http://www.hurraykimmay.com/2014/02/17/motivation-monday-presidential-quotes/
Historical Development
Society's views concerning governmental programs and actions are incredibly influential to their success or failure. One way to ensure a favorable public opinion and therefore general success is to make strategic and well-thought out decisions as a government.
|
US AS A WORLD POWER
Throughout history, times of America's nationalism, imperialism and militarism lead to a strong international presence that eventually allowed for what the public considered unnecessary and hasty involvement in overseas wars. There is a clear parallel between the country's views concerning the Afghanistan war in the early 2000s and the Vietnam war in the 1950s-70s. Both wars were considered ambitious and unnecessary at the time, and as result, a significant sector of American people would find ways to undermine, hinder, or merely resist the war effort. Many political leaders later realized the success of American involvement in the wars could have been created by gaining the country's support through carefully considering the repercussions of entering a war and being prepared as a country to enter into said war. In fact, former US Secretary of State Colin Powell said, "When you decide to get involved in a military operation in a place like Syria, you've got to be prepared, as we learned from Iraq and Afghanistan… ". Clearly American ambition and hasty military decisions have ruined the perceived success of governmental decisions in the past. |
PROGRESSIVE ERA
The Progressive Era was a time of strong governmental power. The public's ambition and readiness for drastic change at that time is certainly reminiscent of the dominating attitude during the time of the Great Society. People strived to purify the government and eliminate corruption by exposing the unjust actions of those in political power and enforcing a direct democracy. Their anger at those in power is illustrated especially through the role of 'muckrakers,' who exposed bosses, politicians, and the like in their hasty and corrupt decisions. As a result, many of these politicians lost their credibility and therefore political influence, and often times laws were passed in an attempt to fix the problems that were exposed. The influence these muckrakers had showcases the effects an unsupportive crowd can have on people or programs. Furthermore, the radical or progressive attitude of society at the time lead to numerous state, city, and federal reforms as well as 3 new amendments. These reforms were successful because the country at the time was critical and cautious of decisions made by those in political power, which lead to important decisions like social reform being clearly outlined and carefully thought through.
The Progressive Era was a time of strong governmental power. The public's ambition and readiness for drastic change at that time is certainly reminiscent of the dominating attitude during the time of the Great Society. People strived to purify the government and eliminate corruption by exposing the unjust actions of those in political power and enforcing a direct democracy. Their anger at those in power is illustrated especially through the role of 'muckrakers,' who exposed bosses, politicians, and the like in their hasty and corrupt decisions. As a result, many of these politicians lost their credibility and therefore political influence, and often times laws were passed in an attempt to fix the problems that were exposed. The influence these muckrakers had showcases the effects an unsupportive crowd can have on people or programs. Furthermore, the radical or progressive attitude of society at the time lead to numerous state, city, and federal reforms as well as 3 new amendments. These reforms were successful because the country at the time was critical and cautious of decisions made by those in political power, which lead to important decisions like social reform being clearly outlined and carefully thought through.
WORLD WAR 1
In a sharp contrast to the Vietnam War, World War 1 remains an outstanding example of sacrifices on the home front during times of war. People were willing to commit to what would now be considered extreme sacrifices to support the war effort, such as "Meatless Mondays" and daylight's savings. Liberty bonds could also be purchased to support the war effort, and purchasing one was considered a common and normal act of citizenship. Part of the reason America's involvement in WW1 was so widely supported was because the decision to join WW1 was not hasty and was logical and reasonable. America's strong foreign policy of neutralism at the time called for a careful consideration and critique of the decision to become involved in the war. However, the decision for involvement was ultimately made, as America's bond with Britain was strong and it was widely believed that America's defenses as well as the country's security was being threatened. Because the government had a clear reason for going into war and was carefully making their military decisions, the war effort was backed by an immense amount of public support. Americans at the time were invested citizens who, based off of its government's decisions. believed in the power and intelligence of their country.
