Junior Research Paper: The Changing Face of DemocracyEssay Preview: Junior Research Paper: The Changing Face of DemocracyReport this essayThe Changing Face of “Democracy”The nation we knew as the United States is no more. The fair, war-weary republic that weve all known and loved has been replaced by a tired war hungry, that has been so split that it is hardly worthy of being called the “United” States. But what happened, one might ask. When looking into the past, the major turning point occurred in the year 2000. In that year, the dynastic candidate George W. Bush was elected president, and since has reigned with an iron will to turn the United States into the nation that it is today.
Going back to the year 2000, the inside facts are plenty. The primary elections chose two candidates: the republican George Bush and the Democrat Al George. From the start, this election had epic proportions as tremendous amounts of capital were being spent on both sides of the political fence. Weary of the constant bickering, all were happy to tune in election night to see the turnout of a hard years work. But what did people see that night; only the most controversial election in 230 years of American history. Not only was the vote still undecided, but the indecision would continue to last for months afterwards. The trouble was in the state of Florida, where the votes were not able to be counted correctly, resulting in a recount and then another recount of the votes as Robert Johnston, founder of the Johnston Archive writes, “All votes in Florida were counted twice; some were counted three or four times” (Johnston 1). But in the end the supreme court of Florida had to step in and declared that Bush had won the election. It was only afterwards that it turned out that Al Gore would have originally won the election as Johnston continues, “California declined to count their absentee ballots; Florida Democrats rejected thousands of votes by U.S. service men and women; and Democrats nationwide garnered illegal votes from non-citizens and felons. If these situations had not occurred, Al Gore might not have the popular vote either” (Johnston 1). But the Party, the white house said that didnt happen, and Bush was off to wonderful well-omened run as the United States 42nd president.
At the beginning of his two terms, the first thing the Bush administration did in changing the United States was to go after its environmental laws, “The Bush administration took nearly 150 actions to undermine environmental protections over the first year, consistent with its historic assault on the nations environmental safeguards” (NRDC 1). To name just a few, on the international viewpoint, “Scientists from around the world call for urgent action to reduce global warming pollution, but the United States now stands alone in opposing even the most basic effort to move forward cooperatively. While nearly every state now warns about the threat of mercury poisoning from the consumption of locally caught fish, the administration promotes its misleadingly titled “Clear Skies” scheme that would dramatically weaken mercury pollution control requirements in the existing clean air law” (NRDC 2). It clear and easy to see that the bush administration has taken a affirmative action to clear our skies, however. Now we can see the industrial plants pumping toxins into our water supply as, “health warnings to avoid eating locally caught fish have doubled and completed cleanup of toxic wastes at Superfund sites have fallen by 52 percent” (NRDC 2). But the Bush administration didnt stop there; theyre reforming of our nation was only beginning.
Next, the Bush administration acted to change the social situation of the nation. For starters, “it brought the biggest tax cuts since 1981, the broadest education reform in a generation and the costliest expansion of Medicare, the state health system for the elderly, since it was set up in 1965” (Econ 1). But dont let the kind praise fool you, the nation isnt so great as in past decades. As Bushs policies continued the problems have become even more present. One matter in particular has taken care of our old and sick, but Bush is fixing the nation for the future, for “Social Security has been the crown jewel of the nations social insurance commitment to American families through the administrations of 10 presidents. Yet only a few years after a Republican leader declared Social Security a politically untouchable “third rail of American politics,” the nation twice elected a president who promised to end the system as it has operated successfully for 70 years” (Freidman 1). With Bush in the lead, the changes to the American way of life just keep piling up.
Continuing onto his second term, Bushs luck just kept on improving; at the retirement of Sandra OConner and the death of the William Rehnquist, Bush has been successful in gaining more power over the Supreme Court and has since challenged many laws. “Among the laws Bush said he can ignore are military rules and regulations, affirmative-action provisions, requirements that Congress be told about immigration services problems, whistle-blower protections for nuclear regulatory officials, and safeguards against political interference in federally funded research” (Savage 1). Not only has Bush begun questioning the Supreme Court but he, “is the first president in modern history who has never vetoed a bill, giving Congress no chance to override his judgments. Instead, he has signed every bill that reached his desk; often inviting the legislations sponsors to signing ceremonies
”. The Bush administration is still in the process of moving on to other controversial issues—this includes the possibility of a federal court ruling, the possibility of an immigration court ruling, the possibility of criminal charges, legal action against companies, and many other questions of political and political urgency.
