All papers are checked via
|← A Democratic Model of Development||Political Theory →|
There are a lot of political developments in the United States of America especially now that it just six months until the Election Day. This is evident from the various periodicals written to address different political ideologies such as Mother Jones and Commentary. They come up with different articles that try to exemplify different political ideologies. These articles play an important role in politics especially at this time when there is vital and potentially pivotal election in the history of America. For instance, the article in Mother Jones, National review, that says that Cain looks more typical black as compared to the President Barrack Obama. In the Commentary, the conspicuous article that illustrates political ideology is the article that tries to explain whether it is true that the Jews are divided on Iran. These articles together with others present different political ideologies that feature in various parts of the world.
In the article Jews divided on Iran? Not really, Jonathan Tobin, the author, says that the Iranian nuclear weapon threat could be one important factor that has united the pro-Israel community over a long period of time. According to Tobin (2012), the power of this consent is in away that the real division is over whether it is prudent for West (America) or Israel to attack Iran for delaying the approval to employ diplomatic force solution before actual force is involved. According to Tobin (2012), it is debatable as whether the Iran does not want to install that kind of a weapon and that it could be contained. On the other hand, the American President Barrack Obama reiterated his determination to stop that nuclear weapon being built by the Iran. In his speech to AIPAC conference, President Obama illustrated that such voices are extremely on limits of public debate, and not just Jewish community. He denied an allegation that he has a repression tactic.
In this article, Tobin emphasized that it is apparent that the conservatives are highly questioning the authenticity of President Obama promises on this issues. They claim that his actions do not match what he says he will do. They accuse him of false promises he had given long time ago especially during campaign. However, a lot of questions are being posted whether the US President has done much as far as this is concerned or if he will take action at all with regards to this matter.
In this article, the author has the opinion that Israel is hindered from achieving her dream of success by opposition to her measures of self denial and defense to collaborate with Iran. Very little attention, if any, is given by the Congress to Israel’s efforts to get AIPAC’s ankles on the issue. President Obama is also seen to have abandoned the issue. The President speech showed that he has detached group’s agenda of pressure on Israel for the interest of peace making process.
Tobin (2012) says that according to the experts, the harder line that President Obama articulated also happens to be good domestic politics. They say that some jitters of Jewish voters about his support for Israel and defused the attempts of Republicans presidential candidates to use Iran as a wedge issue against him as the calmed them by his speech. Hence, Obama’s tilt on this issue illustrates that he is aware that there are few votes, Jewish or non-Jewish, to be won by sounding soft on Iran, despite the fact that the left hopes to buttress what it believes is Obama’s true wish to stay out of a conflict on Iran.
David Hanson in the article, National Review: Cain is more “Authentically Black, tries to alienate Herman Cain from the allegations that republicans play immature racial and gender based politics. The entire article comes in the defense of Republicans party. Hanson (2012) dismisses the notion that Republicans are involved in sex scandals while their counterparts Democrats do not by giving example of Democrats who suffered the sex scandals. For instance, Democrats like Bill Clinton, Eliot Spitzer, and John Edwards who were impeached, resigned in disgrace and another one who is facing criminal charges over supposedly spending campaign funds to assist cover their deeds.
The author goes ahead to mention that Republicans have far better good and clean track records compared to democrats who are being implicated as dirty with several scandals and offences. He cites several examples of Republicans leaders such as George Bush, Dan Quayle, John McCain and Clarence Thomas as Republicans who are role models if anyone wants to avoid any actual consequences for their transgressions. He says that both detractors and supporters concur that Cain ought to know by now that supposed misdemeanors by Republican frontrunners are usually more serious compared to their known transgressions by Democrat rivals.
Hanson, in this article, emphasize that sexual harassment is a casual tool that is used by ill-motive women who are incapable of getting ahead by other means. He also goes back to the good old Don Draper days where the office coffee break with friends was now clearer and yet primmer compared to its 1950s complements- in a manner that nearly no topic was forbidden, and yet any careless frivolous sexual remark could rebound as a career ending offense, hence, being another case of an oversensitive women who can’t take a joke (Hanson, 2012). The author therefore, describes accusations against Cain comparable to a second bout of cancer. When regarding the question of who is really black between Obama and Cain, Hanson says that Herman Cain is really Black, while Barrack Obama is the kind of Black that white people like.