In a sharp contrast to the Vietnam War, World War 1 remains an outstanding example of sacrifices on the home front during times of war. People were willing to commit to what would now be considered extreme sacrifices to support the war effort, such as "Meatless Mondays" and daylight's savings. Liberty bonds could also be purchased to support the war effort, and purchasing one was considered a common and normal act of citizenship. Part of the reason America's involvement in WW1 was so widely supported was because the decision to join WW1 was not hasty and was logical and reasonable. America's strong foreign policy of neutralism at the time called for a careful consideration and critique of the decision to become involved in the war. However, the decision for involvement was ultimately made, as America's bond with Britain was strong and it was widely believed that America's defenses as well as the country's security was being threatened. Because the government had a clear reason for going into war and was carefully making their military decisions, the war effort was backed by an immense amount of public support. Americans at the time were invested citizens who, based off of its government's decisions. believed in the power and intelligence of their country.
|
ROARING 20s
The 1920s are notorious for the radical social attitude and general wild ambition of the public in America. The Harlem Renaissance and the Flapper Movement are examples of movements where individuals or specific demographics came together in this time period to take matters into their own hands and fight for their own rights in an aggressive and more social way. There is little government involvement in the social movements in this time period; the transition from Roosevelt's idea of a "New Nationalism" to Wilson's idea of a "New Freedom" was a sharp transition and brought up the question of how and to what extent should the government interfere both economically and socially. The majority of the country, including its leaders, were not expecting or looking to the government to solve their problems or regulate society or business. With little public support for any governmental programs, the country began to feel free in this era of little regulation and indulge in materialistic and greedy behaviors, which partly contributed to the economic crisis of The Great Depression the following decade. In this era, the government should have been more present to prevent the repercussions of this carefree attitude. To solve the very diminished public support of governmental actions, the government should have addressed the growing social conflicts of the country at the time by creating programs to enhance women and minority rights. If the federal government proved at that time that they were capable of solving the country's essential problems through establishing strategic and logical programs, they would have received a very strong public backing and could have possibly prevented the upcoming economic crisis through more programs or actions. |
Laramie and the Matthew Shepard Case
Matthew Shepard was an openly gay student at The University of Wyoming who was brutally attacked because of his sexuality and died on October 12, 1998. Matthew Shepard's death highlighted the responsibility society has to protect others' rights. This is done through concise and strong federal action. The country continued to significantly struggle with hate crimes for 10 years after Shepard's death, as the Hate Crimes Sentencing Enhancement Act in place at that time was considered difficult to enforce and ineffective. This act was enforced rather quickly and with little thought or public input, as the process of enacting it remained quiet and public outcry occurred only after the act was enforced. It was relatively unsuccessful and ineffective because of its strange parameters and very limited use. However, on October 22, 2009, the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act was finally signed into action. This act was given large public attention and was carefully considered and critiqued before finally being signed. In the 6 years it has been enacted, the amount of reported hate crimes has slowly decreased and the violent nature of the crimes has generally decreased as well. This act remains an example of the strength and success a carefully considered and publicly supported governmental action can have.
Matthew Shepard was an openly gay student at The University of Wyoming who was brutally attacked because of his sexuality and died on October 12, 1998. Matthew Shepard's death highlighted the responsibility society has to protect others' rights. This is done through concise and strong federal action. The country continued to significantly struggle with hate crimes for 10 years after Shepard's death, as the Hate Crimes Sentencing Enhancement Act in place at that time was considered difficult to enforce and ineffective. This act was enforced rather quickly and with little thought or public input, as the process of enacting it remained quiet and public outcry occurred only after the act was enforced. It was relatively unsuccessful and ineffective because of its strange parameters and very limited use. However, on October 22, 2009, the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act was finally signed into action. This act was given large public attention and was carefully considered and critiqued before finally being signed. In the 6 years it has been enacted, the amount of reported hate crimes has slowly decreased and the violent nature of the crimes has generally decreased as well. This act remains an example of the strength and success a carefully considered and publicly supported governmental action can have.
GREAT DEPRESSION AND THE NEW DEAL
Having served as an assistant and legislative consultant for Roosevelt for the New Deal legislation, Johnson revered the idea of governmental actions to fix society's problems. In fact, many aspects of the Great Society are modeled after the New Deal, and many historians agree that Johnson strived to further enhance the "safety net" established by Roosevelt's governmental programs. Johnson's firsthand experience with New Deal legislation also gave him a more detailed look at its failures and successes, which allowed him to conclude that the New Deal's end was brought about by an unwilling and skeptical country. This led to Johnson's belief that a strong political policy must have a strong public backing. He cited Roosevelt's court packing plan as an example where hasty decisions caused dwindling public support and aimed to be more strategic and careful with his own Great Society legislation. However, the roaring public support and ambitious social atmosphere evidently lead Johnson to make his own hasty decisions.
