Prenatal Levels Of Cortisol And Placental Corticotropin...

During pregnancy, the positive feedback loop that plays a part in regulating products of the HPA axis is altered. Prenatal levels of cortisol and placental corticotropin-releasing hormone (pCRH) have been shown to be elevated during pregnancy. Placental corticotropin-releasing hormone is considered a â€Å"placental clock† that changes the development of the onset of parturition (Glynn, Davis Sandman, 2013). According to Glynn et al., these elevations have been linked to changes in the sensitivity of cortisol in the anterior pituitary and also to a decline in corticotropin-releasing hormone secretion centrally. Also, the HPA refractory period is shown to increase when additions of more extreme adrenal insufficiencies occur. A longer refractory†¦show more content†¦This is in contrast with the low levels of CRH immunoreactivity in plasma found in women who are not pregnant. Women with higher levels of pCRH during pregnancy were more likely to display symptoms of postpa rtum depression three months after giving birth (Glynn et al., 2013). Also, the HPA axis experiences a diminished response across different stressors in pregnancy. Cortisol levels have been found to decrease quickly after birth. Also, many areas of the body are dampened due to the diminished response experienced. These include more areas than the HPA axis, including a dampened blood pressure and a dampened heart rate (Glynn, Davis, Sandman, 2013). The Glynn et al. study found that administration of CRH during the third trimester actually produced no response in the women studied (2013). In addition to parts of the body being dampened, weakened psychological responses to stress have been shown. It is believed that these act as an adaptive value that protects the mother and benefits the child. One of the HPA axis alterations postpartum is hyporesponsivity. With this hyporesponsivity in the HPA axis, two different causes have been proposed. One proposed cause is that a mild adrenal suppression could be due to the sensitivity at the hypothalamus or its reg ulatory inputs associated with a decrease in CRH secretion (Glynn Sandman, 2014). The second proposed cause is that high levels of CRH in pregnancy may desensitize the anterior pituitary to

Summary Of I Know Why The Caged Bird Sings - 1184 Words

BY: Nitesh Goel I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings 1) She is described that she is poor and she is black. This proven by the quote she is a too-big Negro girl with nappy black hair, broad feet and a space between her teeth that would hold a number-two pencil. 2) Mr. Steward, the white former sheriff, comes to warn Momma that the whites were on the path to hurt or kill a black because they say a black man has â€Å"messed with† a white woman. Momma hides Willie in the potato and onion bins in case the mob comes. She views this â€Å"act of kindness† as if the sheriff has done a huge favor on them. She was angry because Marguerite knows that if the Klan had come to the house at all, they surely would have found Willie and killed him. 3) Marguerite loves her brother, because he is handsome and kind to her. Bailey protects her, and she admires his intelligence and he is good at stealing treats from the Store. Maya’s ugly appearance, Bailey makes sure to avenge his sister by insulting the offending party. One time my brother helped me when I was being bullied and he did not get them back but he would help me feel better and would tell a trusted adult. 4) Momma won because she remained calm and did not fight back. Soon later the powhitetrash gave up and went away. I had a similar victory when my brother was being really annoying I remained quite instead of yelling at him soon he realized that I did not care so he stopped. 5) My personal response on the sister Monroe scene was that this isShow MoreRelatedEssay on Summary of I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings4065 Words   |  17 PagesSummary of I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings Maya recalls an Easter Sunday at the Colored Methodist Episcopal Church in Arkansas. Her mother makes her a special Easter dress from lavender taffeta, and Maya thinks the dress will make her look like the blond-haired blue-eyed movie star that she wishes, deep down, to be. But, the dress turns out to be drab and ugly, as Maya laments that she is black, and unattractive as well. She leaves her church pew to go to the bathroom, and doesnt make it; sheRead MoreSummary Of Maya Angelous I Know Why The Caged Bird Sings1363 Words   |  6 Pagesancestors’ â€Å"old-fashioned† ways of living and thinking. Maya Angelou expertly depicted this diversity of progressive thought in her first autobiography, which focused primarily on her childhood. The three generations Angelou portrays in I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings--Mommas, her parents, and her