Difference between revisions of "American History Homework Nine Answers - Student 37"

Latest revision as of 03:10, July 12, 2016

Joining late, just to see how I do...

1. Arguably, it has its similarities to Carter's victory over Ford: Carter rose to victory on a promise that, unlike Nixon, "[he] would never lie to you." Of course, there are serious differences too: despite, LBJ's passage of the Civil Rights Act, which "lost the South for a generation," Carter still carried the South, and Carter's victory was quite narrow, both in popular terms and relative to the electoral vote. Obama's victory, on the other hand, was only narrowly due to the South, and was a near electoral landslide. Coupled with Obama's promise of running a post-partisan Presidency, there are trace elements of Clinton (monumental electoral victory; moderate, charismatic Democrat, with less-than-average experience) and elements of Reagan (the latent possibility of realignment). Overall, I think it's too early to judge.

Over-emphasis on the size of the victory, which is meaningful only if the candidate has a clear agenda. Obama did not.

2. Imperialism is a monumental failure, in each of its many iterations (nota bene: I'll confine discussion of the term "imperialism" to actual, rather than "soft" or "cultural" imperialism). In the most recent case, imperialism's failures have only become painstakingly evident in hindsight: European powers left colonized states with ramshackle infrastructure, and failed to adequately secure that each state they created when devolving power was, actually, a "nation-state" with a coherent identity. Many colonial powers grouped different "nations" into one state: see, for example, Nigeria. The result is bloodshed, civil war, and violence, as the decolonized fight to secure for themselves a nation built on imaginary borders.

This is American history, so your examples should be of American imperialism, such as Cuba or Hawaii or the Philippines. (Minus 2).

3. No doubt the progressive movement secured important gains to the populace, from an end to child labor, uniform suffrage, and product safety guidelines (to correct Upton Sinclair's damning judgment of the food industry). The ensuing regulatory framework, however, solicited a judicial backlash that would push the Court and FDR to the brink of constitutional crisis some years later (See: Lochner). It also created separation of powers concerns that linger to this day (what, exactly, is the relationship between the administrative "branch" and the other branches of government?). The end result is unabashedly positive, but it took some time for that outcome to be clear, and it still poses some lingering problems for the legal order.

You assume as true what the question asks you to explain and justify. (Minus 1).

4. The cartoon addresses the predicament of what America could do about Cuba: fund the potential for revolution, or stay out of the picture, and let the national order of things take its course. The cartoonist is plainly sympathetic to Cuba's plight, and spins American inaction as tantamount to throwing Cuba into the Spanish abyss.

Nope, far off target here. See model answers. (Minus 3).

H2. It's important to remember that "objectivity" is not "neutrality." No doubt the media was "biased" against Sarah Palin in its portrayal of her, but, objectively, Palin as a candidate had serious problems. To the extent that the media addressed legitimate shortcomings, it was objective, if not neutral. Where the media really went too far, delving into yellow journalism, was in the immediately post-election week, as Fox News ran with invented stories about additional "gaffes" committed by Sarah Palin.

What about the presidential candidates??? (Minus 1).

H3. Regarding the election, we should seriously ponder the question of whether the religious right has lost its death-grip on the Republican Party, and indeed on America. Upon picking John McCain to run for President, it could be said that, for the GOP, "two roads diverged in a forest": they could have taken to their moderate, bipartisan nominee, and run a moderate campaign, or convinced their moderate nominee to run a far-right, religiously-themed, get-out-the-base Rove-style campaign. No doubt the GOP chose the latter, and they lost. Big. The lesson should probably be that the nation can only stand so much partisanship, or that social issues pale when the possibility of economic disaster is squarely presented. Either way, the religious right may be out of power for some time. Of course, they've been known to mount a comeback before.

I think the election polling showed that McCain ran weak with the base, with weak turnout, while Obama ran strong with his base. But you're certainly right that economic disaster, or its potential, will overwhelm social issues in a presidential election. The difference comes when the House faces the electorate in a mid-term election.

Good first effort, but you're lagging behind most of the class. Score: 53/60.--Aschlafly 22:49, 15 November 2008 (EST)