Politics - Nationalism 15 Markers Essay Plans

At what point can a minority or individual prevent the majority from its right in a democracy from expressing its popular will?

To answer this question I would suggest you start by definition of the key terms with a representative example for each. For the purposes of your discussion, how are your defining a majority vs a minority? Democracy is also a broad term than would benefit from some clarification. You might also need to state why answering this question is important and why this question is particularly pertinent for consideration within a democracy- what values does this pull into question? What tensions might it generate? Most importantly, you would need to a establish a definition of a ‘right’ to answer this question. More limited human and political rights- such as the right to life or freedom of association typically demand a higher bar for a democracy to infringe. Social and economic rights, however, may be more contested; here we might be able to argue for more scope for the majority to impose its will. You could also argue that these two categories are not in fact distinct- without access to economic rights, an individual’s human rights may be impossible to secure. It is important in your answer not to conflate minority group rights and individual rights in a democratic system. Yes, minority rights may be the key to individual rights- an African American cannot secure their rights as an individual if they live in a segregated society. Equally, minority group rights may be legitimately be infringed in the interest of individual rights- for example some religious practices that may be harmful to women or other minorities within a given group. You should provide examples of these in your discussion. Setting these points aside for a moment, it might be worth looking at the curious phrasing of the question. It might be worth asking the inverse question- at what point can the majority legitimately impose its will on anyone? There are good answers here but if you are struggle perhaps looking at it from this angle could help unlock some thoughts.

IUsing an example of your choosing critically discuss the impact of boycotting campaigns on your chosen international company

Hey Hamza, A perfect example of a company for this question would be Nestle. Nestle is a very controversial company, particularly because of the environmental damages that they have caused. Their aggressive marketing of baby formula, slave labor, water bottling operations and many other issues have been an absolute PR nightmare for the company. Nestle boycotting has been ongoing for years, a recent impact was that they switched the labels on their water product in the US, they have removed the name Nestle from their Nestle Pure Life water, simply because of their completely tarnished reputation. People are not buying their products if they associate it with Nestle. This boycotting has for sure had a financial impact on the company, I could not find a source to cite for an exact numerical value, but if you dig online you might be able to put a number to their loss of revenue as a result of boycotting.

Do you think the Federalists or the Antifederalists had the more valid arguments?

Hi Jeniffer, I’ve put below the arguments on both sides, so that you can see why and how people held different views at the time and can make up your own mind as to who had the more valid arguments. If you have any more questions about US/global politics, feel free to drop me a message! The Federalists supported the unification of the states into a national republic, and the ratification of the US constitution. Ratifying the constitution and creating one republic was seen to be necessary by them for several reasons. Their arguments were presented in the “Federalist Papers”, known simply as “The Federalist” at the time. One of the main incentives for the states to unify was foreign dangers, specifically the threat of war from other countries. John Jay, who was later Chief Justice, wrote in the Federalist Papers about this threat. As one country, the states would be better able to defend themselves, and raise a larger army in the case of war. The Federalists also generally thought that a larger, more diverse, and less homogeneous republic was better able to preserve itself, with a multiplicity of interests as opposed to a smaller and more insular society. Finally, the Federalists were opposed to the Bill of Rights being added to the Constitution. They thought that a Bill of Rights would in fact *limit* people’s rights if it were added, and the fact that the US now has a Bill of Rights is largely down to Federalist concessions to Anti-Federalists, in order to attain ratification for the Constitution. The Anti-Federalists opposed a strong, unified federal government, and thought that it would be too similar to the monarchical British government they had just escaped from. Anti-Federalists in the end largely supported the Constitution, having received multiple concessions from the Federalists in the Constitution: strict checks and balances between the three branches of government, the Bill of Rights, and limited political terms. The reason they opposed a federal government, as opposed to state government were several: they thought that the national government would be unable to respond to local concerns and would be too distant from the people, they believed that the powers of the states would be continually chipped away once a federal government was established and that this would be an irreversible process, and they believed that the courts and the President would become too powerful in the new republic, removing power from the legislature. However, the anti-Federalists were less united in their views than the Federalists, and had in common only their opposition to the constitution as it stood. Just one last quick note from me - looking back on this debate from the 21st Century, it might be tempting to think that the Federalists are very obviously correct, given the successes of the United States since then. However, at the time this was certainly not clear, so try and put yourself in the position of Thomas Jefferson or one of the other anti-Federalists when evaluating how good their arguments were! Good luck!

What was the mission of the Ku Klux Klan?

The KKK has roots in the post-Civil War era in America. With Southern states lacking clear governance after the abolition of slavery, and in economic, social and political disarray, many white landowners, ex-slavers and confederates (those who fought for the South to remain separate from the unification process) took to establishing “order” themselves. As a vigilante group the KKK emerged to control, threaten and ultimately punish black Southerners and any white allies supporting black civil rights, justifying their violent actions as measures needed to restore “morality” and “decency”. Explicitly championing white supremacy and anti-black politics, members of the KKK believed (and continue to believe) themselves to be safeguarding “the American way of life” based on xenophobic principles.

Why did some people find Barry Goldwater's views threatening?

Goldwater was a bit of an extremists in term of policy. He is responsible for taking Republican policies and taking them further right. He rallied against things like The Great Society (The Great Society was a program launched by President Johnson to try and eliminate poverty and racial injustice.) and he also rallied against welfare programs. Goldwater was seen as a racist by many. That hurt his support among normal Republicans. Photos like these Klan members supporting Goldwater were spread throughout the country. In which hurt his support for minorities. Goldwater was also known as a huge supporter of the nuclear program. Nuclear war was a real threat back than and still kind of is today. The Johnson campaign released an infamous "Daisy" ad attacking Goldwater's support of using nuclear weapons. The Election results were disastrous for Goldwater. Goldwater lost by huge margins. Some very conservative states switched and voted Democratic. This election was the last time Alaska, Idaho, Kansas, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Utah and Wyoming voted Democratic. Goldwater even almost lost his home state of Arizona. He only won it by less than a percentage point. He did okay in the deep south, where his type of politics were more popular and widespread. Overall, Goldwater fractured the Republican Party. Before then, Republican politics were pretty moderate. Like Susan Collins type of moderate. A more far-right wing of the Republican politics was created and still lasts to this day. He alienated Moderate Democrats, Independents, and mainstream Republicans.

What role was played by the Electoral College in the 2000 Presidential election?

A very significant one indeed; for the College determined who became the next President. For one amongst the few times in U.S. history, the president WHO won (George W. Bush) didn't receive the foremost votes. This is because of the structuring of the body system in America. however primarily every state features a bound range of votes referred to as electoral votes. the quantity of those votes is set by the population of the state (that is, a lot of individuals, a lot of votes). For instance, in my home province of Connecticut, we have 7 appointive votes. The competitor who gets the most votes in my state gets those seven votes, so he or she just needs 263 more to win. Sadly, in light of the fact that we have so few votes, most hopefuls don\'t generally think about our state ;(. Be that as it may, this progression with regards to a major state like California or Texas, where losing could cost you the entire race. In 2000, Popularity based competitor Al Gut won a bigger number of votes than Shrub, yet Shrubbery won the vital states with a considerable measure of appointive votes. Accordingly, he won the decision in spite of having fewer votes from the genuine American individuals.