own--represent the diversity of progressive outlooks and, despite their obvious divides on accepting circumstances through generationa l respite from direct slavery, Maya’s generation was the only one remotelyRead More Sympathy, by Paul Laurence Dunbar: A Reflection of the African Americans Struggle for Freedom911 Words   |  4 Pagesfor Freedom I know what the caged bird feels, alas! When the sun is bright on the upland slopes; When the wind stirs soft through the springing grass, And the river flows like a stream of glass; When the first bud sings and the first bud opes, And the faint perfume from its chalice steals-- I know what the caged bird feels! Sympathy was written by Paul Laurence Dunbar in 1899, right at the end of the Nineteenth Century. It is a poem about the caged bird who wants to be freeRead MoreMaya Angelou Essay1019 Words   |  5 Pagesfor black pride and heritage (St. James Encyclopedia of Popular Culture). Although she speaks for people of color, her messages of hope and strength appeal to people of all ages and races. Angelou is best known for her autobiography, I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings, in which she recalls herself as a young African American girl finding self-confidence in a highly prejudice world.   Maya Angelou’s work should still be taught in schools today because of her focus on civil rights and feminism, which continuesRead MoreWhy Should Anybody Care?1198 Words   |  5 Pages ELA7_SB_U5_L11 Introduction and Objective â€Å"Why should anybody care?† That’s the question of the day! The answer is also how you create an effective concluding section for your essay. You want to make sure your reader understands why they read through your entire essay, and you want them to be happy they spent the time doing it! Today s lesson objective is: Students will write a concluding section that follows from the information or explanation presented. In addition to a strong introductionRead MoreEssay on I Know Why The Caged Bird Sings1319 Words   |  6 Pages 1) Summary of Character Traits amp;nbsp;a) School smart (Maya is smart. When she moves to San Francisco from Stamps, Arkansas, she is skipped a grade.) amp;nbsp;b) Caring sister (she always talks of her devotion to Baily) amp;nbsp;c) Determined (she wants to get a job with the streetcar company and she keeps bugging them until they finally give her a job) amp;nbsp;d) Proud (she lives with the junkyard kids instead of going back to her father’s; she slaps Dolores for calling her mother a whore)Read MoreSister Flowers Summary Essay examples996 Words   |  4 PagesSister Flowers Summary â€Å"Sister Flowers,† is a descriptive narrative by Maya Angelou. This piece was taken from her first of six autobiographies, Why the Caged Bird Sings (1970). Angelou, with much admiration and respect, describes a woman by the name of Sister Flowers as, â€Å"the aristocrat of Black Stamps†(87), â€Å"the measure of what a human being can be†(88), and educated. Angelou, who became mute almost a year earlier after being raped at the age of eight, was at a low point in her life. She describesRead MoreRhetorical Analysis Of I Know Why The Caged Bird Cannot Sing794 Words   |  4 PagesIn Francine Prose’s essay â€Å"I Know Why the Caged Bird Cannot Sing† Prose tends to evoke her unsureness on why schools use certain books to teach students their moral values. Prose argues that certain books should be taught in English classes, that in fact, teach students their values. Prose uses several literary examples, such as Frankenstein, How To a Kill A Mocki ngbird, The Great Gatsby, etc. She also provides several controversial opinions, such as using different books to try and teach studentsRead MoreMaya Angelous I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings Essay1687 Words   |  7 PagesMaya Angelous I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings Maya shields herself against the confusion of St. Louis by reading fairy-tales and telling herself that she does not intend on staying there anyway. Vivian works in a gambling parlor at nightRead MoreEssay on Banning Books4604 Words   |  19 PagesCatcher in the Rye from high school classes after a protester reported that she had counted ‘785 profanities’ (Donelson 1985). With the offensive talk, one is clearly able to see why this book wi th the profanity alone is banned in many schools, even today. Moreover, sexuality appears to be another issue regarding why Salinger’s The Catcher in the Rye was banned in the United States. Many parts within the book dealt with sexuality in Holden’s life. For example, Holden observes the man and women

Kings David and Solomon from 10th Century B.C.E. to Present Day Controversy Free Essays

