties. The idea that Hoover was a Conservative and FDR a Liberal are in fact completely correct.
“Repaired and Modern” The author of the article “Broken and Obsolete,” Fareed Zakaria, believes that due to the divide in the beliefs of Republicans and Democrats coupled with the poor immigration laws currently in the US, the present immigration status will remain as it is, as he states “broken.” The author gives a few reasons for this belief coupled with examples, like the idea that other countries have been transforming themselves into immigrant societies, adopting many of America's best ideas and even improving on them, and as a result the U.S. is not as exceptional as it once was, and its immigration advantage is lessening. However, overall his claims are wrong because the supporting evidence behind the comparisons that he makes are
p. A35). Krugman’s clearly strong liberal political views stem back to his political socialization. Krugman is the son of David and Anita Krugman and the grandson of Jewish immigrants from Brest-Litovsk (2011. The New York Times). The September 10, 2009 Wall Street Journal article, “Why are Jews Liberal?” researched and found that since 1928, the average Jewish vote for the Democrat in presidential elections has been an amazing 75 percent (2009.
For decades, scholars have insisted that what most of us know instinctively to be true -- is false. Mocking the belief that individuals such as Julius Caesar, Adolf Hitler or Winston Churchill make history, experts focus on social forces. They explain the past with statistical studies and abstract theories, dismissing stories about individual initiative or heroism. While powerful economic, social and ideological movements dwarfing any individual do shape history, be it the high-tech boom, feminism or the rise of conservatism, we cannot underestimate the way a leader's action and inaction can change the world. Especially when assessing the American presidency and modern America, individual character -- and contingency -- count.
They say, "Obama is the first president to explicitly reject the notion of American exceptionalism--the idea that the United States is historically unique and has always differed from other democracies (Canon 222)." In their view, Obama has transformed America in the wrong way, although he is transformational is this sense. In order to solve the question of transformation, two arguements (one in favor of positive transformation and the other against transformation) are given to portray Obama's
Milk, Gus Van Sant 1a) The film Milk portrays an important political history in America against the homosexuals in the 1970’s, seeing this film and the struggles that homosexuals had to fight for their human rights and political equality makes myself, who’s not sensitive about the issue, change my political sensibilities. 2a) -1 The ignorance about homosexuality has become more exposed as they described that being gay could get them fired, beaten up, or even killed. -2 To plan on having to root out every homosexual, simply describes a person who is insecure and cannot accept homosexuality. -3 A debate regarding the Proposition 6 between Supervisor Harvey Milk and Senator John Briggs indicates that Proposition 6 is more on hating the gays, rather than the concern for the children they are “trying” to protect. 3a) -1 When the homosexuals along with the heterosexuals were rioting for their social and political view.
Theory is academically based and not part of the real world. Practitioners of foreign policy must live in the "real" world and actually take care of the business of government. However, we need look no further than the Clinton administration in the US to see that theory can be highly influential on practitioners of foreign policy. One strand of liberal international relations theory is called "democratic peace theory". This strand of liberalism holds that democracy will rarely engage in conflictual behavior with one another.
In this essay, I will show that democratic peace theory which state that liberal democracies do not go to war against each another provide reasonable arguments in promoting democracy to nondemocratic states. Democratic proponents emphasize that the shared norm between liberal states is one of the factor that ensure peace among them. Besides that, citizens play a major role in declaring war by liberal democracies which result in a lower frequency of wars between the nations. Next, declaring war is complex and democratic leaders will not opt for it unless inevitable. Firstly, democratic peace is able to promote greater stability in the world as a result of the shared norms between liberal democracies.