Showing posts with label Liberal. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Liberal. Show all posts

Saturday, June 29, 2019

The American Two-Party System - The Roots of Polarization - Destroyer of the Independent Movement.


For the first time in our history in the 2016 election there were more Independents voting than either Democrats or Republicans.  Yet Independents remain the victims of the most vicious and discriminatory laws in the nation.  There is no such thing as an Independent party in America, and those who register as an Independent are denied the right to vote in the primary election for federal elected officials in most states.  

Did you ever wonder how a nation as powerful as America could be dependent on only two political parties to the exclusion of anyone who disagrees with them? Well it was not always that way. In fact there were no political parties back when we tossed out the English. Perhaps this history of the two party system will help you understand why it evolved and how it might have failed to meet the needs of today.

Following the publication of the Declaration of Independence (1776) and before the successful resolution of the War for Independence (1783), the American colonies decided it would be best to "confederate," at least for the purposes of entering into strategic alliances with European powers and perhaps waging war again with the mother country. This gave the U.S. the Articles of Confederation (1781), the first constitution of the "United States.” But the Articles were soon deemed inadequate and another Constitutional Convention was called (1787) which resulted in the U.S. Constitution (1789). But not without a fight.


The “Federalists” were of course instrumental in the movement for the new U.S. Constitution and for a stronger Federal role. The so-called Anti-Federalists were concerned that this new Federal government might over-power the states' sovereignties and abridge individual citizens' rights (most states had a long and proud history of individual rights). The passage of the Bill of Rights, as a permanent limit to the powers of the Federal government, answered much of that argument. Nonetheless, the struggle between a strong Federal government and state sovereignties has been an important thread in the play of our two-party system from the very beginning.

From that beginning in 1789, the U.S. didn't have a two-party system; it had George Washington, a President without a party. During his two terms, a rivalry grew between John Adams and Thomas Jefferson, both Federalists. Jefferson challenged Adams under the banner of the Democratic-Republican party. Interesting that this first real party, alone, should contain the nominal seeds of the present two-party system. The word Democratic implies will of the people, the word Republican implies rule of law (protection from a potential tyranny of the majority). The (mostly aristocratic and Virginian) Democratic-Republicans kept the Presidency from 1800 through 1828.


In 1828, the popular war-hero Andrew Jackson became the first President from a new party, the Democrats, the true party “of the people." With the exception of one term when the Whigs (a party whose name more clearly identified itself as the party of privilege than the Democratic-Republicans whom they replaced) won the Presidency, the Democrats held the White House until 1860.

The Northern Abolitionist Movement gave birth to a new party (1856), the Republicans. Abraham Lincoln was their first successful candidate for President (1860). The Northern, anti-slavery and pro-business Republicans held the White House thru 1912, with the exception of the Democrat Grover Cleveland's two non-consecutive terms. 1864 really marks the beginning of the two-party system of Democrats and Republicans. From the beginning, the Republicans have been Northern and pro-business, the Democrats Southern and more populist. Woodrow Wilson was the only other Democratic President besides Cleveland before the Great Depression. So, for all intents and purposes, the Republicans held Presidential power for 72 years but for 16 Democratic years.


The Great Depression (1929 and forward) changed all that. As business had so completely failed the people, the party of the people, the Democrats, under Franklin Roosevelt, won the support of the majority of the voters. Indeed, they kept power through 1968 except for the two terms of Dwight Eisenhower, who won his elections not for his politics but for his stature as a war-hero. Pretty much the Democrats (FDR, JFK, LBJ) successfully defined themselves as the party of the people, of the poor and middle class, and of the large and growing labor movement.

The Republicans were pretty much forced to redefine themselves, not as the party of privilege but as the party of individual and states’ rights, and of tax cuts and reduced government spending. But this didn't win them elections (nor did it represent their real values). Most Americans since FDR have identified themselves as Democrats, a natural thing as most Americans are not wealthy. Ever since 1932, the Republicans have only won the Presidency when their candidate was more personable and more “Presidential,” not because of his positions on the issues. Poll after poll for the last 70 years show Americans identify with Democratic positions even when they elect a Republican. TV has been a potent force in this phenomenon, as has the increasing role of religion and ignorance in the American political scene.


