According to Public Agenda, the majority of Americans are worried about a family member becoming addicted to illegal drugs, and that the government is not doing enough to combat this problem. This group is winning the competition against the family in DiPietrantonio’s post in the conflict of getting mass/majority interests on their side. The two groups in this conflict are “anti-drug” and “Pro-marijuana.” The anti-drug group has the majority, and since the issue is on the agenda in their favor, this is an example of the elite/majoritarian Congress exercising its function as representatives of he majority. This is also an example of individual-based Classical Liberalism in conflict with Civic Republicanism, as the pro-marijuana side is looking after the abilities of individuals to smoke it, while the anti-drug group is looking after the stability of the country.
Monday, October 11, 2010
Drugs and Interests of Public
Tuesday, October 5, 2010
Obama Pledges Aid To 2-Year Colleges
Sunday, October 3, 2010
Amerca Less Anxious About Foreign Affairs
Sunday, September 19, 2010
The political risks of supporting gay rights
It can be seen historically that political leaders who propose changes that are radical at the time face opposition form not only the general public but also other politicians. The article refers to passing the civil rights act to prove this point. Proponents of civil rights influenced the political policy of the day through protest and they eventually were able to get their issue on the agenda. Today gay rights activists hope to do the same thing. The gay rights movement has gotten more median attention in the past years; because of this the general public is more aware of the issue at hand. Advocates for gay marriage are fighting for what they feel is a civil right that has been denied to them and both sides are arguing on moral grounds.
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-klarman-gay-marriage-20100919,0,7513660.story
Kate White