Jesse Gonzalez

UWRT 1102
10/12/14
Gries, Peter, and H. Crowson. "Political Orientation, Party Affiliation, and American." Journal
of Chinese Politcal Science 15.3 (2010): 219-44. Springer Link. Web. 13 Oct. 2014.
<http://link.springer.com.librarylink.uncc.edu/article/10.1007/s11366-010-9115-1
This article in total outlines and exemplifies the close divide between the parties on the
specific issue of national security and diplomatic tension towards a rising China and the effects
thereof. It shows very specific research on how exactly people from both sides of the aisle feel
about China and what exactly is the USs role in dealing with them. It shows that Republicans
by large are much more likely to exhibit prejudice towards Chinese associations, are more likely
to perceive China as a threat to the US, and are more likely to want to enact more aggressive
laws against them. In short, the summary is this: Self-reported conservatives perceive
significantly greater threat in Chinas rise, hold more negative views of the Chinese government,
exhibit more prejudice towards the Chinese people, and advocate a much tougher U.S. China
policy than self-reported liberals do (Gries).
The article at one point specifically says that some of the information found suggest(s)
that the American people mostly view China as a potential threat, but with larger minorities
viewing China as a serious threat than as no threat (Gries). This is very helpful and clearly
shows that the issues are what divides the people, and that they arent so deeply divided when it
comes to the issues unless party is involved: as Fiorina would argue; they are closely divided.

This is a reliable source because it is an actual research article published in a political

science journal from the university of Oklahoma. It has undergone close scrutiny, it has many
references and a works cited page, and has the actual p- values and pearsons r coorelation
coefficients from the studies conducted.

What Does It Mean to Be Libertarian? Perf. Dr. Stephen Davies. Learn Liberty, 2010. Film.
Essentially, the argument being made by Davies is that the Libertarian philosophy, which
has largely been regarded in the eye of the public as a Republican ideology, is actually much
more complex and diverse. The only reason for it appearing this way is the fact that Ron Paul
had to run as a Republican under the broken system currently in place for categorizing
candidates. Davies argues that Libertarians are unified under common principles outlined in such
documents as the Constitution and such philosophies as those that detail humans as self
determining and autonomous. They can certainly be divided on issues that should be totally
independent of politics like abortion and gay rights; however by economic principles they remain
aligned.
Again this perfectly illustrates how todays two party system really misses the mark when
it comes to accurately representing the publics opinions. Although he says that many people
feel as though they should vote exactly as they do because individual votes are irrelevant, and he
also says that minority movements can also be seen as irrelevant in a similar sense, he disproves
these points by pointing out that there are many examples where a small following has led to
major and disproportional impact on political process; this to me defines the necessity for honest

and open political discourse being the mechanism for change and true representation based on
the issues.
This is a reliable lecture from a Doctorate and the Institute of Economic Affairs. What
stands out most is his rejection of the traditional economist view of voting in the insignificance
of a single vote; he believes that the individual is the one that is responsible for the policy voting
of the state; and I would argue that this is in line with providing honest discourse to all voters
rather than party affiliated marketing ploys.

King, John. "House Impeaches Clinton." All Politics CNN. CNN, 19 Dec. 1998. Web. 12 Oct.
2014. <http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1998/12/19/impeachment.01/>.
This article outlines the process of the House going through the steps to impeach former
president Bill Clinton after he was charged with perjury following the adultery scandal with
Monica Lewinski. It essentially shows in great detail the division that had been growing for the
past couple decades across the aisle; support and scorn for Clinton was very closely divided
along party lines.
This shows that the real problem wasnt being addressed in an unbiased way. If the issue
is whether or not that the president should continue to be in power and be involved in the
decision making of the government, then that is either an ability question or a punishment for
immorality. Either way, these two issues are not party related; it shouldnt matter what party you
belong to if the question pertains to either Clinton having bad judgment for decisions or Clinton
not being of high enough moral standard for you to want him to lead. It shows the politics
involved and the absence of actual discourse. It also further separates Democrats from

Republicans from a morality standpoint; it gives people a reason to vote Republican to avoid
immoral Democrats.
This is credible because it is an article written exactly at the time of the scandal by a then
trusted news source: CNN. It merely details the events that took place; there isnt much spin on
this particular article on favoring any particular aspect or disapproving of anything regarding
Clinton or the decision.
Reagan, Nancy, and Ronald Reagan. "Just Say No." Address the Nation. West Hall of the White
House, Washington, D.C. 14 Sept. 1986. All Politics CNN. Web. 12 Oct. 2014.
<http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2004/reagan/stories/speech.archive/just.say.no.html>.
This is an actual transcript of the original introduction of the War on Drugs by Nancy
Reagan. In the election of 1980, Reagan defeated Carter under a new divide in how campaigns
are done; Reagan championed the right wing by declaring a strict morality background be
associated with the party. After this election, Republicans were known from thereon to be strong
advocates for Christianity, the family unit, and wholesome lifestyles. This declaration of Just
Say No gives a tangible slogan for the Republican ideals and creates an illusion that to be moral
you align with Reagan or to be aligned with Reagan that you adhere to a higher moral creed.
What this does for voters is that it makes those who view morality as important in life to
vote Republican; instead of voting for them based on how well the particular candidate would
serve in office according to actual policy. This makes people think of what kind of person they
want to lead; rather than what kind of policies they want to be put into place.

This transcript comes directly from the Reagans mouths, and this shows exactly what
image they wished to portray of themselves at the time. As far as sources go, this is essentially a
primary source document.

Fiorina, Morris P. Culture War?: The Myth of a Polarized America. N.p.: Longman, 2011. Print.
This book is basically a fleshed out and detailed version of the presentation I wish to
create. This book outlines the principle that I am trying to get across; identity within the political
spectrum is much more uniform then the media and the politicians would like you to see. The
book repeatedly shows examples of politicians using this trend to their advantage during voting
season; what with commercials, books, interviews, and debates showing that America has a deep
divide between the right and the left wing and therefore the elephants and the donkeys. What it
shows is that America is closely divided rather than deeply divided.
Politicians would like you to believe that most people are either Red or Blue and that
purple is a small minority that is politically irrelevant. While this is growing true over
generations, this is only due to the perception and by extension belief forming that this trend
exists. What the numbers show and what reality says is that the people are mostly purple; most
people tend to be centerists and lean either way only because of a few issues. Most people in
fact are aligned under certain principles of freedom and equality, but may differ when it comes to
specifics of personal and economic freedoms. These specifics push people either in a statist
direction for bigger governmental responsibility for people, or a libertarian direction for smaller
governmental roles. The difference is that these two leanings are grouped under the existing
parties rather than understood as completely independent variables.

This is a book by a learned political scientist who offers a great deal of studies and
information supporting his point. He also references several instances throughout the history of
America where the voting was done not according to platforms of candidates but other more
peripheral routes to persuasion.