Coursework Essays on Politics

First Essay

Politics and the Media

It is an inconvenient truth that in America, and abroad, media consumers often pursue outlets that confirm their own personal biases. This confirmation bias is often subconscious and even the most diligent researcher or media consumer can unknowingly fall within its reach. While there is nothing wrong with confirmation bias on the surface, it does pose several unique problems when it becomes the driving force of what media outlets an electorate chooses to focus on. In regards to American democracy, the confirmation bias that exists within media outlets is a problem because it manipulates the consumer into believing what the media outlet reports instead of delivering just the facts, which in turn can make a media consumer vulnerable to voter persuasion through the false reporting of various politicians and/or Presidential candidates.

The problem here is not that media consumers knowingly flock to media outlets that cater to their personal beliefs and morals. The problem is actually what media outlets choose to do with their reporting and broadcasting when they know they have a certain audience that is more receptive to certain tones, attitudes, and reports. Media outlets such as Fox, CNN, and ABC are primarily journalistic mediums whose primary focus is to deliver accurate and factual reports while keeping any sort of bias out of the equation. However, these same media outlets take advantage of their consumer audience time and time again, which often shapes the beliefs and ideas of the American democratic society. In a comparison of two different articles, each of which reports on rising unemployment rates but comes to different conclusions, Sendhil Mullainathan and Andrei Shleifer demonstrate what is known as news slanting: “Neither story says anything false, yet they give radically different impressions. Each cites an authority, without acknowledging that comparably respectable authority might have exactly the opposite interpretation of the news…Each, in other words, slants the news by not telling the whole truth, but the articles are slanted in opposite directions” (1033). Media outlets have the responsibility of delivering all the facts surrounding a story or report. However, many media outlets tend to use a loophole in which they deliver nothing but facts, but they do not deliver all the facts. This creates a false representation of a given report, such as a story on a politician, which has a very great chance of effecting an American voter’s opinion, ultimately yielding to a misinformed electorate. This is how confirmation bias within media outlets can negatively affect American democracy.

Many Americans choose to follow or interact act with media outlets that tend to cater to their own perceptions, beliefs, and opinions. This is known as confirmation bias and it is an inevitability of the human condition. However, many media outlets choose to take advantage of this confirmation bias by reporting on stories and omitting key facts. While not lying to their audiences, these media outlets are doing a great disservice to the American democratic system. By not reporting on all of the facts, many media outlets have the ability to influence public opinion, which can manifest itself into a misinformed electorate. Ultimately, this can lead to skewed and misinformed views in the American voter which is never a good sign for American democracy.

Second Essay

U.S.A.: All for One and One for All

The United States of America, being perhaps the largest and most formidable world power, has many responsibilities to think of before performing actions on an international scale. In the modern world, war is much more complicated than it once was. Because of a broad alignment of allies as well as intricately woven international trade agreements, war has now become such a convoluted wasteland where one country declaring war on another country often has large repercussions for many other nations. For this reason, the U.S. should act only with the support of other nations when it is in the deciding stages of whether or not to start a war with another country, especially if that country is another large world power. While this may be a controversial decision, as the entire nation of America was the outcome of a war that was planned and initiated by one group of people without the consideration of other nations, the modern day world and international culture demand a group decision when it comes to war. One problem that can arise from this situation is that one allied nation may not condone the act of war initiated by the U.S., which would either create tension between the U.S. and an allied nation or otherwise prevent the U.S. from going to war when its respective society deems it necessary to do so.

Going to war in modern times means having a substantial backup in the form of international allies. However, if those allies do not agree to the war, then America should most definitely think twice before entering it. This is why America cannot solely go to war without getting the validation from its allies; it risks losing allies if it betrays those allies by going to war. Therefore, war is no longer a unilateral decision like it used to be. According to David Santoro, “Washington would be misguided to waste blood and treasure just to honor what he refers to as a ‘sheet of paper,’ and warns against the danger of forging alliances in places where there is no interest that warrants war” (1). Essentially, losing allies is too severe of a consequence to go to war. So, if America decides to go to war, it must do so at the advisability of its allies. Not gaining that approval from allies and going to war anyway would create tensions between the U.S. and its allies. However, not going to war because the allies do not approve would hinder the power of the American military. This juxtaposition puts the U.S. in a predicament. However, the loss of allies is more of a penalty than the loss of face on a global context, so it is essential for the U.S. to act on war only with the international community’s approval even though this may mean losing credibility.

As independent nations on this Earth, countries are free to make their own decisions. But because of the reality of the modern world, these decisions or acts often have global ripples. Although America is perhaps the world’s largest superpower, the U.S. should not commit to an act of war without universal approval from its allies. Reluctance to gain such approval risks putting America at odds with its allies. This would be a grave mistake as the U.S. relies heavily on its allies to complete goals all around the world. Therefore, while it may cause a loss of face or credibility, the U.S. should never go to war without consulting other nations.

Third Essay

Presidential Promises: What Makes the Agenda

Being president means taking on a job that requires mental and strategic tenacity. It is not for the faint of heart and it is not a position for anyone to take lightly. Once in office, a President is faced with tackling the issues he or she sees as the most important as well as making good on promises set on the campaign trail. If I were given the opportunity to grace the Presidential office, I would tackle domestic issues first. One domestic issue that would be on the top of my priority list would be gun control. Gun control is a highly controversial debate here in America and while the President does not have complete control over the issue, he or she has a rather large sphere of influence that can dictate how gun control is handled. As President, I would make guns harder, albeit still possible, to purchase and own by an American citizen. This country needs additional security and the outbreak of mass shootings is proof that gun control laws need to be tightened.

While not all domestic issues are able to be answered by the President, gun control is one such issue that a President has a large amount of influence. By signing executive orders, the President can almost singlehandedly make guns easier or more difficult to purchase. As proof of this, according to the Office of the Press Secretary, “The President has directed the Departments of Defense, Justice, and Homeland Security to conduct or sponsor research into gun safety technology…the Administration is also calling on States and local governments to do all they can to keep guns out of the wrong hands and reduce gun violence” (3). As can be observed, the President can issue commands to many government bodies, as well as state and local governments, to come together in an effort to tighten gun control laws and manufacture safer guns. As President, I would expand on these orders and make it so that every prospective buyer of a gun must go through rigorous background checks as well as mental screenings in order to ensure the safety of the gun purchaser and those around him or her. Only then will America see a decline in mass shootings and perhaps even lose its reputation as a gun-happy, violent culture.

Gun control is one of America’s largest and most controversial domestic issues. Rights set forth in the Constitution such as the Second Amendment create a definitive fissure in American’s opinions on the subject. However, at the current rate of mass shootings and homicides in many cities every night, there is an apparent and obvious problem. As President, I would not want to infringe on anyone’s right to own a gun. However, in order to curb murder and shooting rates, I would make it a lot more difficult for prospective gun purchasers to actually purchase a gun. Provisions such as detailed background checks and mental health screenings for every gun purchaser would be mandatory. In this way, anyone who wants to own a gun still can providing that they have no history of gun violence as well as no possible future inclination to commit gun violence. In an effort to curb gun violence, I feel as if this would be a great Presidential move to singlehandedly keep Americans safer while keeping their right to bear arms alive.

Works Cited

Mullainathan, Sendhil, and Shleifer Andrei. "The Market for News." The American Economic Review 95.4 (2005): 1031-053. Web.

Office of the Press Secretary. “Fact Sheet: New Executive Actions to Reduce Gun Violence and Make Our Communities Safer.” The White House (2016). Web.

Santoro, David. “America’s Treaty Allies: Worth Going to War Over?” The National Interest  (2014). Web.