Elections

 Voting is a linkage institution in the sense that it helps to get people involved in government. It allows people to be able to vote for the candidates that they think would be a good fit. Elections can have quite the impact on an individual's political beliefs. The videos ads that are for and against candidates can have an impact on how people view candidates. In some cases the way they they are portrayed isn't an accurate representation. So then people will judge candidates from the videos that they're viewing and that can make all the difference in who they're considering.The election that I had chosen to write about was the 2016 Democratic Presidential Primary Election. The candidates that had chose to run were Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders. The position that they ran for was President.


The first candidate was Hillary Clinton. She is affiliated with the Democratic party. One of the issues that she cared about were a fair tax system. Her stance on this is she believes that we need an economy that works people other than just those in the top one percent. Another issue is jobs and wages. Her stance on this issue is that she wants everyone to have an equal opportunity. She would ensure that every American would be able to find a job that pays well. In one of Hillary Clinton's campaign videos,  'Who We Are' it's expressing what Hillary believes.It's arguing this idea that we should come together in order to strive towards accomplishing goals. In the videos she touches on some of those goals. She states that we need to unite to accomplish such goals like building a strong economy that works for everyone not only those in the top 1% and create an economy with jobs that families are able to live on. That we can work with allies throughout the world and to keep our families safe. As well as to give every man, woman, and child the chance to live up to their full potential.

The second candidate was Bernie Sanders. He was affiliated with the Democratic Party. One of the issues that he had cared about was making college tuition free and debt free. He had acknowledged the fact that many young people are unable to afford college and that many others leave school with so much debt that affects them for a long period of time. He would fight to ensure that every American who studied hard in school would be able to go to college regardless of their parents's income and without them having to be in debt.Another issue is housing. Making housing affordable has been one of his top priorities. Bernie had felt that in order to address the housing issue and in order to make it affordable the first step would be to work together. He had a whole plan in order to work towards that goal such as raise minimum wage and expand the National Affordable Housing Trust Fund. The campaign video that I had used for Bernie Sanders was called,'Make History.' It is claiming this idea that by coming together we can make a significant difference. He expresses that this is the time for working families to come together and we can live in a country where people regardless of their race, gender, sexual orientation,or religion can see the promise of equality. He also expresses that when people stand together there isn't anything that can't be done. 

Current Events and Media

Media is a linkage institution because it helps to get people connected to the government. It also helps keep people informed. Media can have quite the impact on how they vote because it can be one of their main sources to get information about candidates. For instances journalists have power when it comes to their articles as what they say can have an impact on people's decisions. The two news sources that I chose were the New York Times and Fox News. The target audience for the New York Times are liberals and the for Fox News its conservatives. The current event that I'm going to be looking into is hurricane recovery. More specifically in regards of Hurricane Maria recovery in Puerto Rico.

The article that I had chose from the New York Times was called, "Hurricane Maria Recovery Highlights Puerto Rico Inequalities." So going into what this article is about, much more of the wealthier residents were able to flee after Hurricane Maria had hit. Although it seems to have quite the impact on people in the lower classes. Many of those people are struggling. Many people are homeless and are struggling to find basic things like water and food. It had killed a significant amount of people. It’s been extremely difficult for people outside of the city as it’s hard for aid workers to find them. There also is this struggle in regards of people finding work.This article is relevant because it’s talking about the Hurricane Maria that had impacted Puerto Rico. It goes into how there are still people that are struggling during this recovery process. I find it to be convincing as they had gotten responses from people that were affected by the hurricane. I feel like by getting responses directly from people you get a better sense of what people are having to deal with in the aftermath. They had used credible sources and provided evidence that’s relevant to this topic. It shows that there is a clear purpose as to why they had addressed this topic. They clearly wanted to show and bring light to how there are many people that haven’t been able to leave, and that many of these people are people in the lower classes. While people in upper classes are doing just fine.

