Barter
12/3/2019 02:36:39 pm
Accepting the idea that we are becoming more fragmented, do you agree with Brooks and Levin that the solution needs to come from Washington? If so talk about how. If not talk about other solutions.
Reply
Sarah Cornaby
12/5/2019 09:02:14 am
I definitely agree with Brooks and Levin that the US is becoming more and more fragmented as time goes on. It’s evident in the polarization of and rivalry between political parties, the economic separation, the cultural and ethnic divisions, and lack of civic participation. However, I’m uncertain as to whether or not a push for a more cohesive society from Washington would actually solve the problem or not; it all depends on the public response. It’s possible that if Washington took action—for example, creating a mandatory civic service program—the public would acquiesce and over time, become a more cohesive society through community and national involvement. They could also benefit from association with those from various backgrounds and states of life. However, it’s also possible that the public would be outraged at this perceived overstep of government power, feeling trapped and forced to include themselves in such programs. Such outrage and anger would likely lead to dissent and further fragmentation.
Reply
Veronique Pomerleau
12/5/2019 01:41:56 pm
Your argument is very logical, Sarah. I agree that demanding required service would cause unrest among American’s who would revolt due to the unfairness of such drastic measures. Perhaps smaller steps which provoke buy in from the people would be a better way to bring about change.
Reply
kambria cash
12/5/2019 06:27:02 pm
I would agree with your take on the issue. You mentioned that the success of the application of rules to promote change was dependent upon public response, and I believe this to be true. Change is a process and I agree that a hard push would not be very effective.
Reply
Kallie Boring
12/6/2019 07:52:07 pm
That's an interesting point. If the national government were to interfere, they definitely would have to move slowly to obtain the desired affect and receive support from the people. The people ultimately determine what goes on in Washington, so they must please the people.
Reply
Emma Vaterlaus
12/9/2019 05:32:14 pm
I agree with your stance in its entirety.
Reply
Keely Brandt
12/9/2019 08:07:45 pm
I agree that we Washington shouldn’t push anything to hard but I don’t think that encouraging civil participation is the right way to go since the government does encourage it and there is still a lack of it. But you’re argument was very interesting and well thought out.
Reply
Veronique Pomerleau
12/5/2019 01:52:47 pm
People today have become more concerned with individual identity than central identity. This may not be because we have become less social, but perhaps because we have our own commitments to other things, like ourselves and our families which we already benefit from. If the push from Washington is mandatory with an invisible reward, the people will not buy in, and will resist it. However, if the push has an obvious reward, citizens will buy in. This has to do with micro and macro. It is sometimes difficult to see the bigger picture (the betterment of American society) in the moment. But, if there is something to be gained in the short term that is made clear, then people will have a greater desire to become involved. That’s not to say that we should forget about long term goals, we should simply use smaller goals as stepping stones to get there. We cannot expect change to happen all at once.
Reply
kambria cash
12/5/2019 06:31:44 pm
I agree that a reward system would encourage people to comply with change. Also, the method of using short term goals as "stepping stones" to reach a long term goal is a very logical solution. Gradually introducing change is very effective, especially when there is a known reward or benefit.
Reply
Sarah Cornaby
12/6/2019 01:53:08 pm
I agree that a rewards system would help encourage citizens to cooperate with a federal-led push towards national unity. Citizens are far more likely to involve themselves in national matters when there is an immediate and tangible reward for them individually. In addition, this would make citizens feel like they are participating out of their own free will, so their overall attitude and response would be more positive.
Reply
Maddie Elias
12/10/2019 02:43:13 am
Very interesting argument. I agree with you about if Washington were to push the citizens would result in the people resenting Washington. The solution you provided of the idea of a reward system was intriguing. This would definitely encourage the people and make progress in lowering fragmentation in the U.S.
Reply
Barter
12/12/2019 01:35:08 pm
Micro v Macro! =) Would college tuition create a micro reward?