The nature of the parties' differences has altered dramatically, if not fundamentally, since 1864. The initial differences were over slavery and industrialism and the dominance of the South (poorer and less populous) by the North. The differences in the 1890's, following a Depression, were over a Gold standard and whether debts were to be repaid by cheaper or more dear money. In the 1910's, party differences centered around isolationism and fighting World War I. In the 1930's, again following the start of a Depression, the Democrats became the party of the people and of the Labor Movement while the Republicans were seen as the party of the Wealthy.

Since Franklin D. Roosevelt, then, the parties have divided the electorate, for better or for worse, along economic class lines. How then, you ask, have the Republicans been able to win any national elections at all, as they are the party of the Sheriff of Nottingham, not the party of Robin Hood? The reason is not hard to see. The rise of the Independents, now larger than the registration of either major party, began during the Viet Nam era and has accelerated ever since.


Both parties have lost their identity and lost their commitment to principles long held sacred.  As the voter had a more difficult time distinguishing between the two, neither party could dominate as split power between the parties provided a viable check and balance for the people.

While the more aggressive conservatives in the Republican party, Liberals in the Democratic party, and Libertarians in the loose confederation of the Tea party get all the media attention, in truth all three are fighting it out for control of the middle ground in political philosophy.


Today America can be found where the conservative and liberal philosophies blend in the middle, where fiscal responsibility and limited federal government embrace certain social obligations while rejecting other social issues.  America is not about class separation and philosophical polarization, it is about individual freedom and equal opportunity.  Neither party holds the key to such a goal. 

No Republican wants to starve the poor or cut benefits for the elderly any more than a Democrat wants to wipe out the upper class or take over big business. The very concept of such thought is promulgated by the news media to increase TV ratings, sell advertising or sell newspapers. Oh yeah, and also to help all the news "contributors" and political pundits sell their latest book telling us what is wrong with our country but only from their perspective.

So that is an entirely over-simplification of the history and evolution of the two party system and it will hopefully give you some insight into how we got in our current mess.  Getting out may take a lot more work than we hoped.
.

Thursday, June 13, 2019

Bulletin!!! The Bill of Rights and Responsibilities of the News Media - Society of Professional Journalists Code of Ethics


Professionals, Educators and Students of Journalism
Do You Measure Up?

The press, or news media, are protected by the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America.

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.


This is the Code of Ethics used to guide the news media in the exercise of their work.  Do you think they are following their own Code of Ethics?  First a bit about the SPJ.  

Society of Professional Journalists Improving and protecting journalism since 1909

Our Mission

The Society of Professional Journalists is dedicated to the perpetuation of a free press as the cornerstone of our nation and our liberty.

To ensure that the concept of self-government outlined by the U.S. Constitution remains a reality into future centuries, the American people must be well informed in order to make decisions regarding their lives, and their local and national communities.

It is the role of journalists to provide this information in an accurate, comprehensive, timely and understandable manner.

It is the mission of the Society of Professional Journalists:
— To promote this flow of information.
— To maintain constant vigilance in protection of the First Amendment guarantees of freedom of speech and of the press.
— To stimulate high standards and ethical behavior in the practice of journalism.
— To foster excellence among journalists.
— To inspire successive generations of talented individuals to become dedicated journalists.
— To encourage diversity in journalism.
— To be the pre-eminent, broad-based membership organization for journalists.
— To encourage a climate in which journalism can be practiced freely.
SPJ Code of Ethics

Preamble

Members of the Society of Professional Journalists believe that public enlightenment is the forerunner of justice and the foundation of democracy. Ethical journalism strives to ensure the free exchange of information that is accurate, fair and thorough. An ethical journalist acts with integrity.

The Society declares these four principles as the foundation of ethical journalism and encourages their use in its practice by all people in all media.


Seek Truth and Report It

Ethical journalism should be accurate and fair. Journalists should
be honest and courageous in gathering, reporting and interpreting
information.