Kings David and Solomon: From 10th Century B. C. E. We will write a custom essay sample on Kings David and Solomon: from 10th Century B.C.E. to Present Day Controversy or any similar topic only for you Order Now to present day Controversy Introduction Perhaps the most famous Old Testament Kings, as well as two of the most famous Hebrew heroes of all time were, King Solomon and his father King David. Their stories have been told time and time again throughout the ages: passed down orally for centuries, then later reproduced and shared all over the globe as intricate portions of many historical religious texts including the Torah, the Koran and the Holy Bible. Biblical sources include: I Chronicles, I Kings, Ecclesiastes, as well as the accounts of many prophets. Furthermore, King David and King Solomon have been attributed to writing several Old Testament books including: the Song of Solomon, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and various Psalms. Historically, David is known for uniting the Kingdom of Israel, replacing Hebron and making Jerusalem its capitol, as well as establishing a dynasty that was held sacred in the hearts and hopes of the Jews for centuries after its demise. His son and successor Solomon is most noted for advancing David’s kingdom and for building the First Temple. In fact, according to Abba Eban (1999), author of over half a dozen historical reference books on Jewish history as well as the PBS television series â€Å"Civilization and the Jews,† â€Å"Solomon’s Temple was the crowning glory of a building program that rivaled those of the Pharaohs† (p. 50). Archaeologists claim to have found remnants of Solomon’s Temple as well in the form of a tablet dated tenth century B. C. E. (Carpenter, 2003, p. 46). However, not all historians and archaeologists agree to the authenticity of the tablet or even to the extent of King David and King Solomon’s rule. Recently, controversy has erupted concerning whether or not, King David and King Solomon, of the Old Testament (also known as the Jewish Bible) were actually the â€Å"grand builders of the united north-south monarchy in Ancient Palestine† attributed to them through the Bible and said to unravel after their demise (Halken, 2006, p. 41). The Legacies of David and Solomon According to Rogerson (1999): It is no surprise that David should be one of the most important figures in the bible. As printed in the tradition his achievements were outstanding. Before his reign Israel was a defeated vassal people. Within a few years David made Israel free, and even extended his control over some small neighbouring peoples. Before his reign there was no one dominant political or religious centre in Israel. Within a few years Jerusalem had obtained a centrality that it never subsequently lost (p. 82). David was born around 1040 B. C. E. in Bethlehem, Judah (Castel, 1985, p. 87). He grew up the youngest of eight sons of Jesse, and has been linked with the Ammonite royal family (Rogerson, 1999, p. 78; 2 Samuel, 10: 1-2; 17:25-7). As a teenager David joined the entourage of Israeli King Saul as a minstrel and harpsichord player. It was during this time period that he first gained notoriety when he defeated the ominous giant Goliath armed with a mere slingshot. In 1 Samuel 18:20-30 it states that with a dowry of 200 Philistine foreskins he married King Saul’s daughter Michal. Unfortunately, David’s marital bliss was cut short by the jealousy of his new father-in-law. Already a seasoned warrior David was praised as a military force with songs proclaiming â€Å"Saul has slain his thousands, and David his ten thousands† (Rogerson, 1999, p. 78). While fleeing Saul’s armies to the south, David accomplished a great many military victories alongside his former enemies the Philistines, as described in 1 Samuel. Though his military reign started as an almost nomadic band with him a â€Å"robin-hood like bandit-chief,† his strategic prowess was realized by the Judean elders and he was proclaimed King of Judah in Hebron, c. a. 1010 (although some texts have him proclaiming himself King of Judah) (Castel, 1985, p. 89; Halkin, 2006, p. 41). He unified the Israeli tribes to the north and Judah to south and became the ruler of all of Israel seven years later following the death of King Saul c. a. 000 B. C. E. (Castel, 1985, pp. 87-89; Grant, 1984, pp. 75-78; Learsi, 1949, pp. 49-51; Rogerson, 1999, pp. 79-80; 2 Samuel, c. a. 1100-1010 B. C. E. , pp. 505-555). In a brilliant political move David took over the Jebusite city of Jerusalem and made it the capitol of the new United Kingdom of Israel â€Å"thenceforward to be h onored as the City of David† (2 Samuel, 1997, pp. 505-555; Eban, 1999, p. 47). Moving the capitol to Jerusalem was an ingenious move on David’s part since it placed him geographically between the northern tribes of Israel and the former Judah. This also unified the Hebrew nation politically since Jerusalem was a fresh tart, not being formerly of Israel or Judah. In order to unify the nation religiously David (with the help of King Hiram of Tyre) built a palace on Mount Zion where he housed the Ark of the Covenant (Castel, 1985, p. 90; Eban, 1999, p. 49; Halkin, 2006, p. 43; Learsi, 1949, p. 55; Rogerson, 1999, pp. 81-82). He then set out to expand his kingdom taking over and taxing all of Canaan (Rogerson, 1999, p. 82). King David ruled Israel for the next 33 years (Castel, 1985, p. 89; Harkin, 2006, p. 41). Unfortunately the house of David, like many great monarchs (especially those who practiced polygamy) faced great diplomatic personal odds. Among them was internal dissent including a great deal of â€Å"palace intrigue† that was coupled with David’s personal struggles involving subduing his strong passionate nature (1 Samuel, 1997, pp. 439-504; 2 Samuel, 1997, pp. 505-555). As for Solomon, his controversial legacy began before his birth with the scandalous circumstances surrounding his parents union. His mother, Bathsheba, had been married to another man when David saw her, had her, and then had her husband put to death by placing him on the front lines of battle (Rogerson, 1999, p. 85). Since Bathsheba was a favorite of David’s he promised her that her son would be his successor. It took some clever maneuvering but Solomon was proclaimed King of Israel in c. a. 960 (Harkin, 2006, p. 43). Solomon’s reign was characterized by his diplomatic matrimonial choices, made in order to enhance his trade routes and expand his Kingdom. His first betrothal was to one of King Hiram’s daughters, solidifying his kinship with Tyre. This provided him with the materials necessary to build his father’s Temple. Another strategic marriage was to an Egyptian pharoah’s daughter. As a dowry the pharaoh burnt down the city Gezer and gave it to Solomon. All in all Solomon had 700 wives and 300 concubines (Eban, 1984, p. 49-50). Historical and Archaeological Controversy In the last several years there has been an abundance of historical and archaeological debate over the reigns of King David and King Solomon. According to Harkin (2006) archaeologist Israel Finkelstein and author Neil Asher Silberman state that, kings David and Solomon, though â€Å"genuine historical figures† were but â€Å"bandit chiefs† (p. 41). Finkelstein believes that Israel could not have reached its peak during the reigns of David and Solomon in the 10th century, but rather in the 8th or 9th. Finkelstein’s account relies wholly on the lack of archaeological evidence to prove the existence of the monumental architecture described in the biblical accounts of David and Solomon (Harkin, 2006, pp. 41-48). However, their opinion is countered by several archaeological discoveries that have occurred over the last several years, resulting in their evidence being described as â€Å"†¦tendentious†¦like a conspiracy theory†¦Ã¢â‚¬  (Harkin, 2006, p. 48). According to Blakely (2002) two maps of tenth century BC. E. ere uncovered providing archaeological evidence of King David and King Solomon’s kingdom (p. 49). Then in 2003 a possible breakthrough discovery was made: a piece of sandstone was unearthed said to be the first documented archaeological evidence of Solomon’s temple. Researchers at the Geological Survey of Israel examined the tablets and found them to be â€Å"almost certainly genuine† (Carpenter, 2003, p. 46). According to Bar-lla n University archaeologist Gabrial Barkai, these tablets â€Å"could be the most significant archaeological finding in yet in the land of Israel† (Carpenter, 2003, p. 6). Further proof of the existence of King David and King Solomon’s kingdom was the amazing find of a 3000 plus structure by archaeologist Eilat Mazar which debunks Finkelstein’s claim that David and Solomon were nothing but â€Å"bandit chiefs† (Halkin, 2006, pp. 41-48). Conclusion The tedious process of gathering archaeological information certainly takes time. Not just time but a great deal of clever maneuvering, as well as ready manpower and abundant monetary resources. Even if you do have permission to dig, there is modern day architecture to be worked around. One just cannot go around up heaving present day civilizations in order to prove the existence of past civilizations. However, in the case of kings David and Solomon their existence has been proven time and time again. Backing up the biblical account is the â€Å"Tel Dan Stele† an Aramaic text uncovered in 1993 dated 835 B. C. E. which boasts of Hazael King of Damascus’ victory over northern Israel’s king Jehoram son of Ahab and southern Judah’s Ahaziahu of the house of David (Halkin, 2006, p. 48). How to cite Kings David and Solomon: from 10th Century B.C.E. to Present Day Controversy, Papers

Democracy Essay Example For Students

