Reagan vs. FDR

In Reagan's inaugural address in 1981, he praises individual liberty and criticizes big government with its taxes and spending for economic inflation and unemployment.  He says government is the problem, not the answer to the problems.  While reading his address, I could not help but think of FDR and his "fireside chats" via radio, that addressed the American public during a time of economic crisis too.  Both were strong and memorable leaders that led the country out of economic downfall.  However, their solutions to the country's economic problems were opposite.  FDR argued that businesses, capitalism and the elite were in fact the problem, and that government was the solution that had to override and save the economy.  Reagan captured the conservative economic principles of a free market with less regulation and limited government, while Roosevelt implemented big government programs and stimulus plans.  Even though Roosevelt's presidency and policies were forty-some years before Reagan, I could not help but compare the two due to their charisma and speech-making capabilities.  I feel like today we face the same problems with our economy.  Last year, Romney ran his campaign on the premise that federal spending had to be cut and taxes had to decrease.  Is big government the solution or is its counter of smaller government interference a better way to go?  The issue seems highly partisan.  Though it depends on the context of the time period and other factors, this is a huge belief that marks the liberal vs. conservative ideologies.  This is why Reagan's economic policies distinguished him as a viable conservative politician.

Barry Goldwater's The Conscience of a Conservative

In this text from Barry Goldwater, he criticizes the Supreme Court and their interpretation of the Constitution when ruling on cases.  He brings up the school segregation issue and says that the Constitution is what the framers intended it to be and not what the Supreme Court says it is.  He then says that even though he believes in the Court's ultimate goals of the Brown v. Board of Education decision, he does not find it fair for this to be imposed on the southern states, like South Carolina or Mississippi.  I find it hard to agree with Goldwater's claims because just like the Supreme Court, he criticizes the two other branches of the federal government for overreaching their power of what the framers intended, of limited government.  He argues for state's rights and a more localized system which matches up with what the anti-federalists fought for.  The real framers of our Constitution, the federalists, wanted a strong central government to keep the union intact.  Also, with a changing society and growth of our nation, it is impossible to tell for sure how exactly the framers would want us to handle problems.  If we did not have large federal government outreach in times of crisis' it is hard to picture what our country would look like.  For example, back to the segregation issue with southern states; the "united" states would not seem so "united" if some states were not all on the same page with the same practices and values.  It would undermine the values of our country if some states acted completely on their own whim.

Foucault, Femininity and the Modernization of Patriarchal Power

In this piece by Sandra Bartky, she talks about the differences between men and women in terms of femininity versus masculinity and gender roles.  She discusses women feeling the pressure to be thin and beautiful.  She goes into great detail about all the different beauty products and routines women go through.  She says, "the woman who uses cosmetics in a genuinely novel and imaginative way is liable to be seen not as an artist but as an eccentric...the woman who chooses not to wear cosmetics at all faces sanctions of a sort which will never be applied to someone who chooses not to paint a watercolor." While reading Bartky's arguments, I kept thinking to myself, that it seems like women just cannot win.  It reminds me of the phrase (someone might have said this in class today), "you're damned if you do and you're damned if you don't." It's like a double standard.  Even though women can have fulfilling careers and have fought for more opportunities, such as higher education and professional work, they still have to deal with being objectified, showcased through that very example Bartky gives.  Men do not have to deal with these tedious tasks and beauty regimens for fear of criticism.  This also reminds me of a piece I read a few years ago that I brought up in class today called, "There is No Unmarked Woman." Generally, it seems like men face less scrutiny from the public/society when it comes to their image and appearance.  This increased scrutiny of women from a societal standpoint hinders equality.  When you're examining and criticizing a women more closely than a man, you are not treating them as equals.

