Cart
Free Shipping in the UK
Proud to be B-Corp

Clashing Views on Political Issues Stanley Feingold

Clashing Views on Political Issues By Stanley Feingold

Clashing Views on Political Issues by Stanley Feingold


Condition - Good
Out of stock

Summary

Presents controversial issues in a debate-style format designed to stimulate student interest and develop critical thinking skills. Each issue is framed with an issue summary, an issue introduction, and a postscript. This work features an annotated listing of selected World Wide Web sites.

Clashing Views on Political Issues Summary

Clashing Views on Political Issues by Stanley Feingold

Taking Sides: Clashing Views on Political Issues presents current controversial issues in a debate-style format designed to stimulate student interest and develop critical thinking skills. Each issue is thoughtfully framed with an issue summary, an issue introduction, and a postscript. An instructor's manual with testing material is available for each volume. Using Taking Sides in the Classroom is also an excellent instructor resource with practical suggestions on incorporating this effective approach in the classroom. Each Taking Sides reader features an annotated listing of selected World Wide Web sites and is supported by our student website.

About Stanley Feingold

McKenna received his Ph.D. at Fordham University. He has taught for 30 years at The City College of New York. He is the coeditor of two books in our Dushkin Taking Sides series: Taking Sides on social issues and on political issues. He has led local civic and environmental groups in New York and New Jersey.