In this article they talk about both the upper class and lower class. The bias here is that they are more for lower class. Which is understandable as they are the ones that are being harshly affected because of the hurricane. Whereas for people within the upper class it’s not as bad as what others are having to go through. For instance they talk about how some parts of the island are normal like in parts of San Juan, where markets have fresh water and food. Generators are running restaurants and apartments. People can walk their dogs, take runs in their expensive gym clothes, and go out for dinner to restaurants. Which shows that they are more for the lower class and people within the upper class can see bias in that. As they talk about a family where their generators had broke at their home and they had stayed at a luxurious hotel. This family's house has suffered only minor damage although their beach house was worse. As they were talking to the wife, Dr. Linette Perez they state what she was saying and had included “she said as her 7 year old Gustave swam in a clear cold pool.” Which is like their way of saying that what they’re experiencing doesn't compare to what the other people are going through. In regards of rhetorical devices there is some use of logos by the use of facts that they include like about how the line between poverty and the middle class was already disappearing. The use of pathos as they had interviewed people they were affected by the hurricane and that can evoke emotions in people reading it. This article is influenced by the context as it was something that had heavily impacted many people. I think that the author wanted to highlight the fact that some people in the upper class were either able to leave or doing okay in comparison to those in the lower classes. As for the audience hopefully it had influenced them to make efforts in trying to help those that were effected by the hurricane. Hopefully after getting more insight about it they realize that any ways that they could help could make all the difference.

The source that I had chose from Fox News was a video called " Rico governor on efforts to restore power to island." It had came with a transcript. In regards of the summary of it, this is a transcript from the show “Your World.” It shows a conversation between Neil Cavuto, who is the host of the show and Governor of Puerto Rico Ricardo Rossello . The governor is criticizing the Army Corps of Engineers over their lack of action on the power grid. Although the Army Corps of Engineers have stated that local officials haven’t really accepted their help and are blocking their help instead. Ricardo had signed a mission agreement with them and they had said that that were going to be there immediately to rebuild and pick up the grid within 45 days. It’s been 35 days since the agreement has been signed and no action has been done. There are suggestions as to why no action has been taken. In Puerto Rico they have materials although more urgency needs to be there in order for them to get their energy grid back up. The governor wants to ensure that the recovery process is successful and that in regards of the rebuilding process that they will get full support. This is relevant in the sense that its talking about the recovery for people in Puerto Rico. Particularly in regards to the lack of energy situation.

Although I find it hard to figure out who to believe in this situation.It’s hard to come to a conclusion about who’s at fault here. I find that overall it's convincing. As it’s coming directly from the source who is reporting on what’s been happening. As it seems that he is against the Corps of Engineers. Although regardless of his bias through this interview you can clearly see that he is striving for the recovery process to get going, for action to be taken. In regards of his reasoning, it’s hard to gauge as it’s his word against there’s.Ricardo Rossello seems to have bias against the Army Corps of Engineers. He is saying that they have been lacking to take action in rebuilding the power grid. Although the Army Corps of Engineers say otherwise, they stated that local officials don’t seem to want help and instead of taking their help they’re blocking it. To which it’s quite confusing trying to figure out who to believe and even the host points that out. To which Ricardo explains why he’s criticizing them. Also want to note that he had stated that the Department of Defense has actually played a role and its been great. In comparison the Corps of Engineers have failed in their mission.Although the host Neil seems to be more for the Corps of engineers. As he seems to defend them saying that isn't it his fault. He then asks how they could fix something that was already in bad shape. They he’d gone into asking if it’s an issue in regards of getting there. As he tells the governor that regardless of who’s to blame for this, he’s been told that for ships that want to get in and help out and getting stuff out of those ships and to the areas that need help it’s just impossible. Overall the host seems to have bias against the governor. As he brings up that the governor is in debt, that's close to $80 million. Then says that there’s no way that he can pay that. There is some use of logos, the use of facts to show the reader the credibility of the source. There is also some use of pathos as the governor had stated that this, in regards of the hurricane is one of the main major disasters in the history of the United States. Which can evoke a response out of the reader. This definitely was for the Governor Ricardo Rossello to be able to address the energy issue and the problems being faced with Army Corps of Engineers. It might've influenced people to again try to make efforts in helping those affected by the hurricane. As they had gotten informed about the fact that during this recovery process they are lacking a power grid.

Political Parties and Politicians

Something that plays a part in how the general public can get involved are political parties. These parties are there for people to be able to be apart of. Where they can be apart of a political party where their views align and they agree with their overall mission. They are an important linkage institution because it helps to get people more involved in the government and politics.

The party that I had chose to write about was the Democrats. In their mission statement they had stated many of their beliefs. Some of those being the that believe that cooperation is better than conflict, we're stronger with an economy that works for everyone, and building bridges are better than walls. Whereas if I were to compare the Democratic party to the Constitution party for instance, their mission is more focused on "securing the blessing of liberty to ourselves and posterity through the election."Their goal is to limit the Constitutional functions of the federal government. The reason why I chose to do the Democratic party is because they are more about positive change and that coming together is better than fighting against one another. Also I am more liberal than conservative and so I resonant with their idea much more.