John Lewis-Walking With the Wind

When Lewis reflects on his time at American Baptist, he discusses how he soaked in his education, specifically when learning about different philosophers.  He talks about one of his professors's vibrant lectures  and how everything he learned made so much sense to him, as if everything clicked.  He notes how his professor used the example of segregation as a thesis, the struggle to destroy segregation as the antithesis and integration as the synthesis.  He says, "out of a creative conflict-a creative schism, a division and a tension between what is and what should not be-comes the process that results in what should be." This instantly reminded me of Douglass and the idea that with knowledge comes intellectual freedom.  With more knowledge and education, you realize to not accept everything as is.  The ability to transcend the thoughts of the time, society's status quo, and have the courage to act out is fueled by the realization of learning that change needs to come.  Transformations in society and history come from this concept of knowledge and awareness.  I feel like this is at the heart of the civil rights movement.  Knowing more about the world, history and society and being able to stand up for something unprecedented gave the leaders of the civil rights movement tools to have courage and boldness to stand up for themselves, their families, their race and what was right.

FDR

In FDR's first inaugural address, he emphasizes the importance of unity and togetherness to reform the economic conditions of the time.  He uses images of war to mobilize the American people, as troops would be mobilized for war.  He stressed the need for fast action.  "Broad executive power to wage a war against the emergency, as great as the power that would be given to me if we were in fact invaded by  a foreign foe."  This shows that he was trying to reach every American and make the point that this was a national emergency that required patriotism and every Americans cooperation and support. Just as a presidents executive powers are broadened during wartime, this too required that same stretch of power because this was on the same scale of destruction as war.  America was threatened by its economic circumstances and its solution rested in the people, through collective effort and a strong federal government.

Wilson and World War I

In Woodrow Wilson's "War Message to Congress," he argues that the U.S. needs to declare war on Germany because the Germans are not just attacking American ships, but ships that belong to nations we are "friendly" with as well.  He says, "it is a war against all nations." Though the U.S. wanted to focus on their own affairs domestically and remain neutral, the Germans had gone too far.  In his speech, he notes that our motive of getting involved in the war was not based on revenge, but on protecting the world and mankind from at first, in a literal sense, the seas, but in the long run, human rights all together.  Wilson also wanted to protect the German people from their "selfish and autocratic" rulers.  His arguments remind me of the concept of America as the global police power, the nation that makes the world "safe for democracy," which Wilson later says in his speech. Involvement in World War I was the starting point of the United States' role as the safe holder of democracy.  Getting involved in the war was not for us, but to protect other nations and their people.  Protecting democracy and fighting for the betterment of the world was too strong an ideal to ignore.  Neutrality could only last for so long and would not stand the test of time.

Teddy Roosevelt and Progressivism

In Teddy Roosevelt's speech "The New Nationalism," he talks about the need for a larger government to protect the people against special interest groups, most significantly corporations.  He compares citizens who make an honorable living to the soldiers in the Grand Army who fought to save the Union.  He also discusses Lincoln's challenges in office and emphasizes that we need to protect and strengthen our country.  He notes income disparity and the fact that some rich men have become rich unfairly, in a way that does not reflect the work they have put in or work that does not posivitely affect society. He says we need to get corporations out of politics; that they should not influence politics and political decisions.  I can't help but laugh when reading this because today, corporations and interest groups play a big role in politics.  It reminds me of the Citizens United vs. FEC Supreme Court case and the insane amounts of money that people with big fortunes will offer in exchange for political support.  Roosevelt's progressive agenda at the time went hand in hand with honesty, integrity and fairness in the work place.  More government regulation meant protecting citizens from unfair business and corporate practices.  He also wanted the rich to pay higher taxes, which is a contested issue today.  Roosevelt was warning us from the dangers of corporate influence and politics, as well as income disparity and conservation, things that so greatly affect us today.  Another thing I liked about this reading is that he uses the image of the farmer who left a farm for his children that was better than when he found it.  He said we should do this with our country.  This reminded me of Jefferson's and Lincoln's writings about the small farmer; their honesty, work ethic and importance in America.