Reply
kambria cash
12/5/2019 06:22:20 pm
I agree with Brooks and Levin that the U.S. is definitely becoming more fragmented. We see the fragmentation in the decreasing economical, political, and demographic cohesion, and there is a definite lack of central identity. It is a concern that needs a logical and effective solution. However, a strong push from Washington may not be the most beneficial course of action. The gradual introduction and encouragement of change allows the public to have more time to respond positively, and accept and adapt to these changes. Harsh and demanding rules and changes will more likely then not bring about backlash and a lack of compliance from the people. Change is a process that cannot occur all at once. Washington should definitely work towards a more cohesive nation, but should gradually do so.
Reply
Sarah Cornaby
12/6/2019 01:58:51 pm
I agree that a gradual process is a better alternative to an immediate and harsh push from the federal government. Citizens need time to adapt if they are going to change their whole way of life, and they are more likely to work with the federal government if they feel like they’re legitimately trying to solve the problem and work with people’s individual needs and situations.
Reply
Calista Radovich
12/9/2019 06:42:54 pm
I agree with you in saying this process needs to be gradual. If the government makes sudden laws and enforces them harshly, the public would not respond in a positive manner, perhaps making the situation much worse. With a gradual continuation of slowing encouraging the public to vote more, then would a positive outcome be assured.
Reply
Tristan Mercier
12/9/2019 10:31:56 pm
I definitely agree that Washington pushing to try to create a more cohesive and close knit national consciousness would not work as it may be intended. In fact, I think Washington should stay put in general, and instead leave the growth and reunification of America to small, local groups instead.
Reply
Maddie Elias
12/10/2019 02:36:15 am
I agree with you about fragmentation in the U.S. and the lack of central identity. It definitely needs to be fixed and I also agree that Washington pushing the people isn’t the most effective way to solve this, as you said a gradual encouragement towards the people will get them going in the right direction.
Reply
Gaven Jauch
12/6/2019 09:46:22 am
I agree with Brooks and Levin America is becoming increasingly more fragmented this is evident in increased hostilities between political parties and general lack of cohesion with in the nations populace. As Americans become more independent less focus is put on community projects causing the current division.
Reply
Kallie Boring
12/6/2019 07:59:05 pm
Would you suggest then more community projects in an effort to unite the community while stitching up the division? And if so what projects? I believe that more education at a younger age in politics, public service video, etc would help the individual community unite more and thereby help on a national level as well by encouraging more voters to vote and allowing open discussion on politics that each feels is important.
Reply
Barter
12/12/2019 01:38:14 pm
And...............
Reply
Kallie Boring
12/6/2019 07:47:59 pm
I agree with the idea of fragmentation among parties and within society in general, however I do not completely agree that it is a bad thing. Perhaps in politics it is difficult to maintain a democracy with very few and strict boundaries on what to believe and perhaps that is what needs changing. If that is the goal, then national government should be involved in encouraging voters to vote and sponsoring more government based learning. However, in the culture of society, it is unique of how Brooks says that society has pushed more towards individual identity which supports movements that change the laws of government. So although political participation, such as voting, may be low, individual choice should be re-accounted for. With this view point, both the government and the individual person should be responsible for coming up with solutions that they feel are necessary to address.
Reply
Veronique Pomerleau
12/9/2019 05:18:19 am
This is a very interesting perspective. It never occurred to me that fragmentation could be a neutral or even positive event. However, united we stand divided we fall. I hope change occurs in order to further unite the people of the country because, as individuals, we cannot make as great of an impact on any matter than we can as a whole.