Democracy Essay Democracy Complete and true democracy is almost impossible to achieve, and has been the primary goal of many nations, beginning from ancient civilizations of Greece and Roman Empire, all the way to the government of the United States today. There are a few essential characteristics which must be present in a political system for it to be even considered democratic. One essential characteristic of a legitimate democracy is that it allows people to freely make choices without government intervention. Another necessary characteristic which legitimates government is that every vote must count equally: one vote for every person. For this equality to occur, all people must be subject to the same laws, have equal civil rights, and be allowed to freely express their ideas. We will write a custom essay on Democracy specifically for you for only $16.38 $13.9/page Order now Minority rights are also crucial in a legitimate democracy. No matter how unpopular their views, all people should enjoy the freedoms of speech, press and assembly. Public policy should be made publicly, not secretly, and regularly scheduled elections should be held. All of these elements and government processes are a regular part of the American government. Yet, even with all the above elements present in the governmental operations of our country, numerous aspects of the governmental process undermine its legitimacy, and bring to question if United States government is really a true democracy. Considering the achievement of complete democracy is most likely impossible, the political system of American government is democratic, but its democratic legitimacy is clearly limited in many respects. One of the first notable aspects of the United States government which brings the democratic legitimacy into question is the ever-occurring bias between classes of people that participate in the electoral voting. Class is determined by income and education, and differing levels of these two factors can help explain why class bias occurs. For example, because educated people tend to understand politics more, they are more likely to vote. In fact, political studies done at Princeton in 1995 clearly showed that 76 percent of all voters had college degrees. The same studies have been done in the next three years and showed the percentage steadily holding at 76 percent, except in 1997, when it dropped down by two percent (Avirett 11). This four to one ration of college educated voters versus non-college educated voters shows a clear inequality and bias in the American voting system. This also brings about the aspect of income. People with high income and education have more resources, while poor people do not, and instead, tend to have low political efficacy. This efficacy has been interpreted as feelings of low self-worth in the world of politics. Vast majority of the lower class simply feels they do not have enough power or influence to make a change, thus choosing to exclude themselves from the electoral process (Fox 13). Turnout, therefore, is low and since the early 1960s, has been declining overall (Fox 17). Although in theory the American system calls for one vote per person, the low rate of turnout results in the upper and middle classes ultimately choosing candidates for the entire nation. This concludes that because voting is class-biased, it may not be classified as a completely legitimate process. The winner-take-all system in elections may also be criticized for being undemocratic because the proportion of people agreeing with a particular candidate on a certain issue may not be adequately represented under this system. For example, a candidate who gets forty percent of the vote, as long as he gets more votes than any other candidate, can be electedeven though sixty percent of the voters voted against him(Lind, 314). Such was the case with president Carter and the opposing Republican candidate Ford in the 1972 presidential election. Carter won the presidency by only one percent in the peoples pole, as well as just barely managing to get by in the electoral college with 297 votes over Fords 241 (Lind 321). This meant that almost fifty percent of the voting population did not agree with Carters views, yet had to endure them for at least next four years. Even though democracy is based on the principle of the majority rule, such close elections make the majority not that major at all, and seriously put a question mark on the democratic legitimacy of the United States government. Another element of the United State government that brings controversy to the democratic process and its legitimacy are the political parties. Political parties in America are weak due to the anti-party, anti-organization, and anti-politics cultural prejudices of the Classical Liberals (Avirett 23). Because there is no national discipline in the United States that forces citizens into identifying with a political party, partisan identification tends to be an informal psychological commitment to a party. This informality allows people to be apathetic if they wish, and willingly giving up their input into the political process. For the past fifty years, the Democratic party has been associated with the lower class people and minorities, while the