Having served as an assistant and legislative consultant for Roosevelt for the New Deal legislation, Johnson revered the idea of governmental actions to fix society's problems. In fact, many aspects of the Great Society are modeled after the New Deal, and many historians agree that Johnson strived to further enhance the "safety net" established by Roosevelt's governmental programs. Johnson's firsthand experience with New Deal legislation also gave him a more detailed look at its failures and successes, which allowed him to conclude that the New Deal's end was brought about by an unwilling and skeptical country. This led to Johnson's belief that a strong political policy must have a strong public backing. He cited Roosevelt's court packing plan as an example where hasty decisions caused dwindling public support and aimed to be more strategic and careful with his own Great Society legislation. However, the roaring public support and ambitious social atmosphere evidently lead Johnson to make his own hasty decisions.
Significance
The Great Society's success and failures proved that the best way to promote a cause or achieve change was to provide governmental programs with abundant funding and a clear, strategic plan that actively, effectively fixes the problem at hand. It also grappled with and began to answer questions and probelems that are still relevant in today's society.
Johnson's experiences with the Great Society's successes and failures taught essential lessons about political ambition and brought relevant and significant questions to light. People and political leaders began to wonder how the federal government can most effectively help disadvantaged citizens. Though the Great Society was for most part considered a failure, it helped answer that essential question. The programs from the Great Society that still exist today, such as Medicare and Medicaid, stand as examples of governmental aid that were successful and helpful because the parameters of the programs as well as their functions were clearly outlined.
Additionally, the Great Society's failure can in fact stand as a warning to many social reforms, new programs, and executive decisions being made today, such as Obamacare and the budget sequestration of 2013. Most of the programs of the Great Society experienced decline and failure due to their cut funding during times of war, which showcases the repercussions hasty planning and no clear financial backup for programs can have. Additionally, the Great Society experienced failure because of its dwindling public support, which was mostly caused by the country's involvement in a war that many found unnecessary, hasty, and harmful.
On another note, the Great Society and Johnson's ideas also stand as an all too relevant lesson of the harm of hubris and wild ambition and the importance of caution when attempting societal change. Johnson and his administration were receiving public criticism and worry concerning the possibility of continuing Great Society efforts during the Vietnam war, but they remained optimistic that "Fighting one war on the home front [referring to the 'war on poverty', which some of his programs were often dubbed] and another overseas is entirely possible." Alas, the effects of that ambition were all too clearly evident in the wake of the war. Barack Obama was similarly ambitious following his second term inauguration to make strides in gun control: "He had this long list of things he wanted done, from a new assault weapons ban to a ban on cartridges that hold many bullets. That long, long list got whittled down..." (Ari Shapiro, NPR Barack Obama Interview). Before beginning his quest for more gun control legislation, Obama was warned by his political advisors and his opposition (more specifically the NRA) that such ambitious regulations would be met with a strong fight. Finally, after Senate filibusters and an unwilling congress shot down every proposed bill on regulations, Obama realized the evidently unrealistic goals his plan had contained. The echoes of political ambition, negation of critique, and therefore failure resound throughout history and stand as a lesson to us all.
Additionally, the Great Society's failure can in fact stand as a warning to many social reforms, new programs, and executive decisions being made today, such as Obamacare and the budget sequestration of 2013. Most of the programs of the Great Society experienced decline and failure due to their cut funding during times of war, which showcases the repercussions hasty planning and no clear financial backup for programs can have. Additionally, the Great Society experienced failure because of its dwindling public support, which was mostly caused by the country's involvement in a war that many found unnecessary, hasty, and harmful.
On another note, the Great Society and Johnson's ideas also stand as an all too relevant lesson of the harm of hubris and wild ambition and the importance of caution when attempting societal change. Johnson and his administration were receiving public criticism and worry concerning the possibility of continuing Great Society efforts during the Vietnam war, but they remained optimistic that "Fighting one war on the home front [referring to the 'war on poverty', which some of his programs were often dubbed] and another overseas is entirely possible." Alas, the effects of that ambition were all too clearly evident in the wake of the war. Barack Obama was similarly ambitious following his second term inauguration to make strides in gun control: "He had this long list of things he wanted done, from a new assault weapons ban to a ban on cartridges that hold many bullets. That long, long list got whittled down..." (Ari Shapiro, NPR Barack Obama Interview). Before beginning his quest for more gun control legislation, Obama was warned by his political advisors and his opposition (more specifically the NRA) that such ambitious regulations would be met with a strong fight. Finally, after Senate filibusters and an unwilling congress shot down every proposed bill on regulations, Obama realized the evidently unrealistic goals his plan had contained. The echoes of political ambition, negation of critique, and therefore failure resound throughout history and stand as a lesson to us all.