POLS 1301 Short Answer PDF

Preview

Summary

Download POLS 1301 Short Answer PDF

Description

1. In Unit 3, you learned about climate change, and in Unit 4, you learned about the Executive Branch. First, identify which executive branch and bureaucratic agencies might be involved in the work to combat climate change. Second, explain how climate change might constitute a collective action problem, which you learned about in Unit 1, and how it can be difficult to encourage individuals to fulfill a social responsibility of this type. Climate change has been a relevant yet controversial issue in recent decades. Many people don’t believe it is a real thing. Despite this, there are many politicians and people in government working to fight this big battle. Congress, under the Legislative branch, is responsible for authorizing laws to address the climate challenge and appropriating funding for relevant programs. The Clean Air Act, for example, provides the foundation for many different climate policies. An economy-wide, market-based approach to climate change would require Congress to enact new legislation. The U.S. government also has several departments that have climate change in their watch. One being the Department of Agriculture, Global Climate Change. This department places a heavy emphasis on climate change because it is a huge factor on what they stand for. They ‘oversee the American farming industry” (AllGov.com) along with playing a role in rural and forestry related global change programs. They also deal with the USDA on policy issues. Another department that deals with climate change is the Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). The purpose of this department is to understand the relationship between human activity and the way that it affects the planet. Another important one is the EPA and the NAAQS; they are tasked with monitoring pollution rates and the general quality of the planet’s air. For us to make an impact we would need to change the way that we live. For the most part, this will not happen because people are not open to changing the way they live. For instance, if cars were to become illegal due to the pollution, people would riot because we are used to the having them and depend too much on them. 2. In Unit 6, you learned about the Median Voter Theorem and how politicians will do best in the election if they identify the median voter’s position in whatever constituency they are appealing to. Why does this strategy sometimes result in a candidate seeming to change his or her positions when moving from a primary to a general election? Now, give an example of a situation where you think a candidate either attempted to follow the median voter, or a situation in which he or she did NOT attempt to move to the median voter’s position. Do you think the candidate in your example behaved strategically? Do you think he or she behaved ethically? The Median Voter Theorem can change the way that candidates run for elections. It is comparable to a simple number line. There are the two ends, in this case a democratic end and republican end and in the center, a median. During some election’s candidates will be on either end of this line, either only appealing to the left or right side. Sometimes, when there is a lot of median space in the center, one of the candidates might try to shift their views. They are changing their stance a little to try and appeal to more people and to collect more voters, and for the most part it does work. For example, this is what happened back in 1972 when George McGovern pushed himself into the far left leaving the median voters open for the taking. “Nixon ran a campaign that was fairly left” (Henderson, 2017). This is how Nixon was able to win the election, because he realized that he needed to appeal to the majority rather than the few. This type of campaigning is strategical because the candidate knows that while they might

not believe fully on the stance they are taking; it grants them the opportunity to seize the election. I would say that it is more strategical than it is ethical. It might not be the most ethical of decisions because the candidate might be saying some statements that they don’t believe in, and likely won’t follow and/or put in place later like they told their voters they would....