Hanson defended Cain by saying that he is the real African-American. He calimed that Mr. Obama is only a scholar with nothing much more and therefore, it will not be fare to compare the two personalities. He dismissed Obama for being a mere son of a Kenyan-elite who just came to Unite State to study. He went further to mention that Obama fellow democrats are surrounded with ill fame as opposed Cain. He described Cain as a good leader who lack such embarrassing moments in his life history (Hanson, 2012). Besides, Cain is portraying his black nature from the way he leads his life, whereas Obama is leading an extravagant life full of self fulfillment evident from the people and places he hangs out.
The comparison between Cain and Obama is not too much volatile because it is flattering to conservatives who desperately need a symbolic figure or racial absolution having latched on Cain as a racial excuse and an explanation for the fact that Lincoln’s party has not broken 20% of the black vote since Richard Nixon (Hanson, 2012).
The two magazines are related since both of them talks about American politics. However, Hanson emphasize on the political parties in the United States while Tobin addresses the Iran nuclear weapon. President Barrack Obama is the main character in both articles. However, the article in Mother Jones, Hanson gives a comparison between the previously contending candidates, Obama and Cain. In this article is anti Obama while it exalts Cain who was the Republican candidate. . While many people believed that Obama is Black, the author portrays Cain as more real Black compared to Obama. This has generated a hot debate that does not only exist in the United States, but the whole world in general.
Moreover, the article by Hanson counteracts the belief that Republicans are more evil compared to Democrats. This has been the case for a period of time with Republicans being accused of many different offences including sexual harassment. This notion is dismissed by this magazine saying that Democrats are even more evil than we think Republicans are. Likewise, Tobin in the Commentary, talks about the same story but in a different manner. It discusses how President Obama relates with other countries, and tactics that he is using to gain more popularity than Republicans.
While it is believed that US has declared war on the Iran’s nuclear, and even President Obama having delivered speech in regard to this issue, nothing has been done so far (Tobin, 2012). This article has shade more light on various tactics used by Obama and Congress to evade or not talk about this issue despite the speech at AIPAC. The other issue that brings itself clearly out of these magazines is that, blackmailing, false promises, and false accusations are the main component of American components with both republicans and Democrats using them to earn popularity against each other, and maybe gain more votes. In summary, these two magazines have similar political ideologies as illustrated in their contents.
In my opinion, politics is evolving giving rise to new tactics and methods of campaigns, and voting. With the invention development of technology, politics have gone online with politicians now being capable of addressing or accessing many people within a short time. Thus, politicians have employed new tactics so as to cope with these changes. For instance, false accusations and promises are being highly used to gain people’s confidence. They are using different tricks to win people’s faith. We have seen numerous politician giving promises which they have never fulfilled. This is in line with Tobin opinion that President Obama is saying in with regards to Iran’s nuclear. He is not walking his talking, but just perpetuating rumors in order to gain political miles ahead of the coming election by winning Jewish and Non-Jewish votes.
My opinion in some way is related to Mother Jones which tries to show how the republicans are accused wrongly by democrats. Racism being a major factor ragging behind political arenas, it is highly addressed in this magazine saying that being black does not simply mean that you are closely related to African-Americans. This is clearly shown in the case of Herman Cain and Barrack Obama. Despite the fact that Obama is a son of an elite Kenyan and a white graduate student, this does not grant him with a direct qualification of being related to blacks than other whites. This view is therefore closely related to my view compared to the viewpoint of Mother Jones.
In conclusion, I agree with Tobin in the Commentary to a greater percentage as compared to Hanson article. This is because Hanson only highlights achievements of Republicans wth a lot of emphasis on Democrats shortcomings. He does not give both achievements and failures of the parties and then draw a conclusion. He is biased towards democrats. On the other hand, Tobin address a matter at hand, which is very crucial, Iran’s nuclear. The current US President has not taken a clear action against the issue though he keeps giving a lot of promises concerning the same.