Reply
Grace Dixon
12/6/2019 09:49:31 pm
Brooks believes solutions such as required national service need to come from Washington. While I believe there is some merit in the idea that placing people in new settings to serve their country will inspire national unity and patriotism, I believe that forcing them to do so will not have the desired results. It is easy to imagine the heated protests that would arise from every citizen being forced to sacrifice a year of their lives to a government that they may not like or trust. Local initiatives would likely encounter similar opposition if citizens were obligated to participate. I believe that social engagement is an individual‘s decision. Local, state, and national governments and organizations can sponsor programs and events to promote civic engagement and unity but it is up to the individual to attend. If they take part in such programs, good on them! They are now a contributing member of the community and maybe can receive some tax deductions. If they choose not to participate, that’s their own problem and we probably wouldn’t have wanted them there any way.
Reply
Emma Vaterlaus
12/9/2019 05:46:49 pm
I disagree. Yes, Brooks believes solutions need to come from Washington, but that does not have to be negative.
Reply
Barter
12/12/2019 01:43:34 pm
Way the take a strong stand!
Grace Dixon
12/12/2019 01:49:21 pm
I agree that social engagement is a good thing and that all individuals should do it, however, forcing it upon them will create resentment and resentful people are not the best at building unity. The problems with thee examples you list is that they all are already expected, the social engagement mandate will be something new and that is what will cause the contention. Perhaps if it is implement gradually with high benefits for participant it will be more excepted and effective.
Maddie Elias
12/7/2019 12:12:12 am
I agree that our nation is becoming more fragmented as time goes on. Yes, political parties are becoming more hostile and and divided but this isn’t necessarily a bad thing. I believe that the hostility between the parties are getting out of control but the two main parties will never come to a total agreement that’s why they are so different. But the decline in civic participation should be fixed. It is a main part of our political culture to be involved in our nation and promote patriotism by voting, volunteering, participating in community activities and groups, etc. But I’m not sure if pushing this issue towards Washington is the best idea. It is unknown how the American people would respond to this idea of a push on civic participation, we don’t know if Washington will become more involved and be more apart of our daily lives. If Washington were to advocate our citizens to become more involved little by little then I can see a chance of this nation becoming less fragmented.
Reply
Gaven Jauch
12/9/2019 09:56:40 am
I disagree that the hostilities between the parties aren't a bad thing they are causing much more of divide than anything else going on right now. voter turn out has been at an all time high in the last elections which increased hostilities casing more fragmentation as people become more entrenched in party lines.
Reply
Calista Radovich
12/9/2019 06:48:23 pm
I would have to disagree with you and say the growing division between the two parties is a bad thing in my opinion. There will never be a time when every single person gets their way. However, this growing gap is making impossible to even get close to compromise.I believe a stronger alliance between the two parties would help mend connections and help increase voter turnout. But i agree with you in saying this fragmentation should be fixed.
Reply
Keely Brandt
12/9/2019 08:12:39 pm
I agree that political parties are different for a reason and they will always have different stances and while I believe that it is a bad thing I don’t feel as if it’s the most pressing matter at this time. I agree that civil participation is the most pressing matter as there is a decline in it. While the government could possible find ways to push it there will always be people who will find a way out and there will definitely be people who dislike Washington telling them what they do. I also think that Washington should deal with other more important matters and that state’s governments should help persuade people into being more involved.
Reply
Tristan Lewis
12/7/2019 05:49:50 pm
I agree with Brooks and Levin on the fact that the United States is becoming increasingly divided as a result of the two major parties and their respective beleifs. This issue has only become greater in recent years due to the growth of partisan news networks that seek to further the agenda of certain political parties at the expense of the well being of the other. Although there is a massive increase in the amount of political hostility that is no reason for a lack of Civic duty, and as a result should be corrected. Of course it is unreasonable to force the American people to participate in politics. The only reasonable method to correct the deficit in Civic participation is not through the enforcement of strict laws by the government but rather through incentives and small laws that could gradually improve participation. As a result, the individual would not feel forced and act out against the government, but rather would attempt to engage more in civic activities.