Table of Contents

PART 1. DEMOCRACY AND THE AMERICAN POLITICAL PROCESS ISSUE 1. Should Americans Believe in a Unique American Mission? YES: Wilfred M. McClay, from The Founding of Nations, First Things (March 2006) NO: Howard Zinn, from The Power and the Glory: Myths of American Exceptionalism, Boston Review (Summer 2005) Humanities professor Wilfred M. McClay argues that America's myth, its founding narrative, helps to sustain and hold together a diverse people. Historian Howard Zinn is convinced that America's myth of exceptionalism has served as a justification for lawlessness, brutality, and imperialism. ISSUE 2. Is Democracy the Answer to Global Terrorism? YES: George W. Bush, from Speech at National Defense University (March 8, 2005) NO: F. Gregory Gause III, from Can Democracy Stop Terrorism? Foreign Affairs (September/October 2005) President George W. Bush argues that the best antidote to terrorism is the tolerance and hope generated by democracy. Political scientist Gregory Gause contends that there is no relationship between terrorism emanating from a country and the extent to which democracy is enjoyed by its citizens. ISSUE 3. Should the Electoral College Be Abolished? YES: George C. Edwards III, from Why the Electoral College Is Bad for America (Yale University Press, 2004) NO: Gary L. Gregg, from The Electoral College Is Good for America, National Review Online (October 25-27, 2004) University Professor George C. Edwards III believes that the Electoral College method of election violates the democratic principle of majority election and has resulted in the election of candidates with fewer votes than their leading opponent. Leadership Institute Director Gary L. Gregg maintains that the Electoral College system has succeeded in moderating and stabilizing American politics, and its abolition would risk the creation of radical parties and the election of minority presidents. ISSUE 4. Do the Media Have a Liberal Bias? YES: Bernard Goldberg, from Arrogance: Rescuing America from the Media Elite (Warner Books, 2003) NO: Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., from Crimes Against Nature (Harper Collins, 2005) Former CBS reporter Bernard Goldberg argues that liberal bias is pervasive in news reporting, the result not of a conspiracy but of a mind-set among media elites acquired from the homogeneous social circles in which they live and work. Environmentalist and political activist Robert F. Kennedy Jr. believes that conservative bias, fostered by conservative foundations, media owners, and talk radio commentators, has stifled investigative reporting and misinformed millions of Americans. ISSUE 5. Should America Adopt Public Financing of Political Campaigns? YES: Mark Green, from Selling Out: How Big Corporate Money Buys Elections, Rams Through Legislation, and Betrays Our Democracy (Regan Books, 2002) NO: John Samples, from Taxpayer Financing of Campaigns, in John Samples, ed., Welfare for Politicians? Taxpayer Financing of Campaigns (CATO Institute, 2005) Political activist and author Mark Green sums up his thesis in the subtitle of his book, a work that urges adoption of public financing of election campaigns in order to make politics more honest and to reduce the dependency of elected officials on selfish interests. Cato Institute director and political scientist John Samples opposes public financing of candidates for public office because it does not achieve any of the goals of its advocates and it forces voters to underwrite the financing of candidates they do not support. PART 2. THE INSTITUTIONS OF GOVERNMENT ISSUE 6. Is Congress Barred from Regulating Commerce Within a State? YES: William H. Rehnquist, from Majority Opinion, United States v. Lopez, U.S. Supreme Court (April 26, 1995) NO: Stephen G. Breyer, from Dissenting Opinion, United States v. Lopez, U.S. Supreme Court (April 26, 1995) Supreme Court Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist argues that Congress cannot regulate activities within a state that are not economic and do not substantially affect commerce among the states. Supreme Court Justice Stephen G. Breyer upholds the right of Congress to regulate activities within a state if Congress has a rational basis for believing that it affects the exercise of congressional power. ISSUE 7. Should the Courts Seek the Original Meaning of the Constitution? YES: Antonin Scalia, from Remarks at Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars (March 14, 2005) NO: Stephen Breyer, from Active Liberty: Interpreting Our Democratic Constitution (Knopf, 2005) Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia rejects the notion of a living Constitution, arguing that the judges must try to understand what the framers meant at the time. Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer contends that in finding the meaning of the Constitution, judges cannot neglect to consider the probable consequences of different interpretations. ISSUE 8. May the President Wiretap Without a Warrant to Protect National Security? YES: Andrew C. McCarthy, from How to 'Connect the Dots', National Review (January 30, 2006) NO: Al Gore, from Restoring the Rule of Law, From a Speech Presented to The American Constitution Society for Law and Policy and The Liberty Coalition (January 15, 2006) Former federal prosecutor Andrew C. McCarthy supports the National Security Agency program of surveillance without a warrant as an effective means of protecting national security that employs the inherent power of the president to protect the country against subversion. Former vice president Al Gore views the warrantless wiretapping of American citizens as a brazen violation of the Constitution and of specific acts of Congress that have spelled out the circumstances under which a president may receive judicial permission to wiretap or otherwise invade the privacy of citizens. PART 3. SOCIAL CHANGE AND PUBLIC POLICY ISSUE 9. Is Capital Punishment Justified? YES: Robert W. Lee, from Deserving to Die, The New American (August 13, 1990) NO: Eric M. Freedman, from The Case Against the Death Penalty, USA Today Magazine (March 1997) Essayist Robert W. Lee argues that capital punishment is the only fair way for society to respond to certain heinous crimes. Law professor Eric M. Freedman contends that the death penalty does not reduce crime but does reduce public safety and carries the risk of innocent people being executed. ISSUE 10. Does Affirmative Action Advance Racial Equality? YES: Glenn C. Loury, from The Anatomy of Racial Inequality (Harvard University Press, 2002) NO: Walter E. Williams, from Affirmative Action Can't Be Mended, in David Boaz, ed., Toward Liberty: The Idea That Is Changing the World (CATO Institute, 2002) Political scientist Glenn Loury argues that the prudent use of race-sighted policies is essential to reducing the deleterious effects of race stigmatization, especially the sense of racial otherness, which still remain in America. Economist Walter Williams argues that the use of racial preferences sets up a zero-sum game that reverses the gains of the civil rights movement, penalizes innocent people, and ends up harming those they are intended to help. ISSUE 11. Is Middle Eastern Profiling Ever Justified? YES: Daniel Pipes, from Fighting Militant Islam, Without Bias, City Journal (November 2001) NO: David A. Harris, from 'Flying While Arab', Immigration Issues, and Lessons from the Racial Profiling Controversy, Testimony before the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (October 12, 2001) Daniel Pipes, director of the Middle East Forum, argues that heightened scrutiny of Muslims and Middle Eastern-looking people is justified because, while not all Muslims are Islamic extremists, all Islamic extremists are Muslims. Law professor David A. Harris opposes profiling people of Middle Eastern appearance because, like racial profiling, it compromises civil liberties and actually