Political Government Thinking

 

According to the text, even though most government programs work well most of the time, Americans tend to be disappointed with government due to their high expectations about government on one hand and their revolutionary roots on the other hand. What do you think about the

The trust of the Americans towards the American Government continues to decrease, although there are signs that hostility toward government has begun to diminish. There is also considerable evidence that distrust of government is strongly connected to how people feel about the overall state of the nation. Today, personal satisfaction is soaring, the economy is thriving and confidence in state and local governments is growing, but neither satisfaction with the condition of the country nor confidence in the federal government has been transformed. The national mood and trust are both up from the mid-1990s, but still just 20% of Americans are highly satisfied

? Do you think these expectations help or hinder government performance or are inconsequential to government performance? What has been your experience with government (state the levels of government).

 

 

Sample Solution

The trust of the Americans towards the American Government continues to decrease, although there are signs that hostility toward government has begun to diminish. There is also considerable evidence that distrust of government is strongly connected to how people feel about the overall state of the nation. Today, personal satisfaction is soaring, the economy is thriving and confidence in state and local governments is growing, but neither satisfaction with the condition of the country nor confidence in the federal government has been transformed. The national mood and trust are both up from the mid-1990s, but still just 20% of Americans are highly satisfied

 

rectly after Bloody Sunday, the narrative of victimhood emerged in the nationalist movement, emphasizing the lives lost during the march and the bloodshed caused by the British army. That was one of the pivotal events that created a cycle of violence between the unionists and nationalists, especially with the resurgence of the IRA. However, despite trying to keep the façade of total discrimination and attacks from the unionist side, the IRA was quickly labeled by the media as “terrorists” and lost the support gained right after Bloody Sunday. It took until the hunger strikes in 1980 and 1981 to change the IRA’s image from terrorists to freedom fighters, as the poor conditions and martyrdom of some nationalists humanized the entire organization and allowed the IRA to push forward into politics.
Years of discrimination and oppression had worn down the majority of the Catholic population. It was these feelings of collective victimhood and anti-colonization that equated to more tolerance of, or even receptiveness to, the violent actions committed by the IRA.

While understanding the methods used does not equal complete support (Lynch and Joyce 2018, 188), the obdurate IRA operated with relative ease, as few nationalists dared to oppose it. The increased violence by some militant nationalists led to, in turn, increased violence by some militant unionists, creating an unbreakable cycle that bounced back and forth between sides. While historically, the Catholics have been continually discriminated against (making them the victims in many stories), unionists had their fair share of troubles as well. It is untruthful to say that no harm befell the unionists during this conflict (as many of them were injured/killed by IRA attacks), but the narrative established by the nationalists during this time had longer roots, dating back to the struggles they had been faced when the English came into the country and colonized it.

During the 1960s, disadvantaging practices regarding housing, employment opportunities, the right to vote, and education were commonplace for Catholics across Northern Ireland (Beggan 2006, 63). With the IRA in “retirement,” nationalists took to the streets to protest and demonstrate. The state had two options: to repress the movement or politically open up to their demands (Beggan 2006, 63). Instead of using peaceful methods, the state

This question has been answered.

Get Answer
WeCreativez WhatsApp Support
Our customer support team is here to answer your questions. Ask us anything!
👋 Hi, Welcome to Compliant Papers.