Reply
Zachary Shastay
12/9/2019 07:26:58 pm
Interesting assertion Tristan Dean Lewis, I really like how you included incentives and small laws to increase social participation. These things could change how the government runs. Why haven't the people in Washington done this already? Also, how long will it take for this argument to be disolved?
Reply
Barter
12/12/2019 01:47:11 pm
Small incentives?? Such as
Reply
Zachary Shastay
12/7/2019 10:11:30 pm
I agree with the assertions that the U.S. is becoming more fragmented and needs Washington for a solution to this fragmentation. I believe that Washington is fueling this fragmentation by drawing millions of hate towards differing political views while they could be bipartisanship that can make Americans be happy about politics and not have a bad stigma around it. If the leaders of our country stood up and were determined to make a change within society I believe they could. The solution to fixing the problem of fragmentation is accepting the fact people don't want to take sides on a political argument because they will be hated and yelled at if they take their own side. Washington needs to make it known that differing viewpoints are okay and that at the end of the day we have to agree on something
Reply
Tristan Lewis
12/9/2019 05:34:50 pm
I agree with your position that Washington is in fact the source of division in the United States. In my opinion the reason that such a division is occuring is becase of the never ending smear tactics that are propagated by many congress men and women. As a result of this endless forwarding of a personal political agenda, the people of the U.S are left in a state of constant conflict.
Reply
Tristan Mercier
12/9/2019 10:34:16 pm
I think you hit on a very important point, that perhaps people are fragmented because of the perpetuation of a toxic system in which there is no compromise and only finger pointing and yelling incoherently, when given the complete opportunity to fix those issues.
Reply
Calista Radovich
12/8/2019 05:32:12 pm
I agree with Brooks and Levin. Our society continues to become more fragmented as the right and left sides of politics pull further apart. So i do believe Washington needs to take a stand. Now, i don't believe they should be forcing citizens to participate in anything, especially politics, against their own free will. However, there are small implications that could be incorporated. In our society, people are more selfish, more focused on themselves, not having the time to do anything that doesn't fit into their schedule, which may involve their communities. So small implications of civic duties by Washington could help bring about communities to enlarge social commitments to one another.
Reply
Tristan Lewis
12/9/2019 09:50:37 pm
I too think that small government incentives could go a long way to improve civic engagement. I assume that you believe that people should be less selfish and think of the greater good rather than focus on ones self. I agree with that completely but I fear that government involvement in social program expansion would take away some state power and thus increase federal power.
Reply
Tristan Mercier
12/9/2019 01:12:18 pm
I think it’s quite obvious that the government isn’t the real solution for fixing fragmentation. As we discussed in the previous article, we as a society need to go back to the days of social interaction and tight knit groups, as a way to increase our own empathy and civic participation. The continuing decrease in participation just further expands the idea that we as a society are becoming less and less tolerant of each other, and as such, the more fragmented we are as a society.
Reply
Zachary Shastay
12/9/2019 07:23:53 pm
I couldn't agree more with your assertion that the United States needs to go back to its old ways and have more social interaction. Social interaction would show others that its okay to have differing opinions and that we can agree on something at the end of the day because we are "Homies". But what course of action should we take to incorporate social interaction within society?
Reply
Emma Vaterlaus
12/9/2019 05:58:22 pm
I definitely agree with Brooks and Levin that the US is becoming increasingly fragmented.
Reply
Grace Dixon
12/12/2019 01:52:40 pm
I agree that change must come first on an individual basis. Regardless of what the government does it is the individual who must accept those changes.
Reply
Keely
12/9/2019 08:04:21 pm
I believe that the U.S. is becoming more and more divided on many important stances but I don’t believe that the government is the real solution to the problem. People all have opinions and the if the government got involved it wouldn’t solve any of the major divisions and it might just make it worse. I think that people need to realize on their own that they need to participate to make things better and if Washington forces something upon them it will make the people hate something even more.
Reply
Leave a Reply. |
Archives
January 2020
Categories |