Our Changing Society, by Anonymous

         It’s safe to say our society is changing.  It’s changing in ways we never thought would be possible.  Technology is advancing, medicine is curing diseases they never thought possible, but all together the everyday life of citizens in changing.  In class we talked about the traditional and secular divide.  I feel that this divide is the transition our entire country is going through right now.  We are going away from what we once thought would be forever, to things being more accepted. 

            In the lecture we discussed how in the traditional sense divorce was not welcomed, but in the secular it is.  This is like today society.  Up until the 20^th Century divorce was looked poorly upon, but with the changing society it is more accepted.  A marriage is expected to only last “32 years, and 34% of marriages end by the 20^th wedding anniversary” (Sedghi). These numbers are absolutely insane to me as there are only a few people I know that are divorced.  This chart shows the divorce rate in the United States from 1950-2004.  This increase of divorces is not only common in the United States, but also in other countries as well.  In England and Wales the numbers have been increasing over time, but in 2011 they started to see a decline once again (Sedghi).  These charts show the divorce rate in the United States in one, and the divorce rates in England and Wales in the other. 

           

The divorce rate is happening all over the world with the U.S. having the most, Puerto Rico, and Russia are close behind.

            Once again these numbers are so striking to me.  Looking at how other countries are facing these same issues that we are in America makes everything so surreal that changes are happening all across the world, and fast.

Works Cited:

Sedghi, Ami, and Simon Rogers. "Divorce Rates Data, 1858 to Now: How Has It Changed?" The Guardian. N.p., 2012. Web. 15 Oct. 2013. <http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2010/jan/28/divorce-rates-marriage-ons>

The Rise of Democracy: MEXICO, by Shea Nolan

Mexico first declared their independence from Spain in 1810, but didn’t gain their full independence till 1821. After the revolution general Agustín Cosme Damián de Iturbide y Arámburu was appointed President in 1881, but his term ended in 1822. Though Iturbide only ruled for a year this demonstrates the political struggles before and after independence.  

The 8^th president of Mexico López de Santa Anna was a general, and eleven times president; his total presidency spanned over 22 years. Between being a general and a president Santa Anna greatly influenced early Mexican politics and government for 40 years. Even though he has been seen as a brave soldier, hero of the army, and a cunning politician he has been recognized as the reason why Mexico had lost over half its territory.

Seizing power in a coup in 1876 José de la Cruz Porfirio Díaz Mori was a soldier and politician, who served seven terms as president. Díaz ruled Mexico with an iron fist until 1911, where it took nothing less than a revolution to dislodge him. During his term, known as the Porfiriato, the rich got richer and the poor got poorer. Though there was such a large gap in social classes Mexico had become recognized as a developed nation in the world, but this all came at a price, Díaz presided over one of the most crooked administrations in history. 

The Institutional Revolutionary Party (RPI)

The Institutional Revolutionary Party was founded in 1929 due to the forces that had triumphed in the revolutions, also to give deliver stability to Mexico that had been plagued with violence. Though Mexico is a multi-party system, the Institutional Revolutionary Party (PRI), National Action Party (PAN), and the Party of the Democratic Revolution (PRD), the PRI has governed Mexico with almost complete dominance from the day of the Mexican Revolution.

Miguel de la Madrid of the PRI was elected president in 1982. He had won with 70% of the vote; this was a much lower percentage from the past. In other words this showed that candidates from the right and left were gaining ground. Though he had made a number of economic gains in his term, the PAN started to demand for additional electoral reforms as well.

Following the electoral reform in 1986 the Chamber of Deputies added another 100 seats, and 200 of the now 500 seats were devoted to smaller parties. Though there was much reform there was still much political fraud in a number of elections, mostly in the election of 1986. With every election (every 6 years) the PRI was losing its political dominance and smaller parties were beginning to rise.

A new horizon

Known as one of the most historic election in Mexico the 2000 elections was the change of a new leader and a new political party. PRI, after ruling Mexico for 71 years; Vicente Fox of the Alliance for Change was elected. Vicente Fox, winning the election with 42% of the vote over Franciso Labastida of the PRI with 36%, this was a dramatic loss for PRI. After his inauguration on December 1, 2000, Vicente Fox promised the people of Mexico that he would promote free market policies, and to strengthen democracy and the rule of law in Mexico. But the terrorist attacks on September 1^st 2001 in America affected Mexico’s economy. This event limited government funding that was going to fund Fox’s health and education programs. In the 2003 elections to renew the Chamber of Deputies, the PAN lost seats, giving less support to Fox and his programs. Fox not having the majority in congress he was unable to approve any major legislation along with a purposed tax reform and a proposed energy reform.