Republicans have been supported mainly by upper class whites (Avirett 28). Still, there is absolutely no substantial stance that each party takes to show its allegiance to their assigned classes. In fact, Republican presidents like Ronald Regan and George Bush were credited with major accomplishments in cutting the tax for the lower income families and boosting the health reforms (Avirett 37). .uf221a05a01fe6df7b87672e74538ff4e , .uf221a05a01fe6df7b87672e74538ff4e .postImageUrl , .uf221a05a01fe6df7b87672e74538ff4e .centered-text-area { min-height: 80px; position: relative; } .uf221a05a01fe6df7b87672e74538ff4e , .uf221a05a01fe6df7b87672e74538ff4e:hover , .uf221a05a01fe6df7b87672e74538ff4e:visited , .uf221a05a01fe6df7b87672e74538ff4e:active { border:0!important; } .uf221a05a01fe6df7b87672e74538ff4e .clearfix:after { content: ""; display: table; clear: both; } .uf221a05a01fe6df7b87672e74538ff4e { display: block; transition: background-color 250ms; webkit-transition: background-color 250ms; width: 100%; opacity: 1; transition: opacity 250ms; webkit-transition: opacity 250ms; background-color: #95A5A6; } .uf221a05a01fe6df7b87672e74538ff4e:active , .uf221a05a01fe6df7b87672e74538ff4e:hover { opacity: 1; transition: opacity 250ms; webkit-transition: opacity 250ms; background-color: #2C3E50; } .uf221a05a01fe6df7b87672e74538ff4e .centered-text-area { width: 100%; position: relative ; } .uf221a05a01fe6df7b87672e74538ff4e .ctaText { border-bottom: 0 solid #fff; color: #2980B9; font-size: 16px; font-weight: bold; margin: 0; padding: 0; text-decoration: underline; } .uf221a05a01fe6df7b87672e74538ff4e .postTitle { color: #FFFFFF; font-size: 16px; font-weight: 600; margin: 0; padding: 0; width: 100%; } .uf221a05a01fe6df7b87672e74538ff4e .ctaButton { background-color: #7F8C8D!important; color: #2980B9; border: none; border-radius: 3px; box-shadow: none; font-size: 14px; font-weight: bold; line-height: 26px; moz-border-radius: 3px; text-align: center; text-decoration: none; text-shadow: none; width: 80px; min-height: 80px; background: url(https://artscolumbia.org/wp-content/plugins/intelly-related-posts/assets/images/simple-arrow.png)no-repeat; position: absolute; right: 0; top: 0; } .uf221a05a01fe6df7b87672e74538ff4e:hover .ctaButton { background-color: #34495E!important; } .uf221a05a01fe6df7b87672e74538ff4e .centered-text { display: table; height: 80px; padding-left : 18px; top: 0; } .uf221a05a01fe6df7b87672e74538ff4e .uf221a05a01fe6df7b87672e74538ff4e-content { display: table-cell; margin: 0; padding: 0; padding-right: 108px; position: relative; vertical-align: middle; width: 100%; } .uf221a05a01fe6df7b87672e74538ff4e:after { content: ""; display: block; clear: both; } READ: Language Arts Importance Essay Thesis This contradicts the idea that Republicans only benefit the interests of the upper class citizens, and clearly shows the apathy of people giving up their input into the political process due to their partisan identification to a certain party. Though this apathy is the result of a greater freedom in America than in other countries, it ultimately decreases citizens incentive to express their opinions about issues, therefore making democracy less legitimate. Private interests are probably the strongest indicators of illegitimate democracy in the United State government. Private interests distort public policy making because, when making decisions, politicians must take account of campaign contributors. An interest may be defined as any involvement in anything that affects the economic, social, or emotional well-being of a person (Cerent 9). When interests become organized into groups, then politicians may become biased due to their influences. Special interests buy favors from congressmen and presidents through political action committees (PACs), devices by which groups like corporations, professional associations, trade unions, investment banking groupscan pool their money and give up to ten thousand dollars per election to each House and Senate candidate (Lind 157). Consequently, those people who do not become organized into interest groups are likely to be underrepresented financially. This leads to further inequality and, therefore, greater illegitimacy in the democratic system. The most noted recent example of a politician being influenced by private interests is none other than president Bill Clinton. Just three months after winning his second term over Senator Bob Dole in the 1996 presidential elections, Clinton was under the investigation under suspicion of acquiring campaign money by renting historical presidential rooms to wealthy businessmen (Avirett 18). Although he was acquitted of the charges, the scandal showed that private interest is a serious issue, and a clear problem in the political system of the United States. Regans administration was known for raising its campaign money from weapon-oriented factories, which made about 32 percent of his total