All parties in America have a central element and that is their ability to attract thousands of small contributions through mass mailings to likely party supporters, Hershey(75). Hershey then points out that this ability allowed the national party an independent financial base. (75) Then in the 1960s the two parties wanted to increase every aspect of their parties from contributions to finding the most qualified candidates.

The first was the service party path followed first by the RNC. The foundation of this strategy was implemented in the 1960s by RNC chair Ray Bliss and was continued later by chairman Brock until the 1970s as a means to reviving the party post water-gate. (75) There were two keys to success in performing this new service role: money and campaign technology. (76) The republicans used direct-mail appeals that brought in larger levels of income. The example the book provides is that the RNC fund-raising jumped from $29 million to $105.9 million within the next few years.(76) This strategy offered a broad array of services from candidates to local party organizations. State and local party leaders were glad to accept the help since the party worked closely to identify with the business community. A great example of this strategy was the 1980 presidential election. The republicans suffered huge losses in the house and senate after water-gate and eventually cost them the White House. After only four years the republicans were able to take back the White House in the 1980 election largely due to the service party path.

Like the service party the democrats came up with there own plan to grow and expand their parties role in the 1960s. The democrats had a larger problem due to the diversity within their own party. You had reformers supporting the civil rights and opposing American involvement in Vietnam pushing the democratic party to change their view on these issues. This strategy was an effort to more “democratic” in the nominating process and in particular more representative of people like themselves such as: blacks, women, and young people.(76) The 1968 election was the first of the series of reforms which limited the autonomy of state parties and more authority to the national party for reason in my previous sentence. This change was not limited to democrats due to key court decisions that upheld these actions in certain states. State legislatures passed bills that implemented these reforms that applied to all parties within that state. By the 1970s the problems with this strategy became evident with several democrats staying home during conventions for the reason of feeling alienated. A great example would be the elections of 1980. After gaining large majorities in the house and senate the democrats lose control of the senate. Part of this was due to the republicans raising large sums of money and allowing the state parties use it in ways they deem necessary. The other part was have divided the democratic party was over their new Procedural-reform path. Democrats having the White House and both chambers of congress and not accomplishing much didn’t help either. The democratic party eventually adopted the service path.

Its pretty evident to which path worked. The service path allowed the state and local party to have something to say in decisions, while the procedural-reform path put the majority of the decisions in the hands of the national party. Who knows best in state and local elections? Who knows more about the way people think and behave? The people that are there, the people that are closer and on the ground. The service path offered support to local and state elections. The procedural-reform path offered solutions, but what works in one area of the country will not work in another. Todays elections require more money than ever to be raised and the service path proved that it was better at raising money. I believe results speak for themselves, and the democrats adopted their own form of the service party strategy.

have to reply to two students discussion post

4 sentences maxed

#1

I think a unitary government would be too similar to a monarchy for the citizens to agree to. There are too many differing opinions and too many people in the country for that form of government to work well. We come form people who tend to overthrow monarchies, so I think it would just be a huge mess eventually. Although, it does seem like the federal government is trying to move towards a more unitary form of government. I do think that if the US had the same traffic laws for every state, moving around the country would be much easier. It is so frustrating to drive through a state not knowing if you are doing anything illegal on the roads. I do think that the government needs to get out of education. Education is so regionally impacted, there is no way the government would/should be able to set federal mandates regarding the education system. At the biggest, it should be state-by-state, preferably by region or county though.

#2

Federal sanctions have both good and bad outcomes. The case with the NFL and marijuana use amongst players show why federal sanctions are definitely necessary. NFL players have severe pains after matches and practices with the vigorous sport. Most players turn to marijuana use instead of hard pain killers that really on numbs the pain, where as players have described using marijuana for pain relief as better because it has no bad side effects. Now the reason it should be federally sanctioned is because some players may only want to use for recreational purposes and because of this the NFL cannot condone since possession of the drug is still a federal crime.

Use a topic which is post 9/11 and post cold war ( do something in 90s topic for post-cold war)

-please make sure to follow the system of analysis which means that you have to understand systemic and sub- systemic paradigms.

– If you don’t follow this system i will get F and I will report for refund because the professor only care about levels of analysis.

-Select any issue from international

affairs that involves a difference of

opinion.

-Use levels-of-analysis to explain which

side should prevail.

Or use them to explain why an event happened

the way that it did.

Provide a theoretical ethos to support your view.

for conclusion you can say for example ”

Dropping the bomb was bad or good idea for conclusion ” etc..

attachment
quiznotes.pdf

As a veteran of the Air Force I am always partial to military jets, such as the F-22, F-16, A-10, and so on. But, for this discussion I would have to MQ-9 Reaper would be most critical to the safety and security of the United States and its citizens. I understand the debate that jobs could be taken over by unmanned aircrafts, but there really is no substitution for military gumption and thinking on your feet, which is something a computer cannot do. Having said that, the MQ-9 Reaper is technically an unmanned aircraft because there is nobody inside the aircraft, however, there are still military personnel controlling all aspects of the drone. The safety measures for using this type of weapon is unmeasured in the amount of lives it could save. Too many times we have lost aircraft in war along with all its passengers, but with unmanned aircrafts there are no casualties when a drone is shot down. Furthermore, if given the opportunity and budget, we could use these drones for protecting all corners of the United States from any attack at a moments notice. The MQ-9 Reaper has the ability to keep our service members out of harms way and provide protection for U.S. citizens while on American soil.

The MQ-9 Reaper, when compared to fighter jets, is quite reasonably priced. According to af.mil the cost for this is “$64.2 million (includes four aircraft, sensors, GCSs, and Comm.)” (2015, September 23). Obviously, this is a huge chunk of change, but when you consider the price tag of “$143 million” for the F-22 Raptor, it becomes a little easier to swallow (Stiehm, 2012, p. 5.2). Given the features of the Reaper, I believe this could be a cost effective way to provide security while keeping costs lower if the budget shifted more to the drones rather than manned fighter jets. Of course, John Q. Taxpayer would still fuss about the amount of money they pay for freedom, I think they would also appreciate the fact that American lives are being protected by not sending military members into direct combat.

The big question is whether or not this method of weaponry is ethical, and the short answer is yes. Being ethical and having integrity are about the same, doing the right thing even when nobody is watching. Being ethical is following the guidelines set forth that all combatants must follow, and being able to stick to that even when our enemies do not do the same. Some people find these types of weapons to be unethical because they are not manned, as if ethics has to do with sacrificing people in order to end lives that are trying to end yours; basically a real life one-for-one rule. Lastly, the weapon is not used without proper authorization and is still only used on legal combatants, in a legal manner under the Geneva Convention. The MQ-9 Reaper is an ethical choice of weaponry and it should be examined how the military can integrate this weapon more in most, if not all, our military conflicts.

Zach

References

MQ-9 Reaper (2015, September 23). AF.mil. Retrieved from https://www.af.mil/About-Us/Fact-Sheets/Display/Article/104470/mq-9-reaper/

(Links to an external site.)

Links to an external site.

Stiehm, J. H. (2012). The US military: A basic introduction.