Political Science Answer Note #5

Question 1 How might one distinguish between a nationalist and a terrorist? How does this play into the new 'cold war'? Why would this differ based on view point? Do the agencies treat these people differently? Answer Distinguishing between a nationalist and a terrorist can be a complex and sometimes controversial task. Both are individuals or groups who are motivated by a strong sense of ideology, but their actions and methods may greatly vary. In order to properly distinguish between the two, it is important to examine their motivations, tactics, and ultimate goals. According to academic sources, nationalism can be defined as a sense of pride and loyalty towards one's own nation and its values, culture, and history. It often advocates for the preservation and promotion of a nation's sovereignty and interests. On the other hand, terrorism is typically described as a form of violent or destructive tactics used for political, religious, or ideological purposes. One key factor in differentiating between the two is the use of violence. While both nationalists and terrorists may use violence as a means to achieve their goals, the motivations behind it differ greatly. Nationalists may use violence to protect their country or gain independence from an oppressive force, while terrorists may use violence to spread fear and further their agenda. Additionally, the targets of violence may also differ, with nationalists typically targeting opposing governments or groups, while terrorists may target innocent civilians. In the new 'cold war' between different ideologies and power struggles, nationalist and terrorist activities may play a significant role. This can be seen in conflicts such as the ongoing tensions between Russia and Ukraine, where nationalist movements have emerged but have also been accused of using terrorist tactics. In this context, the line between the two can become blurred, making it even more challenging to distinguish between them. The viewpoint of an individual or group can also greatly impact how they identify and treat nationalists and terrorists. For example, the US government may view nationalist movements that align with their interests as freedom fighters, while viewing similar movements in other countries as terrorists. This difference in viewpoint can also affect how agencies treat these individuals or groups. Some agencies may focus more on surveillance and monitoring, while others may take a more aggressive approach, leading to human rights concerns. In conclusion, while there are certain indicators that can help distinguish between a nationalist and a terrorist, the line between the two can still be blurry and heavily influenced by perspective. In the context of the new 'cold war', these distinctions and perspectives can have significant implications on how these individuals and groups are perceived and treated by agencies and governments. Question 2 1. What is at least one example Herman gives of how an everyday act is political? (use APA citations). What do you think about this example Answer One example that Herman gives of how an everyday act is political is through the concept of "micro-resistance." According to Herman (2013), micro-resistance is defined as "small acts of defiance against dominant power structures that challenge and disrupt the social order" (p. 8). This can include actions such as questioning authority, engaging in subtle acts of disobedience, and creating alternative narratives. One example of micro-resistance that Herman mentions is the act of wearing a hoodie. She points to the case of Trayvon Martin, a young African American male who was wearing a hoodie when he was fatally shot by a neighborhood watch member (Herman, 2013). By wearing a hoodie, Martin was expressing his individuality and challenging the dominant stereotype of young black men as criminals (Herman, 2013). This act of defiance can be seen as political as it challenges the societal norms and expectations imposed by those in positions of power. This example illustrates how everyday acts can be political, as they hold the power to disrupt and challenge dominant power structures. In this case, the simple act of wearing a hoodie was a form of resistance against societal stereotypes and norms. It also sheds light on the power dynamics at play, as the dominant group (in this case, white individuals) often have the privilege to wear certain clothing without facing the same consequences as marginalized groups. This concept of micro-resistance highlights the agency and power of individuals in shaping societal norms and challenging dominant ideologies. It also emphasizes the importance of recognizing the political implications of seemingly mundane acts and how they can contribute to larger social movements. In terms of useful sources, one could consult Herman's book "Everyday Acts Against Racism: Raising Consciousness in Everyday Life" as well as other sociological sources on the topics of power and resistance such as Foucault's "Discipline and Punish" and Gramsci's "Prison Notebooks." Additionally, articles such as "Understanding Everyday Resistance: Decisions, Choices, and Practices" by Scott and Xinyin (2009) and "Everyday Forms of Resistance in Russia: A Cross-Cultural Comparison of Shoplifting and Piracy" by Mezey and Zolberg (2006) could also provide further insights into the concept of micro-resistance and its implications. Question 3 What is Politics and Who Cares Anyway? -Discussion 1. What is at least one example Herman gives of how an everyday act is political? (use APA citations). What do you think about this example?1. Herman refers to the ideological spectrum. Thinking about how she discusses everyday acts as having political consequences, where might such ideas sit on the ideological spectrum and why?1. Herman refers to the ideological spectrum. Thinking about how she discusses everyday acts as having political consequences, where might such ideas sit on the ideological spectrum and why? Answer Politics is a multifaceted concept that has been defined and interpreted in various ways by scholars. One definition, provided by Heywood (2013), describes politics as "the process of making collective decisions for a group or community" (p. 5). In simpler terms, politics is about the exercise of power and authority in directing the actions and behaviors of individuals, groups, and societies. The importance of politics cannot be overstated, as it directly impacts our daily lives and shapes the way our society operates. This is why it is important for all individuals to be aware of it and care about it. In her article "What is Politics and Who Cares Anyway?", Herman (2011) explores the idea of how everyday acts can have political consequences. One example she gives is the act of voting. Many people may not view voting as a political act, but it is actually a crucial element of politics. By voting, individuals are choosing who will represent their interests and make decisions on their behalf. This has a direct impact on the policies and laws that affect our daily lives. Therefore, voting is not just a civic duty, but also a political act with consequences. Another example given by Herman is the act of purchasing products. This seemingly mundane activity is actually political in nature. By choosing which products to buy, individuals are also choosing which companies to support and therefore, indirectly supporting their political ideologies. For example, purchasing from a company that has a history of exploiting its workers or causing harm to the environment can be seen as supporting such practices and ideologies. Herman's examples sit on the ideological spectrum in different ways. Voting can be seen as a more direct expression of one's political beliefs and values, making it a more extreme act on the spectrum. On the other hand, purchasing products can be seen as a more subtle expression of one's political beliefs, making