campaign collection in the early 1980s (Avirett 15). George Bushs campaign money came mainly from the Northern industrial cities, while Carter accepted majority of his money from the farmers in the South, promising them better trade relations with the troubled Asian markets in the 1970s (Avirett 22). All these are just a few examples of politicians taking every advantage possible to gain more money for their campaigns, undermining the legitimacy of the American government. The method in which we elect the President, on the other hand, is fairly legitimate. The electoral college consists of representatives who we elect, who then elect the President. Because this fills the requirement of regularly scheduled elections, it is a legitimate process. The President is extremely powerful in foreign policy making; so powerful that scholars now speak of the Imperial Presidency, implying that the President runs foreign policy as an emperor. The President is the chief diplomat, negotiator of treaties, and commander-in-chief of the armed forces. There has been a steady growth of the Presidents power since World War II. This abundance of foreign Presidential power may cause one to believe that our democratic system is not legitimate. However, Presidential power in domestic affairs is limited. Therefore, though the President is very powerful in certain areas, the term Imperial Presidency is not applicable in all areas. This was particularly evident in the last decade, with President Bush and Clinton exercising the Imperial Presidency as far as international affairs were concerned, yet being limited when it came to domestic issues and approval from the House and the Senate. Although Bush had strong control over military measures taken against Sadam Husseins attack on Kuwait, he was still in check by congress as far as the oil market was concerned, particularly the domestic oil production in the United States (Cerent 44). Clinton also had the power, along with the leaders of NATO, to declare and execute war against raging Serbia. Still, he was bound by Senate regarding the expenses put into the Balkan conflict, and had to rely on the congress to approve further monetary transactions (Cerent 46). These recent examples of division of international and domestic powers clearly show that Imperial Presidency is not applicable in all areas and is moving towards the right direction, thus legitimizing democracy in the United States as far as the presidential powers are concerned. The election process of Congress is also very much legitimate because Senators and Representatives are elected directly by the people. Power in Congress is usually determined by the seniority system. In the majority party, which is the party which controls Congress, the person who has served the longest has the most power. .ucf0d742849e8d94c1f2f662b1ff327b4 , .ucf0d742849e8d94c1f2f662b1ff327b4 .postImageUrl , .ucf0d742849e8d94c1f2f662b1ff327b4 .centered-text-area { min-height: 80px; position: relative; } .ucf0d742849e8d94c1f2f662b1ff327b4 , .ucf0d742849e8d94c1f2f662b1ff327b4:hover , .ucf0d742849e8d94c1f2f662b1ff327b4:visited , .ucf0d742849e8d94c1f2f662b1ff327b4:active { border:0!important; } .ucf0d742849e8d94c1f2f662b1ff327b4 .clearfix:after { content: ""; display: table; clear: both; } .ucf0d742849e8d94c1f2f662b1ff327b4 { display: block; transition: background-color 250ms; webkit-transition: background-color 250ms; width: 100%; opacity: 1; transition: opacity 250ms; webkit-transition: opacity 250ms; background-color: #95A5A6; } .ucf0d742849e8d94c1f2f662b1ff327b4:active , .ucf0d742849e8d94c1f2f662b1ff327b4:hover { opacity: 1; transition: opacity 250ms; webkit-transition: opacity 250ms; background-color: #2C3E50; } .ucf0d742849e8d94c1f2f662b1ff327b4 .centered-text-area { width: 100%; position: relative ; } .ucf0d742849e8d94c1f2f662b1ff327b4 .ctaText { border-bottom: 0 solid #fff; color: #2980B9; font-size: 16px; font-weight: bold; margin: 0; padding: 0; text-decoration: underline; } .ucf0d742849e8d94c1f2f662b1ff327b4 .postTitle { color: #FFFFFF; font-size: 16px; font-weight: 600; margin: 0; padding: 0; width: 100%; } .ucf0d742849e8d94c1f2f662b1ff327b4 .ctaButton { background-color: #7F8C8D!important; color: #2980B9; border: none; border-radius: 3px; box-shadow: none; font-size: 14px; font-weight: bold; line-height: 26px; moz-border-radius: 3px; text-align: center; text-decoration: none; text-shadow: none; width: 80px; min-height: 80px; background: url(https://artscolumbia.org/wp-content/plugins/intelly-related-posts/assets/images/simple-arrow.png)no-repeat; position: absolute; right: 0; top: 0; } .ucf0d742849e8d94c1f2f662b1ff327b4:hover .ctaButton { background-color: #34495E!important; } .ucf0d742849e8d94c1f2f662b1ff327b4 .centered-text { display: table; height: 80px; padding-left : 18px; top: 0; } .ucf0d742849e8d94c1f2f662b1ff327b4 .ucf0d742849e8d94c1f2f662b1ff327b4-content { display: table-cell; margin: 