damages our intelligence efforts. ISSUE 12. Should Abortion Be Restricted? YES: Robert P. George, from The Clash of Orthodoxies: Law, Religion, and Morality in Crisis (ISI Books, 2001) NO: Mary Gordon, from A Moral Choice, The Atlantic Monthly (March 1990) Legal philosopher Robert P. George asserts that, since each of us was a human being from conception, abortion is a form of homicide and should be banned. Writer Mary Gordon maintains that having an abortion is a moral choice that women are capable of making for themselves, that aborting a fetus is not killing a person, and that antiabortionists fail to understand female sexuality. ISSUE 13. Are Tax Cuts Good for America? YES: Amity Shlaes, from The Greedy Hand: How Taxes Drive Americans Crazy and What to Do About It (Random House, 1999) NO: Paul Krugman, from The Tax-Cu t Con, New York Times Magazine (September 14, 2003) Wall Street Journal editorial writer Amity Shlaes maintains that the federal income tax is too high, too complex, and biased against high-income earners who invest in economic growth. Economist Paul Krugman believes that the Bush tax cuts increase economic inequality, contribute to a huge budget deficit, and endanger the future of Medicare and Social Security. ISSUE 14. Is America Becoming More Unequal? YES: Jeff Madrick, from Inequality and Democracy, in George Packer, ed., The Fight Is for Democracy (Perennial, 2003) NO: Christopher C. DeMuth, from The New Wealth of Nations, Commentary (October 1997) Editor and author Jeff Madrick maintains that the striking recent increase in income and wealth inequality reflects increasing inequality of opportunity and threatens the civil and political rights of less wealthy Americans. American Enterprise Institute president Christopher C. DeMuth asserts that Americans have achieved an impressive level of wealth and equality and that a changing economy ensures even more opportunities. ISSUE 15. Does the Patriot Act Abridge Essential Freedom? YES: Nat Hentoff, from The War on the Bill of Rights and the Gathering Resistance (Seven Stories Press, 2003) NO: Heather Mac Donald, from Straight Talk on Homeland Security, City Journal (Summer 2003) Village Voice columnist Nat Hentoff opposes the Patriot Act as an unjustified invasion of private belief and behavior, in the conviction that the sacrifice of liberty for security will result in the loss of both. Manhattan Institute fellow Heather Mac Donald believes that, since the new terrorism poses an unprecedented threat to America's survival, the Patriot Act is an appropriate response and contains adequate protection of fundamental liberties. ISSUE 16. Stopping Illegal Immigration: Should Border Security Come First? YES: Mark Krikorian, from Comprehensive Immigration Reform II, Testimony Before Senate Committee on the Judiciary (October 18, 2005) NO: Frank Sharry, from Comprehensive Immigration Reform II, Testimony Before Senate Committee on the Judiciary (October 18, 2005) Mark Krikorian, executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies, argues that we have not seriously tried to enforce the laws against illegal aliens, and recommends shrinking the illegal population through consistent and equitable law enforcement. Frank Sharry, executive director of the National Immigration Forum, contends that the enforcement only approach ignores the fact that the United States has an increasingly integrated labor market with Latin America, and recommends a comprehensive approach combining border control with expanded legal channels. PART 4. AMERICA AND THE WORLD ISSUE 17. Is Free Trade Fair Trade? YES: Douglas A. Irwin, from Free Trade Under Fire (Princeton University Press, 2002) NO: David Morris, from Free Trade: The Great Destroyer, in Jerry Mander and Edward Goldsmith, eds., The Case Against the Global Economy: And for a Return to the Local (Sierra Club Books, 1996) Professor of economics Douglas A. Irwin asserts that all countries benefit from free trade because it promotes efficiency, spurs production, and forces the least productive companies to reduce their output or shut down, resulting in better goods at lower prices. David Morris, vice president of the Institute for Local Self-Reliance, argues that free trade is unnecessary because gains in efficiency do not require large-scale multinational enterprises and that it is undesirable because it widens the standard-of-living gap between rich and poor nations. ISSUE 18. Does the War in Iraq Help the War Against Terrorism? YES: J.R. Dunn, from Prospects of Terror, The American Thinker (March 21, 2006) NO: Robert Jervis, from Why the Bush Doctrine Cannot Be Sustained, Political Science Quarterly (Fall 2005) J. R. Dunn, a military editor and author, believes that the radical Islamists are losing the support of the Iraqi people, that Iraq is moving toward democracy, and that the war against terror is being won. In the same fashion, America and its allies will thwart Iran's quest for nuclear weapons. Robert Jervis, a professor of international relations, maintains that the war in Iraq distracted the United States from the war against terrorism, that preventive war risks grave errors of judgment, and that victory in Iraq will not necessarily result in more democracy or less terrorism. ISSUE 19. Is the Use of Torture Against Terrorist Suspects Ever Justified? YES: Charles Krauthammer, from The Truth About Torture, The Weekly Standard (December 5, 2005) NO: Andrew Sullivan, from The Abolition of Torture, New Republic (December 19, 2005) Charles Krauthammer argues that the legal protections for prisoners of war and civilians do not apply to terrorist suspects captured abroad, and in certain extreme cases torture may be used to extract information from them. Andrew Sullivan contends that any nation that uses torture infects itself with the virus of totalitarianism, belies its claim of moral superiority to the terrorists, and damages its chances of persuading the Arab world to adopt Western-style democracy. ISSUE 20. Does the United Nations Promote World Peace and Security? YES: Madeleine K. Albright, from Think Again: The United Nations, Foreign Policy (September/October 2003) NO: Joshua Muravchik, from The Case Against the UN, Commentary (November 2004) Former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright believes that the United Nations continues to perform peacekeeping and humanitarian tasks no nation or other group of nations can perform. International relations scholar Joshua Muravchik concludes that the United Nations has failed to either keep the peace or intervene to defend weaker victims from aggressive enemies. ISSUE 21. Must America Exercise World Leadership? YES: Robert J. Lieber, from The American Era: Power and Strategy for the 21st Century (Cambridge University Press, 2005) NO: Niall Ferguson, from An Empire in Denial, Harvard International Review (Fall 2003) International relations professor Robert J. Lieber believes that the United States, as the world's sole superpower, is uniquely capable of providing leadership against the threats of terrorism and weapons of mass destruction, as well as extending the rule of law and democracy. Author Niall Ferguson maintains that, despite America's military and economic dominance, it lacks both the long-term will and the capital and human investment that would be necessary to sustain its dominance.

Additional information

CIN0073515051G
9780073515052
0073515051
Clashing Views on Political Issues by Stanley Feingold
Used - Good
Paperback
McGraw-Hill Education - Europe
20060816
448
N/A
Book picture is for illustrative purposes only, actual binding, cover or edition may vary.
This is a used book - there is no escaping the fact it has been read by someone else and it will show signs of wear and previous use. Overall we expect it to be in good condition, but if you are not entirely satisfied please get in touch with us

Customer Reviews - Clashing Views on Political Issues