it a moderate act on the spectrum. The ideological spectrum refers to the range of political beliefs and values, from extreme left wing (or radical) to extreme right wing (or conservative). Herman's examples highlight how seemingly ordinary acts can have political implications and sit on different points of the spectrum. In conclusion, politics is a complex and multifaceted concept that has a direct impact on our daily lives. Herman's examples of voting and purchasing products demonstrate how seemingly mundane acts can also be political in nature and have consequences. These ideas sit on different points of the ideological spectrum, highlighting the diverse ways in which everyday acts can have political implications. It is important for individuals to be aware of the political consequences of their actions and to actively participate in the political process. Question 4 why did the extremists fail to carry conviction with the nation about their proclaimed ideology and political goals till the 20th century Point wise answer Answer The failure of extremists to successfully gain widespread support and carry conviction with the nation regarding their ideology and political goals until the 20th century can be attributed to several key factors. These include: 1. Lack of mass appeal: Many extremist ideologies and movements focused on radical or extreme ideas that were not widely accepted or understood by the general population. This made it difficult for them to gain popular support and successfully convince the nation to adopt their beliefs and goals. 2. Lack of cohesive message: Extremist groups often had conflicting or confusing messages and goals, which made it difficult for them to effectively communicate their ideology and gain support. This lack of coherence made it difficult for them to carry conviction with the nation. 3. Suppression by authorities: Extremist groups were often seen as threats to the established order and were actively suppressed by government authorities, making it difficult for them to gain a foothold and carry their message effectively to the masses. 4. Lack of resources: Many extremist groups were small and lacked the resources and infrastructure needed to effectively spread their message and gain widespread support. This limited their ability to carry conviction with the nation and achieve their political goals. 5. The rise of mainstream ideologies: Throughout history, mainstream ideologies and political movements have dominated the national discourse, making it challenging for extremist groups to gain attention and support for their ideas. Question 5 in. 500 words of less, does democracy require equality of income or wealth? Discuss why democracy might make a country more or less egalitarian? Answer Introduction: The concept of democracy has long been associated with the idea of equality, but its relationship with income or wealth equality is a topic of ongoing debate. While some argue that democracy requires equality of income or wealth, others argue that it may actually have a negative impact on equality. In this essay, we will first define democracy, income and wealth equality, and then discuss the arguments for and against the requirement of equality for democracy. We will also delve into the potential impact of democracy on income or wealth equality. Defining democracy, inequality, and equality: Democracy: Democracy can be defined as a political system in which the power to govern lies with the people, either directly or through elected representatives. In a democratic system, all individuals have equal political rights and are free to participate in government decision-making processes. Income equality: Income equality refers to the distribution of income among individuals in a society. It means that the incomes of all individuals are roughly the same, with no significant gap between the highest and lowest earners. Wealth equality: Wealth equality refers to the distribution of wealth among individuals in a society. It means that the assets and possessions of all individuals are roughly the same, with no significant discrepancy between the wealthiest and poorest individuals. Arguments for the requirement of equality for democracy: Some argue that democracy requires equality of income or wealth in order to function effectively. The reasoning behind this argument is that without equal income or wealth, certain individuals or groups may have more financial resources and therefore more political power than others. In a democratic system, this could lead to the domination of a particular group or minority, resulting in unequal representation and decision-making processes. Income and wealth disparities can also lead to the marginalization of certain groups, resulting in unequal access to opportunities and resources, thus hindering the principle of equal political rights and participation in a democracy. Moreover, it is argued that income or wealth inequality can lead to corruption and bribery in the political sphere. When there is a significant income or wealth gap, those with more resources may be able to influence political decisions through financial means, thereby undermining the democratic principle of political equality. In addition, it is believed that democracies thrive when the majority of the population has a stake in the country's economic progress. In other words, when there is widespread prosperity, there is less likelihood of social unrest or rebellion, leading to a more stable and functional democracy. Arguments against the requirement of equality for democracy: On the other hand, some argue that democracy does not necessarily require equality of income or wealth. They argue that democracy is primarily concerned with political equality, and that economic equality may not be a necessary condition for a functional democracy. In fact, some argue that the pursuit of economic equality may lead to government intervention and restrictions on individual liberty, which could potentially undermine the democratic principle of individual rights and freedom. Moreover, it is argued that striving for complete equality of income or wealth is unrealistic and can have negative consequences for a country's economy. In a marketdriven economy, it is natural for there to be income and wealth disparities, as individuals with different skills, motivations, and opportunities will naturally earn different amounts. Moreover, incentivizing individuals to work harder and be more productive through the potential for higher incomes can result in overall economic growth, benefiting the country as a whole. The impact of democracy on income or wealth equality: The relationship between democracy and income or wealth equality is complex and not easily generalized. Some research suggests that democracies tend to have lower levels of economic inequality compared to non-democratic regimes. However, other studies have found that democracy may actually have a negative impact on income or wealth equality. This could be due to democratic countries having more diverse economies and greater levels of economic mobility, leading to differences in income and wealth. It could also be due to the influence of economic policies, as democracies may favor policies that promote economic growth and individual opportunities over policies aimed at reducing income or wealth disparities. Conclusion: In conclusion, the question of whether democracy requires equality of income or wealth is a complex one with valid arguments on both sides. While some argue that democracy cannot function without equality of income or wealth, others believe that economic equality is not a necessary condition for a functional democracy. It is also worth considering the impact that democracy itself may have on income or wealth equality, as the relationship between the two is not always straightforward. Further research and debate are needed to fully understand the relationship between democracy and equality.