Journalists should:

Take responsibility for the accuracy of their work. Verify information before
releasing it. Use original sources whenever possible.

Remember that neither speed nor format excuses inaccuracy.

Provide context. Take special care not to misrepresent or oversimplify in
promoting, previewing or summarizing a story.

Gather, update and correct information throughout the life of a news story.

Be cautious when making promises, but keep the promises they make.

Identify sources clearly. The public is entitled to as much information as possible
to judge the reliability and motivations of sources.

Consider sources’ motives before promising anonymity. Reserve anonymity for
sources who may face danger, retribution or other harm, and have information
that cannot be obtained elsewhere. Explain why anonymity was granted.

Diligently seek subjects of news coverage to allow them to respond to criticism
or allegations of wrongdoing.

Avoid undercover or other surreptitious methods of gathering information
unless traditional, open methods will not yield information vital to the public.

Be vigilant and courageous about holding those with power accountable.
Give voice to the voiceless.

Support the open and civil exchange of views, even views they find repugnant.

Recognize a special obligation to serve as watchdogs over public affairs and
government. Seek to ensure that the public’s business is conducted in the
open, and that public records are open to all.

Provide access to source material when it is relevant and appropriate.

Boldly tell the story of the diversity and magnitude of the human experience.
Seek sources whose voices we seldom hear.

Avoid stereotyping. Journalists should examine the ways their values and
experiences may shape their reporting.

Label advocacy and commentary.

Never deliberately distort facts or context, including visual information.

Clearly label illustrations and re-enactments.

Never plagiarize. Always attribute.


Minimize Harm

Ethical journalism treats sources, subjects, colleagues and members of
the public as human beings deserving of respect.

Journalists should:

Balance the public’s need for information against potential harm or discomfort.
Pursuit of the news is not a license for arrogance or undue intrusiveness.

Show compassion for those who may be affected by news coverage. Use
heightened sensitivity when dealing with juveniles, victims of sex crimes,
and sources or subjects who are inexperienced or unable to give consent.
Consider cultural differences in approach and treatment.

Recognize that legal access to information differs from an ethical justification
to publish or broadcast.

Realize that private people have a greater right to control information about
themselves than public figures and others who seek power, influence or
attention. Weigh the consequences of publishing or broadcasting personal
information.

Avoid pandering to lurid curiosity, even if others do.

Balance a suspect’s right to a fair trial with the public’s right to know. Consider
the implications of identifying criminal suspects before they face legal charges.

Consider the long-term implications of the extended reach and permanence of
publication. Provide updated and more complete information as appropriate.


Act Independently

The highest and primary obligation of ethical journalism is to serve
the public.

Journalists should:

Avoid conflicts of interest, real or perceived. Disclose unavoidable conflicts.

Refuse gifts, favors, fees, free travel and special treatment, and avoid political
and other outside activities that may compromise integrity or impartiality,
or may damage credibility.

Be wary of sources offering information for favors or money; do not pay for
access to news. Identify content provided by outside sources, whether paid
or not.

Deny favored treatment to advertisers, donors or any other special interests,
and resist internal and external pressure to influence coverage.

Distinguish news from advertising and shun hybrids that blur the lines
between the two. Prominently label sponsored content.


Be Accountable and Transparent


Ethical journalism means taking responsibility for one's work and
explaining one’s decisions to the public.

Journalists should:

Explain ethical choices and processes to audiences. Encourage a civil
dialogue with the public about journalistic practices, coverage and news
content.

Respond quickly to questions about accuracy, clarity and fairness.

Acknowledge mistakes and correct them promptly and prominently. Explain
corrections and clarifications carefully and clearly.

Expose unethical conduct in journalism, including within their organizations.

Abide by the same high standards they expect of others.


The SPJ Code of Ethics is a statement of abiding principles supported by additional explanations and position papers (at spj.org) that address changing journalistic practices.

It is not a set of rules, rather a guide that encourages all who engage in journalism to take responsibility for the information they provide, regardless of medium. The code should be read as a whole; individual principles should not be taken out of context. It is not, nor can it be under the First Amendment, legally enforceable.

SPJ Web Site https://www.spj.org/
.