Civil Rights in Politics - Essay Example

 Politics Civil rights The 20th century is synonymous with the civil rights movement in the United s. Out of the numerous civil rights events that took place in the 20th century, there are those that stand out in terms of impacting a sense of social responsibility in the United States government both in the past and today. The first amongst these is the Rosa park refusal to give up her seat in a Montgomery bus in 1955 (Freedman, 2014). This event was a civil rights act of defiance against the bus segregation laws that were in place in Alabama amongst other American states. So how exactly did this civil rights event change the U.S government sense of social responsibility? The immediate change was the repeal of bus segregation laws by the Supreme Court on November 14th 1956 (Freedman, 2014). The U.S government felt the need to grant equal transport rights to the black community. On a broader context, the Rosa Parks civil rights event has over time changed the United States government attitude towards minorities. For instance, in 2015, the Supreme Court has allowed gay marriage rights, something that was banned previously. It is a pointer to the increasing U.S government sense of responsibility towards minorities, something traceable to Rosa Parks and the civil rights movement. The second event that can be seen to have changed the U.S government sense of social responsibility is the birth of the NIAGRA movement in 1905 (Freedman, 2014). It is the formation of this movement by D.W Dubois that saw the repeal of the Grandfather clause by the Supreme Court by 1915. The NIAGRA movement and the subsequent creation of the NAACP touched the social consciousness of the United States government through the realization that the law was not only unconstitutional, but also unsustainable in creating a united American society (Freedman, 2014). One can argue that the birth of the NIAGRA movement in 1905 and the Supreme Court repeal of the grandfather clause have a bearing on the United States today. It opened the government to the fact that minorities too have rights. The recent Obama executive order on immigrants is a mirror of the 1915 Supreme Court ruling. Immigrants have been suffering criminal abuse out of fear of repatriation. The immigration executive order is a reprieve to immigrants (minorities) whose only crime is working hard to fed for their families back in their countries of origin. Media and people’s perception of government The media is a powerful tool when it comes to shaping public opinion. One news story that negatively affected American public perception towards the U.S government in particular the NSA is the Snowden spying claims. Mainstream media spotlighted the story creating mistrust for the government by the citizenry (Ma et al, 2015). The media provided details of how the government was intruding into personal privacy by reading people’s mails and text messages. One can argue that were it not for the widespread media coverage the Snowden story received, there would have been little impact on the U.S citizen perception of the U.S government. Today, the average U.S citizen does not trust the government, all due to the media coverage of the Snowden and by extension the wiki leaks story. The second event where a media story has negatively affected public perception of the government and in particular the institution of the presidency is the Iraqi weapons of mass destruction story. After the 9/11 attack, the U.S government convinced the public by capitalizing on the raging emotions at the time that Saddam Hussein was the problem and that Iraq was harboring weapons of mass destruction (Tarek, 2010). However, all this euphoria around Iraq was crashed when the mainstream media revealed conspiracies around the Iraq war including CIA reports showing that they had prior knowledge that Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction, and that Saddam was never a threat to the United States. The media also increased negative public perception by detailing the massive monetary and human resources that went into the Iraq war (Tarek, 2010). It is safe to argue that the current U.S slow pace in the fight against ISIS is due to low public support for any foreign wars that involve putting American boots on the ground. This suspicion towards government and war is a direct result of media reporting on the Iraqi and Afghan wars between 2001 and 2008. Democrats and Republicans Democrats and Republicans are worlds apart in terms of the moral values they propagate and their influence on the American people. While democrats are pro-choice in matters of reproduction and what constitutes the family unit, Republicans are conservative and believe in the right of the unborn child and the sanctity of the traditional family (father, mother and child) (Kugler et al, 2014). So what is the ethical impact of each of these views? Starting with the family unit issue, one can argue that the democrat perspective is a negative moral influence to society. This is because; family is the basis of society, it is what provides a basis for morality in society where people learn what is right and wrong, as well as propagate society through procreation. When you encourage gay marriages, you endanger the human propagation process. Moreover, when gay couples adopt children, what will be the moral compass of such children be? Would such children be blamed for turning into violence or other vices due to lack of either partner or maternal love? Can such children fully integrate with the rest of the society when they grow up? What the democrats are vouching for is a breakdown of society, by killing the very fabric of society, family. The other issue where democrats and republicans differ that may have an impact on the moral compass of the American society is on immigration. Democrats are for the rights of immigrants, while the republicans are vehemently opposed to the issue. Again the democrats’ perspective on this issue is detrimental to morality in America. Why is that? To understand this, one needs to look at the nature of immigrants coming into the United States. Most of them are uneducated peasants, while others are hardcore drug dealers from Central America (Kugler et al, 2014). When you treat these individuals with leniency, you directly affect the American citizen in two ways: First, you allow the drug trade to flourish in America, and drugs are a major cause of immoral acts in society ranging from violence to prostitution. Secondly, when poor illiterate immigrants flood the United States, they put a strain to social services meant for American citizens. When the young and vulnerable cannot access adequate social services, they are likely to turn to crime and other social ills like prostitution, both of which are acts of immorality. References Cherkaoui, Tarek. (2010). Orientalism, Pan-Arabism, and military-media warfare: a comparison between CNN and Aljazeera coverage of the Iraq war. AUT University. Freedman, R. (2014). Because they marched: The people's campaign for voting rights that changed America. In Ma, W. W. K., In Yuen, A. H. K., In Park, J., In Lau, W. W. F., & In Deng, L. (2015).New Media, Knowledge Practices and Multiliteracies: HKAECT 2014 International Conference. Kugler, M., Jost, J. T., & Noorbaloochi, S. (December 01, 2014). Another Look at Moral Foundations Theory: Do Authoritarianism and Social Dominance Orientation Explain Liberal-Conservative Differences in “Moral” Intuitions?. Social Justice Research, 27, 4, 413-431. Read More