0; padding: 0; padding-right: 108px; position: relative; vertical-align: middle; width: 100%; } .ucf0d742849e8d94c1f2f662b1ff327b4:after { content: ""; display: block; clear: both; } READ: Omelas Essay The problem with the seniority system is that power is not based on elections or on who is most qualified to be in a position of authority. Congress is also paradoxical because, while it is good at serving particular individual interests, it is bad at serving the general interest due to its fragmented structure of committees and sub-committees (Fox 56). The manner in which Supreme Court Justices are elected is not democratic because they are appointed by the President for lifelong terms, rather than in regularly scheduled elections. There is a non-political myth that the only thing that Judges do is apply rules neutrally. In actuality, they interpret laws and the Constitution using their power of judicial review, the power explicitly given to them in Marbury v. Madison (Lind, 175). Though it has been termed the imperial judiciary by some, the courts are still the weakest branch of government because they depend upon the compliance of the other branches for enforcement of the laws. The best example of judicial weakness can be found in the act of impeaching the President. Although Richard Nixon never came under a full trial by the Supreme Court, he was ordered to give out a statement regarding the Watergate scandal in front of the Supreme Court Justices. Although the Justices placed a legal hold on all his presidential actions, the hold was not enforced until the congress reviewed the Courts decision (Lind 112). Even in the Monica Lewinsky scandal, Bill Clinton first had to testify in front of a Grand Jury put together by congress, and then the Supreme Court Justices. In fact, Clinton was never tried in the Supreme Court, because the congress ruled not to try him for impeachment in the first place. This brings Judicial power to questions, as well as the legitimacy of the government. The fact that our government is a bureaucracy in certain respects also brings about many controversial aspects which question its legitimacy. The bureaucracy is not democratic for many reasons. The key features of a bureaucracy are that they are large, specialized, run by official and fixed rules, relatively free from outside control, run on a hierarchy, and must keep written records of everything they do. Bureaucracies focus on rules, but their members are unhappy when the rules are exposed to the public (Lind 171). Bureaucracies violate the requirement of a legitimate democracy that public policy must be made publicly, not secretly. To be hired in a bureaucracy, a person is required to take a civil service exam. Also, people working in bureaucracies may be fired under extreme circumstances. This usually leads to the Peter Principle; that people who are competent at their jobs are promoted until they are in jobs in which they are no longer competent (Lind 175). Policy making, on the other hand, should be considered democratic for the most part. The public tends to get its way about sixty percent of the time, as it was proven in the Princeton studies in 1995 (Avirett 13). The studies were based on a simple principle of what people demanded from the government in the nationwide polls, and what they got in the near future. In the end, sixty percent of all issues were addressed and successfully solved by the government (Avirett 13). Because one of the key legitimating factors of a government is a connection between what it does and what the public wants, policy making can be considered sixty percent legitimate. Such a percentage puts the American political system and its democratic legitimacy into perspective of being legitimate for the most part, but not completely. Even though the individual workings of the American government may not all be particularly democratic, they do form a political system that prevails in its democratic ways at the end. Considering that achieving true democracy is almost impossible, the United States government is coming close and is striving to get closer as the years go by. It is true that the people who run for and win public office are not necessarily the most intelligent, best informed, wealthiest, or most successful business or professional people. At all levels of the political system,it is the most politically ambitious people who are willing to sacrifice time, family and private life, and energy and effort for the power and celebrity that comes with public office (Dye 58-59). But in the end, it is the choice of people that decides whether these ambitious individuals are worthy of their vote and their representation. The United States government might not be a perfect example of democracy, but it certainly has the main democratic principles that allow for a political system to strive for as true of a democracy as possible. Politics Essays