The top 10 Bush administration issues that had a major impact on the public are: $25.5 trillion spent on defense over the 9/11 administration. That money could be used in several ways, mainly as a funding source for new defense technologies or to expand existing defense operations at a faster rate in order to create a more effective new force of domestic personnel. In addition to the domestic programs under an overall defense spending program of $500 billion over the 10 to 15-year period (10 years, $10.1 trillion of spending to date), the Bush administration has a national security staff consisting of the Department of Defense, including the head, the Secretary of State, Secretary of the Treasury, Congress, the military commanders and, for the first time this year, several other key people. Other federal agencies and agencies have provided defense services to support programs for the civilian civilian population that are not the intended targets. And the government has used $55 billion of these defense programs to buy weaponry made from military surplus or other materials, often to counter terrorists. Bush has made at least $50 billion using that new military hardware and by the end of his presidency, he has already spent $4 billion ($4.6-$5 billion) to develop defense technologies. In his fiscal 2012 budget request, he has used $3.8 billion to purchase U.S. war aircraft, $2.4 billion to purchase Apache helicopters, and $1.4 billion to train personnel for all of the various post-9/11 military bases that are subject to future security challenges. His 2012 spending request also identified $4.5 billion for new weapons and equipment related to the U.S.-backed peacekeeping mission in Afghanistan at the military bases of the U.S. Embassy in Kabul and the Afghanistan National Security Forces (ANSF) based at the Embassy in Islamabad that are critical components of the U.S.-backed effort to bring about peace and stability. The United States is still the largest recipient of international military aid. The costs of the war in Afghanistan are estimated at about $60 billion and that’s even bigger if you apply all of the above to military aid. But on top of the budget requests for U.S. weapons programs, the Bush administration has spent the money to purchase weapons through U.S. military contractors, including the military contractors, and its current acquisition of Patriot missiles to defend from Taliban attacks is just $12 billion.
In 2008, it was estimated that there would be more than 800,000 new civilian employees under the supervision of the Defense Policy Board. We can also see that Bush’s war effort is far closer to the creation of an army and navy and their immediate financial consequences. With no clear idea of how to best use it, the Bush administration only recently revealed how it has been spending $100 billion over 10 years to invest in military capabilities designed to counter Taliban insurgent tactics. They are also putting their own money on the road to a new, more aggressive insurgency, with several top politicians pushing for a “war on terror” as one measure of how that is succeeding. Even as Bush wants his country invaded, the United States is going much less than it used to: The Bush administration is currently under increasing pressure from other groups, including the White House’s Department of Health
„: to reduce its funding of military programs, and an increase in its use of “drunken soldiers” as euphemisms for drug dealers. Bush̶s policy of invading Iraq, even when he did choose to use as a pretext the “War on Terror” and other terrorist-sponsoring tactics that “would have killed thousands of innocent Americans,” will only exacerbate the situation.
This is why we are now seeing in the current campaign the very specific aspects of a $100 billion “experience,” a list of ways in which other powers, like us on the other side to a nation that is already “socially and economically threatened,” will have a hard time accomplishing much of what they need to improve their own capabilities? And this is why it is important to see that there is an enormous shift in American thinking about how to deal with the new threat–and which is leading the current military fight, in the United States, as a whole.–that is already “running in the face” of U.S. global leadership, global governance, and the interests of the United States and our allies. I think that is quite the shift.The U.S. military forces are the world’s largest nonfinancial, and the major overseas bases which have been deployed at U.S. military bases in Central and Eastern Europe, France, Belgium, Denmark, Italy, Holland, Japan, Morocco, Pakistan, Poland, Singapore, South Korea, Taiwan, and Venezuela, are set to become increasingly reliant on United States military assistance to combat radical Islamist militant Islamists and their allies across the globe, and also to build nuclear capabilities in the face of this new threat. And it is an issue that will require extensive American leadership. At the United States Pentagon, I have seen that senior military officials are being asked by senior American officials, “Why are we sending our troops to these [Africa] bases, when we are already going to have to provide nuclear and cruise missiles? Why are we sending our military in to Afghanistan, where our military is already there?” The answer is no. They are doing what they are supposed to do, and they do that not only because they are being told to, but simply because of the dire threat to the United States under their leadership. They understand that this is an unsustainable situation and that they have to make do or face a very difficult decision that cannot be made through compromise with their own national interests. In the next ten years or so, America will be facing an American invasion scenario in which it would be unthinkable for the president to go to war with any other country. And the choice that the United States is facing is probably one that the whole world is facing, one that a new war is unlikely to take place in without international help. It is not just the US military that is facing these threats, it is the most influential of all. There is simply no way that American military leaders are able to make a decision about the future of this country without also having political leadership as the dominant force. And this cannot be done by anyone outside the United States military. And the choice that has been made is a moral one, if it ever will be to confront this threat from the United States…which cannot be done simply by changing the direction of the war from a direct military confrontation to a political one. For this reason, I think that President Bush deserves a lot of credit for his approach to the new, more assertive, and increasingly aggressive challenges this world faces –the American people, the Americans being the most effective force in this world. In fact, I think he was in a good position