Approaching the July 2006 presidential election, Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador of the leftist PRD was leading, against Felipe Calderon for the PAN, and Roberto Madrazo for the PRI. Felipe Calderon of the PAN was able to take the 2006 election; this allowed the PAN to serve another term ruling. All of the political events that have happen thus far in Mexico have allowed the political system to grow more into a democracy.

Religion is changing right along with Society, by Moranda Zimmer

While talking in class about religion and how people tend to go to church less now than they used to really got my attention as I think about my own life.  My grandparents will not miss a Sunday of church, unless they are extremely sick.  However, my family, as regular attenders, will miss every once in awhile.  Looking at this from a bigger picture is this how it is all across the United States or just in certain areas? 

            A recent survey was done by Gallup showing that the ratings have been the lowest they have ever been.  The survey was done to see how American’s felt religious influence was in the United States.  It came back with results that said “77 percent of American said that religion is loosing it’s influence on the American life, while only 20 percent said religion has gained in influence” (Kaleem).  The most interesting part of this all is that only one year after the September 11^th attack Americans believed that the influence of religion was increasing.  However this chart shows a different response.

            Another interesting thing about religion is not only how people are attending less, but how often people change their religion in the United States.  “More than half of American adults say they have changed religious affiliation at some point in their lives” (Paulson).  The most interesting part of this is that most people switch out of the religion they were raised in by age 24 and many change religions more than once in their lifetime.  One of the most jaw dropping finding was that “one in ten Americans is now a former Catholic, and about half of the former Catholics are now Protestants, and about half are now unaffiliated” (Paulson). 

            Many reasons due to changing a religion have to due to getting married and changing for the spouse.  As well as not agreeing with the church's beliefs anymore.  With the uproar controversy topics such as abortion, same sex marriages, birth control, as well as the gender of the pastor/priest this has let people to either switch churches, or just not attend anymore.  This graph also shows some reasons why people leave their childhood religion. 

I found all this information really fascinating because I am from such a small town that I really have never looked at religion across the United States.  It was shocking to realize how many people just don’t go to church anymore, and how many people change their religion over their lifetime.  My religion is something that I cherish very much so this topic was fitting for my interest.

Works Cited:

Kaleem, Jaweed. "Religious Influence In U.S. Seen As Decreasing, But Most Americans Want More: Survey." The Huffington Post. TheHuffingtonPost.com, 29 May 2013. Web. 10 Oct. 2013. <http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/29/religions-influence-us_n_3354499.html>.

Paulson, Michael. “Why do Americans change their faith? – Articles of Faith – Boston.com” Boston, MA news 27 Apr. 2009. 10 Oct. 2013. http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles_of_faith/2009/04/why_do_american.html

Why Democracy is The Most Effective, by Cal Reeves

            Many governments today are democratic for a number of reasons, the help keep things in the best interest of the people of the country, it helps elect leaders, and it gives every person the chance to be heard. Democracies have been around for thousands of years mainly, because they work. They have tended to outlast most dictatorships and communist states. Many democracies have lasted over hundreds of years. For instance ours has lasted about 220 years. Some of the older ones like Greece where started by a guy by the name of Cleisthenes, who is noted for starting the democratic footing in Greece around 500 BC and lasted for over two centuries.

Dictatorships and Communist states just cannot compete with democracies or capitalist states on most levels. The democracies tend to be more equipped in the means of a military and self defense, they are also more generally funded because they stronger capitalist economies.

The reason why is because democracies tend to be more closely related with capitalist economies rather than socialist economies, which history has shown outlast and function more smoothly that socialist economies. Capitalist economies focus on privately owned goods and services, which are produced for profit in a market economy, rather than the socialist standpoint where the means of production is more of a co-op for the state, and most of the income goes back to the government rather than the people in most cases. If a country can afford to have a capitalist economy, because they have a large number of recourses and exports, they would be crazy not to go with this system. Plus with a democratic government on top of that the people and the congress can vote on what happens with the money.

Another great reason to be democratic is because everyone can be heard. People in these systems can have the freedom to vote for legislative, and executive power. So we the people pick who we want to represent us, and they can keep there best interests in the interests of the people. Also if we do not like an elected official then we can just remove them from their seat and a vice president or whoever is next in line can take there place. This also helps because we can also influence what laws we have abide by. If we want to pass a law we can vote on it, we can lobby during legislation, we can march on Washington to get the attention of our government officials to get them to vote a choose certain bills and laws. We can choose where we want our funding and money to be generated and focused on. We can decide if we want to invest in agriculture, education, defense, or certain industries. If certain industries in our country are not doing, our congress can decide if it’s right financially to bail this industry out.

