Mr. Busbin’s AP Government Political Forum

Political parties and special interest groups have for a long time often received the blame for many of the wrongdoings in government.  Some see parties as creating unnecessary schisms in the American electorate, while being unable to fulfill their promises. Some argue interest groups have essentially bribed their interests to the top of the political agenda. All together, many see interest groups and parties as corrupting the democratic process and putting limited interests ahead of the common good.
Yet, political scientists argue that, in theory, these groups serve a critical role in the governing process and are actually a product of the democratic nature of American government. Interest groups help push forward issues that the minority are concerned about, which may be ignored by the majority otherwise. Political parties and the partisanship that they inspire may be one of the only reasons that voter turnout is not completely missing in America.
This debate has constantly resurfaced throughout the history of American politics; the arguments introduced earlier are just a few of those employed in the discussion. Are political factions beneficial for American democracy and government or do they take away from all that is good in our political process?
In order to answer this question, we have to consider the current context of American politics as well as the functions of interest groups and political parties. What do these institutions do? Have certain events tainted our perspective of these American institutions? Do the functions outweigh the negatives?

Although the current presidential race is very close, congressional elections for the Republican Party have been looking quite dismal. McCain can win the White House, but what good does that accomplish with an overwhelmingly Democratic Congress? One must also consider the confusing and atypical Republican primary season (http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1694094,00.html ), which led to McCain’s victory. In several special elections (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0508/10130.html ) leading up to the 2008 election, Republicans have lost congressional seats, which they previously held easily. The losses have created infighting amongst some Republican groups (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0508/10371.html).
Some fear that the Republican coalition is breaking up as different sides insist on pursuing their own interests before others. Yet, other simly assume that the defeats reflect the traditional ebb and flow of party politics.  Many fear that 8 years of President Bush has created a public backlash against the Party. However, some ideas have been floated as to how the Republicans can save face and maintain some form of presence in Congress (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0508/10370_Page2.html).
You are the political advisor. Are Republicans close to their death? If so, why? Can they be saved and how?  What policy positions shoud they advocate? What demographic groups should they court?

No posting this week-it’s time to study and focus on the test. Look back on Thursday  (9/25) for the new topic of discussion.

Sarah Palin’s nomination for the Republican vice president has brought up a question that Mr. Obama has already faced this year: the question of qualification. In this year’s election, the candidates seem larger than life yet they all call into question one another’s qualifications for the offices that they are seeking. Obama argues that being a POW doesn’t necessarily mean one is fit for the presidency. McCain questions the amount of time Obama has been in the Senate and his lack of foreign policy experience. Democrats argue that being the mayor of a small Alaska town and governor for less than two years makes Palin unqualified to fill the office that is one heartbeat away from being hers. Republicans see Biden as the anti-change that Obama preaches, thus unqualified to support their theme.

These debates bring forth a persistent issue: what qualifies one as being able to lead the United States? What should their resume look like?

And, most relevant (and debatable) of all, which of the parties currently can claim to be the most qualified party?

Over the past two weeks, several pundits have been making the assertion that the US failed the former Soviet Republic of Georgia. They allege that the US should have committed itself militarily or else face a resurgent Russia that is bent on dominating Eastern Europe. Others argue that Georgia, being a US ally, should not have been left alone in battle. While others have brought up the argument that the military was needed to avert a humanitarian disaster.

After the invasion of Iraq and the ensuing conflict, many now ask the question: when is the use of American military justified?  Some of the arguments include:

• Isolationism: the tending of one’s domestic affairs
• Realism: actively seeking US interests when involved internationally
• Idealism: internationalism for the benefit of the US and other countries

Yet, other questions emerge. How does a nation ensure its security while maintaining the sovereignty of others? Do countries have a moral obligation to other countries? How does a country enact foreign policy when those affected are outside the jurisdiction of the government?

When do you believe the use of the American military is justified?

One group of voters up for grabs this year is the white Christian voter. Over the past three decades, evangelical groups have shared a very close relationship to the Republican Party, thus giving rise to the term the Religious Right.  George Bush in 2004 won 78% of the white Evangelical Protestant vote; some argue this was the voting bloc, which gave him his victory. Catholic voters have always been somewhat more moderate and less predictable (http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1819897,00.html).

This year though, Democrats are trying to place more effort in attracting religious voters (http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1814206,00.html; http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1713269,00.html ). In addition, a new generation of Christian leaders has been emerging, including such figures as Rick Warren and Richard Land (http://www.newsweek.com/id/41735). New issues are being taken up by this future generation, including: social justice; humanitarian aid; and the environment. Currently, 40% of Evangelicals consider themselves to be moderates. Yet, the old issues that divided the Democrats and potential religious voters still loom: gay marriage and abortion.

Some dangerous signs have been seen thus far for both candidates. For example, Mike Huckabee’s overwhelming success amongst religious voters compared to that of McCain’s. Reverend Jeremiah Wright’s religious commentary produced questionable thoughts about Obama’s religious convictions.  Therefore, the questions must be posed:

Where will the Christian vote go in 2008? Will it make a difference this year like it did in 2004?

Welcome to our class blog! This site will help facilitate further discussion about issues in the news and our class discussions. All opinions are welcome. Do not limit yourself to just one post but help continue the conversation.
Please post a reply here so that I know you got logged on.