The issue that I had picked was the racial wealth gap. Which is basically where people of color are being paid significantly less than white people. They find it to be unacceptable that the median wealth for African Americans and Latino Americans is roughly 1/10 that of white Americans. They acknowledge that this is also an issue for American Indians and certain Asian American subgroups. It also can be dependent on such things like age, disability status, sexual orientation, or gender identity.They provide an example of a situation where, “African Americans and Latinos lost more than half of their net worth as a result of the housing crisis and the Great Recession because they lost their jobs at a much faster rate than white workers and because they were disproportionately targeted for subprime, predatory and fraudulent mortgages during the run-up to the housing crisis." They find that great changes in wealth can’t be solved by just the free market but by having the federal government playing a role in eliminating systemic barriers to wealth accumulation for different racial groups and improving opportunities for people from all racial and ethnic background to build wealth.

They include some statistics in regards of the amount of pay that people of color are getting compared to white people. They also include an actual example of what had happened to African Americans and Latinos. They are debunking any idea in a negative way more of just acknowledging the issue at hand and trying to explain a solution that could be helpful. They express an idea that people may have in regards of the free market. They state that it won’t be able to fix this issue and build on who should get involved so that it can be fixed.My party's belief could affect public opinion because for starters its something that is relevant. So with something that is more relevant to them then they're going to be more inclined to listen. It could also be that some people aren't aware of this racial wealth gap and so one of the reasons they probably addressed this issue was to bring light to it and make more people aware that this is an issue that's happening. Another thing is that their use of logos, they use facts to prove their point and show that it's something that's happening.

The politician that I chose to talk about was Dianne Feinstein. She is a California senior senator. She is part of the Democratic party.  I had already gone into their main beliefs but to reiterate they are more for positive change and coming together instead of fighting against one another. One of the reasons why I had chose her was because she was a senator for California. Also the amount of accomplishments that she has are impressive. One of them being was that she was that in 2017 she became the top Democrat on the, "Senate Judiciary Committee - was the first woman to assume that role - where she helps share policy criminal law, national security, immigration,civil rights, and the courts.

The artifact that I had chosen was a press release on Dianne Feinstein's official website. She had spoke to reporters about the effects of the Republican health care bill. She finds the bill to be the most unjustified bills that she's ever seen in her years of being apart of Senate. She provides facts from the CBO its stated that, “22 million Americans would lose their health coverage by 2026. That’s between 3 and 4 million in California, with 1.6 million losing insurance next year.” She then continues  by stating that, “Medicaid would be cut by $772 billion. This means that California would have to replace around $24 billion in federal dollars by 2026.” Health plans today are supposed to cover 70% of health care costs, but due to the Republican bill, that would fall to only 58%. She had spoken with rural hospital and she had found that they would be devastated. “They would face $1.4 billion more in the uncompensated care next year alone.” Pretty much California would have to pay more and would be getting less.

She stated, “For example, Medicaid covers 1 in 3 of all Californians. That means that 14 million people would be at risk of losing coverage. 3 in 5 home beds could be jeopardized. 1 in 2 people with disabilities could lose care. 1 in 2 children now covered by Medi-Cal, that’s more than 5 million children who could lose their health care. And between 40 to 80 percent of children who visit our children’s hospitals are covered by Medi-Cal. Some hospitals in this category will likely not be able to keep their door open.” “4 million people in LA County lose care. 900,000 people in San Diego. And it goes on and on.” Which then these cuts are benefiting the top 1 percent by making them richer, giving them billions in tax breaks. She first starts out by stating that the bill is unjustified. Which is an opinion of hers but then she goes into why this bill is unjustified by giving facts. She provides information from COB which is the Congressional Budget Office. She shows a genuine concern for how this could affect people California. The purpose of this press release was to bring light to the situation and make people more aware of it. As this would affect an abundance of people in California.Overall she ends with restating that the bill is terrible and that it's a goal between the Governor, Senator Harris and her to defeat it.