Another reason why Democracies rain supreme is because it allows the government to not get that involved in the peoples day to day lives. Some say the government that governs the best is the one that governs the least. I believe there is a lot of truth to this because history has shown that governments that have many regulations tend to have more innocent deaths, protest, and rebellion. Then at which point the government is more likely to collapse. The way Dictatorships operate is, they have to put fear into the people to get the to obey the government and higher command, otherwise who wants to listen to everything one leader tells you to do? A majority of people I would say do not. The ways they put this fear into people is by large rallies, and killing innocent people, has history has showed. If there is a hell, I can picture Adolf Hitler and Joseph Stalin at the very bottom because of all of the innocent people they killed. I am sure they are still fighting with each other to. That’s beyond the point, but they are not the only ones. I believe that dictatorships are outdated and do not work because usually the wrong person somehow get elected to power and then the whole system will eventually fall.

I believe the perfect world would be one large democracy where there is no fighting and everyone as a say in exactly what happens. This will probably never happen in my lifetime but it is a very nice thought.

           

Works Cited

Picture is from www.samaracanda.com

Importance of Timing, by Stacia Berg

            Timing. It can be perfect, or completely wrong. It can create the ideal moment, or it can ruin entire plans.  This counts for pretty much anything: storms, relationships, even the development of a democracy.

            It seems like a simple fact that the outcomes of pretty much any event have something to do with timing.  If Lee Harvey Oswald had shot his gun just a few seconds later, President Kennedy may not have died.  If the allied powers had ended their appeasement policy toward Germany sooner, maybe the war would not have ended so soon.  There is a lot of what ifs involved when speaking of timing, but what about when talking about developing democracy?

            Barrington Moore believes that in order to create a democracy from another form of government, there needs to be certain precursors.  First, the old, feudalistic order needs to be done away with.  This will help the next step immensely: industrialization.  Industrialization is important in establishing the potential for democracy, because it provides grounds for free markets and for people to develop a political and economical foothold in the government.  But what would happen if industrialization happened without destroying the feudal society?  Could the two coexist and still progress to a democracy?  I think it would be much more difficult to industrialize when most people were working in the country, under lords, with little to no power to change their situation.  It would make the people unable to migrate to the cities (a trend of industrialization) and work in factories and large-scale jobs. 

            There are three parts of transforming to a democracy.  First, there’s social transformation, which is much of what I was just talking about.  The society usually shifts from a feudal, agricultural society to an urban, industrialized one.  Next comes the political transformation.  In this case, the government is turned in the direction of democracy, whether by a coup, an elected change of party, or a change within the current regime.  The third part is cultural transformation: developing a national identity, desire for participation in the new government, and working for the success of a new democracy.

            Let’s think for a moment of what would happen if the cultural and social transformations were flip-flopped.  Would it be beneficial to develop support and nationalism before changing the governmental style?  I think that it would increase the new governments chances of maintaining its power.  However, the national identity could also be developed against democracy, making it impossible to maintain it.  I think there are many ways at looking at situations like this, and it would probably work differently in each case.

            In thinking about timing, it is important to remember that not every group of people will act the same way in every situation.  Just because one country has followed the order designed by Moore and had it succeed doesn’t mean it will work the same way for a different country.  It will depend heavily on how receptive the people are to the changes that are being implemented.  The assumption that timing is everything cannot possibly encompass every country’s individual situation.  However, I think it is safe to say that paying attention to the timing of any event and what leads up to it can help us to better understand the situation.

“Big Brother” U.S. by Anonymous

            The United States has always been seen as an advocate for democracy. Since our revolution it makes sense, considering our government has worked for us for so many years. A lot of countries look up to the U.S. as a sort of “big brother” so whenever something goes wrong in the world other countries expect us to step in.

            In situations like Syria it just isn’t that easy. The U.S. just can’t step in and start forcing beliefs are people. The United States has to be careful with how we go about trying to spread our democratic beliefs. Other countries though think that it is America’s job to help some of the under-industrialized countries find their way.

            I mean what is the big deal? America has the time and power to help out other countries right? Well, not really. Shouldn’t we focus on fixing ourselves before we try and fix other countries? Right now the United States just doesn’t have the  money, but we do have the military power and the weapons.  Is it right to bomb Syria though? A lot of Americans don’t think that that’s the correct way to try and help a country. Many Americans don’t want to get involved at all, they just want Syria to handle it themselves. So just because the United States has to the weapons to attack Syria many people don’t think it’s right for the U.S. to go shove its weight around in other countries.

                The U.S. is looked upon by other countries as a strong nation that needs to back up the smaller nations that are more under-developed than we are. Sometimes a country needs to learn to solve their own problems. The U.S. can’t be jumping in whenever any country has inner turmoil. Especially when, in examples like Syria, their internal fighting has been going on for some time now, so why now would the United States want to intervene? Why wouldn’t the U.S. have stepped in earlier?

            The United States has always been looked on as a “big brother.”  The U.S. always tries to stand up for the weak and defenseless and spread democracy. Sometimes we have to think though, who is going to stand up for the United States when we need it. We need to start thinking more about our own country before we go and try to fix the world.