Power

This chapter explores ambition for power in politics and the workplace. Control over others can be advantageous in its own right and also in the wealth and recognition that it often confers. Although most politicians link their need for power to the service of public interests, the evidence often suggests otherwise. Drawing on prominent examples, such as Lyndon Johnson, Richard Nixon, John McCain, and Donald Trump, and those who served them, the chapter explores how prioritizing power can subvert principle and the institutional checks necessary to prevent abuse. By contrast, examples such as Nelson Mandela show how those who use power to empower others can serve the highest ideals of social justice. Power in the workplace can also serve stakeholder and societal interests, but it is too often sabotaged by egoistic interests, needs for control, and bullying behaviors. The chapter concludes with strategies to increase accountability for abusive conduct.

The Last Republican President?

The last (relatively) bloodless presidential primary for the GOP came in 2000, when George W. Bush won the nomination by quietly unifying religious conservatives, fiscal conservatives, and defense hawks. Yet the warning signs of the coming crackup would soon arrive. Soon after his inauguration, conflicts over tax cuts and demands to end stem cell research broke out. Trying to cut government programs, Bush quickly lost his Senate majority when Senator Jim Jeffords left the party to caucus with the Democrats. When 9/11 changed the country’s concerns from a weak domestic economy to national security, Bush passed a second tax cut and ignored his campaign promise to strengthen social security. Taking advantage of a rising wave of concern about the flow of large corporate donations into the two national parties, Senators John McCain and Russ Feingold crafted the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act. The bill attempted to end the power of major donors to influence candidates and parties, and remove the advantage enjoyed by men like Bush and his deep-pocketed connections. However, driving money out of the parties gave big donors more influence, ambitious candidates more ways to make waves, and legislative leaders fewer ways to protect the Republican brand. It fueled the rise of uncompromising single-issue candidates, increased the power of lobbyists, and weakened party leaders in both the House and Senate. Changing campaign finance regulations pushed the party to the right and turned compromise and bipartisanship into four-letter words.

Peeking into Afghan's history: A study from 1988 to 2010

The study will elaborate the Afghan historical events that took place right after the Geneva accord of 1988 when USSR forces pullout from the country till 2010. The article will explain the emergence of the Taliban and their establishment of the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan. Moreover, the paper will elaborate on the Taliban's nexus with al-Qaeda and their efforts to settle them in Afghanistan. Furthermore, this particular research tends to analyse the US retaliation and war on terror after the catastrophic event of 9/11. Additionally, the paper will illustrate the launching of the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) and the Taliban's bloody resurgence and their belligerence after the said mission. Consequently, the research will examine Obama's administration war strategies and tactics after his presidential victory over John McCain.

HEALTH INSURANCE IN THE US: OBAMA VERSUS TRUMP

The article elucidates the history of US law, known as Obamacare. Usually you find out that you are eligible for Medicaid when you fill out a health insurance application on the Affordable Care Act (ACA), which passes the information to Medicaid. Because you applied for health insurance on an Obamacare health insurance scholarship, you may be surprised to receive Medicaid instead of a private Obamacare plan. Following the inauguration, Donald Trump signed an order repealing the Affordable Care Act (the Obamacare Act). The decree is symbolic, being the first signed by Donald Trump when he officially took office. This repeal is perceived as a break with the previous government. However, in the face of opposition from the House of Representatives, the text aimed at repealing Obamacare was finally withdrawn on March 24th, 2017, at the request of the new president, who is thus suffering his first major political setback. On May 4th, 2017, the House of Representatives narrowly passed a bill to repeal Obamacare, but the bill was rejected by the Senate on July 28, following a decisive vote by Republican Sen. John McCain, who joined two of the two his fellow Republicans in the vote against repeal. On October 13th, 2017, Donald Trump issued a new decree to circumvent Obamacare. Finally, Donald Trump changed his tactics to repeal the Affordable Care Act, supporting legal initiatives against it, especially in Texas. On the other hand, he made a hobby for the 2020 US presidential election, promising an effective repeal if re-elected, which did not happen.

We Admire Heroes

Opening with a discussion of eulogies for John McCain, this chapter presents heroes as part of a typology of primary characters including heroes, villains, victims, and minions. Strong, good, and active, heroes are the players who must set things right and protect others. Heroes struggle, which is why they are admirable—and also why they need others’ cooperation, votes, or financial support. The combination of good and strong leads to bravery, actions that run the risk or reality of self-sacrifice. Hero portraits can remind people of the hero’s past victories, but also of the powerful forces arrayed against her. Strong enough to protect herself, the hero’s goodness requires that she act on behalf of others as well. This is the difference between heroism and success: an individual’s accomplishments, such as earning a fortune, may not help anyone else. Because strong figures can be threatening, character work on a hero highlights her goodness and willingness to sacrifice herself for others.

Type-One and Interval Type-Two Fuzzy Logic for Quantitatively Defining Imprecise Linguistic Terms in Politics and Public Policy

During a presidential forum in the 2008 U.S. presidential campaign, the moderator, Pastor Rick Warren, wanted Sen. John McCain and then-Sen. Barack Obama to define rich with a specific number. Warren wanted to know at what specific income level a person goes from being not rich to rich. The problem with this question is that there is no specific income at which a person makes the leap from being not rich to being rich. This is because rich is a fuzzy set, not a crisp set, with different incomes having different degrees of membership in the rich fuzzy set. Similarly, middle class and poor are fuzzy sets. Fuzzy logic is needed to properly ask and answer Warren's question about quantitatively defining rich. Similarly, fuzzy logic is needed to properly ask and answer queries about quantitatively defining imprecise linguistic terms in politics and public policy like middle class, poor, low inflation, medium inflation, and high inflation. Type-one or interval type-two fuzzy logic can be used for quantitatively defining imprecise linguistic terms. This chapter shows how to use type-one fuzzy logic and interval type-two fuzzy logic for this purpose, as well as the advantages and disadvantages of each. Imprecise terms in natural languages should be considered to have qualitative definitions, quantitative definitions, crisp quantitative definitions, fuzzy quantitative definitions, type-one fuzzy quantitative definitions, and interval type-two fuzzy quantitative definitions.

2000

The 2000 campaigns focused on experimentation with DCTs. Changes in election laws made collecting contributions online feasible, which became a focus of campaigns. John McCain was savvy at capitalizing on fundraising, establishing the infrastructure to channel enthusiasm into money following key events. George W. Bush built a massive voter file for microtargeting. Steve Forbes constructed an image as the first “Internet candidate,” while Al Gore, who also should have done so, instead used DCTs conservatively. Bill Bradley developed a community involvement kit, a clear indication that campaigns began to see the potential of two-step flow. Yet, campaigns were still generally distrustful of what might happen if they let their supporters genuinely engage with the campaign. As hierarchical organizations with professional and highly paid senior staff who at their gut level—and through their experience know how to campaign—the idea of more citizen-driven efforts in political campaigns was unthinkable.