Senator Dianne Feinstein's website

Press Release about Republican health care bill

Abortion

So the issue that I chose was abortion. Basically abortion is the process of removing a fetus. Now this topic is very controversial. There are two different views on this issue, there are people that are pro-life or pro-choice. So for people that are pro-life they are against abortion and are for saving the fetus. Whereas for people that are pro-choice they are more for abortion and are for women being able to make their own personal choice on whether or not they want the baby. Now this doesn't mean that everyone has the same views if they're one or the other, I'm just talking in general terms. The liberal interest group that I chose was Planned Parenthood. They strive to protect women's rights for them to decide when and whether or not they want to get pregnant. They also challenge the government interfering in personal decisions and how that kind of thing should be left to the woman and her family. As for the conservative interest group, I chose the National Right to Life. They strive to protect the lives of every human being from the beginning of their life until the end.

So for the liberal interest group the artifact that I had chosen was an article. It was written by a woman named Courtney Tucker. In the article she is addressing a misconception that people may have about people that are pro-choice. She goes into the reasons why abortion is legal. She brings up points like how a fetus isn't legally a citizen and the Supreme Court case Roe. VS. Wade. In which it was decided upon the Supreme Court that it would be legal in 1973. Another point that she had made was that the right to make their own personal decisions in regards of their own bodies is their right to privacy. It's a constitutional right. She also had addressed the fact that for the people that are pro-life they are all for the birth of the baby although when its born people don't care anymore. I think that the reason why she wrote this article was to debunk this misconception that some people may have. I also think it was to shed light on the situation and to address her thoughts in regards of the topic.

As for the conservative interest group the artifact that I had chosen was an article. This article was written by a man by the name Trevor Atwood. He is addressing this misconception in regards to some that might think that being pro-life is just about being opposed to abortion. He is addressing this idea of why it is much more than that. He connects it to religion. He said that, "Being pro-life goes far beyond mobile sonogram clinics and Capitol Hill. It's about being pro-life and like God is pro-life." He talks about how pro-life ethic is more than just the life in the womb, It should also be about how you treat your family and friends. He also expresses this idea that the Lord puts the responsibility in your hands to protect and care for the weak. I think that the reason why he wrote this was to bring light to the situation and to show that being pro-life is more than just being opposed to abortion.

So between both interest groups, they definitely have very different point of views. Where liberals are more for women being able to make their own personal choices for their bodies. They protect a woman's rights to be able to determine whether or not she wants to be pregnant. Whereas the conservative interest group is more about the fact that they strive to protect and defend the lives of the these innocent fetuses. They strive to promote this idea of the fact that we should all respect worth and dignity of every individual being, whether that being unborn or born. I don’t really see any similarities between interest groups, they definitely have very different views in regards of this issue. As for the artifacts that I have chosen the similarities that I have noticed between them is that there is definitely bias to what they say as they do input their opinion on things. Another thing I’ve noticed is the fact that are debunking misconceptions that people might have. In regards of differences she uses facts to go into the reasons as to why abortion is legal. She also brings up relevant facts as well like the Roe. Vs Wade case. As for the man who is pro-life he is very dependent on using excerpts from the bible and talking about the Lord. He has a religious standpoint on the situation.

So addressing this question of, "How might interest groups influence an individual's political beliefs?"
I feel like a big part of is it their tone that they use in their writing, as well as their diction. It can be very persuading. Another thing is their use of pathos, logos, and ethos. For instance in the article from Courtney Tucker she brings up this idea that if the law that allows a woman to have an abortion were to be overturned then you're telling a woman who is well aware of the fact that financially she wouldn't be able to take care of a child. Yet she should just suck it up and work up to 3 jobs just to be able to take care of her and the baby. Or you're telling this college student that she should just drop out of college and take care of this baby. It's not like she was going to graduate soon and go on to apply for graduate school.

Links to the artifacts.
https://www.theodysseyonline.com/understand-pro-choice
https://erlc.com/resource-library/articles/why-being-pro-life-is-about-more-than-opposing-abortion

Introductions

Hello my name is Carynna. Its pronounced differently from the way that it looks, trust. I enjoy pugs, zesty spongebob memes, and really thick sweaters on hot days. On an average day I can be found reading books in artistic looking areas so I can get those aesthetically pleasing pics OR taking my dog, Oreo, on walks so I can meet more dogs.  I've always got a book in my hand and a song stuck in my head.

As for my political typology I had gotten solid liberal. Which ultimately I wasn't surprised by the results because I see myself as more liberal than conservative. So some of the key points about my typology were very optimistic about the nation's future and are more likely to say that the America's success is linked to its ability to change and overwhelmingly believe that good diplomacy - rather than military strength- is the best way to ensure peace.