kennedy vs nixon essays

kennedy vs nixon essays Both John F. Kennedy and Richard Nixon were elected to Congress in 46, a year in which the New Deal took a serious beating as the Republicans regained control of Congress on the slogan "Had Enough?" Nixon of course, had campaigned against incumbent Jerry Voorhis on an anti-New Deal platform, but it's often forgotten that when JFK first ran for the House in 1946, he differentiated himself from his Democratic primary opposition by describing himself as a "fighting conservative." In private, Kennedy's antipathy to the traditional FDR New Deal was even more extensive. When Kennedy and Nixon were sworn in on the same day, both were already outspoken on the subject of the emerging Cold War. While running for office in 1946, Kennedy proudly told a radio audience of how he had lashed out against a left-wing group of Young Democrats for being naive on the subject of the Soviet Union, and how he had also attacked the emerging radical faction headed by Henry Wallace. Thus, when Kennedy entered the House, he was anything but "progressive" in his views of either domestic or foreign policy. It didn't take long for these two to form a friendship. Both were Navy men who had served in the South Pacific, and both saw themselves as occupying the vital center of their parties. Just as JFK lashed out against the New Deal and the radical wing of the Democratic party, so too did Richard Nixon distance himself from the right-wing of the Republican party. Nixon's support of Harry Truman's creation of NATO and the aid packages to Greece and Turkey meant rejecting the old guard isolationist bent of the conservative wing that had been embodied in "Mr. Republican" Senator Robert Taft. Indeed, when it came time for Nixon to back a nominee in 1948, his support went to the more centrist Thomas E. Dewey, and not to the conservative Taft. Kennedy decided to go into politics mainly because of the influence of his father. Joe Kennedy, Jr. had been ...

An Unpaid Option An Illustrative Essay Template (MLA Sample Paper)

An Unpaid Option An Illustrative Essay Template (MLA Sample Paper) What Is MLA Format? MLA Format is a standard format for academic writing and citing sources within the humanities and liberal arts. MLA refers to a set of rules and formatting guidelines that are used by researchers. These standards are described in the MLA Handbook for writers of research papers (8-th edition) which is a 300-page manual describing every aspect of MLA paper writing. Below you will find a great MLA essay example. Read and use it while writing your own paper. Feel free to download MLA Essay Example Name LastName Professor’s Name Course Number Day Month Year Truth Behind the War                   Media plays a great role in influencing today’s youth and changing the opinions of many. Media’s coverage is so  much influential that it can have an effect on anyone’s opinion and views.  Media at times could be good,  while at times it  could be really bad. For example, in focusing on the  issues of discrimination, it plays a very important role in letting people  know the adverse effects of  discrimination,  while on the other hand media, itself is  being responsible for the growing issues  of  discrimination.                  Ã‚  Media plays a great role during the Wartime, not just by broadcasting the war events but also by letting the people  know the reality  and the truth behind the war. They are the ones who change people’s perspective and opinion. The  techniques in addition to goals  of the media have changed radically. The media now is what bring the news of all the terror  war into everyone’s home.When the World war broke out in August 1914, the United States at once fixed its relation to the belligerents thru  proclamation  of neutrality. The days of the war, before their entry on the side of the allied powers in April 1917, were  marked with difficulties,   both in preventing violations of out neutrality and in securing proper respect for our neutral rights.  The rights and duties of neutrals were  involved.                  Ã‚  At the outbreak of the war, Great Britain notified the United States that she would be held responsible for injuries  resulting to British interests from vessels converted to warships or armed in  American ports, even though the completion of  the act of conversion took place on the high seas.  British merchant vessels, it was asserted, were armed for self-defense  only.  The position of the United States was that a merchant vessel belonging to a belligerent should not arm itself so as to  avoid capture by lawful and legitimate  processes.                  Ã‚  On April 8, 1917, the Austrian government, as Germanys ally, broke off diplomatic relations with the United States,  and in due course, the war was declared against Austria. Until all effective states agree upon the abandonment of neutrality,  those remaining  outside the agreement will insist on their right to judge for themselves as to the neutral or belligerent  character of their policy, in the case of a conflict between two or more other states. This lies in the field of policy. And as  long as the policy of neutrality may be elected, it follows that the status of neutrality will exist, together with its rights and  duties. The belligerent states will be sufficiently active in demanding that a country is impartially a country is impartially neutral. The neutral state  must itself insist upon an observance of its formally declared by the joint resolution of Congress (Cipriano, 1995).                  Ã‚  All this during the First World War was well focused on, and a clear perspective was shown through Media. There  was not any biasness and the news was broadcasted to merely let the people know what is going on in their surrounding,  and not to exaggerate a particular news. Media of that time would only broadcast what was actually happening and so it  would leave the decision to viewers hands as to what conclusion they make out from the broadcast and it had let them had  their own perspective to everything they watched rather than to force Media’s own perspective on its viewer. Change of the War Picture                  Ã‚  Previously media would emphasize a focus on the positives of wars. They paid attention to what people required  and needed to hear. There was no struggle, and money wasn’t as key an issue in becoming a journalist. The commercialism  of news was far less of an issue in the reporting of news. The news wasn’t so much unconstructive as it was upbeat and  vigorous. It was the media’s job to keep their listeners hopeful and panic free. It wasn’t concerning who could get a hold of  the most listeners by offering  the most sensational newscasts. It was about letting everyone know the truth and reality  (Jowett, ODonnell, 1992).                   But now in the present time, media offers overly negative pictures of war and its objectives and accomplishments.  A new legacy would be built: the rising of deviousness, one that imitated and showed the broader dissatisfactions with the  government. Journalism was now regarding the money and the achievement that would be wrapped around it. The  competition rose as the requirement for unconstructiveness in the life unraveled. Good, decent, honest and optimistic news  would no longer be found.   Media vs. Military Business                   We shall have a look at how the media interferes in the military business, so to have a clear vision of how  things actually are. Every time a society has permitted its military establishment to insulate itself against effective public scrutiny that  military establishment has ended up destroying the people it was supposed to protect. The independence guaranteed to the  press under the the First Amendment to that Constitution is one of the most important of the safeguards. Yet every bureaucrat  knows that power flows from each increment of information he or she can garner and hold tight. To the extent that our  society permits such bureaucratic self-interest to restrict access by the public to the business of government – in particular,  its military business – the First Amendment   becomes meaningless.                   Very few citizens have the time and means to search out government information vital to their well-being. As a  result, access means mainly access by the press, like it or not.  In a speech to the National Newspaper Association  following the end of the war,   General Colin L. Powell, chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, acknowledged that if the  Iraqi army had moved, in August 1990,   as it was entirely capable of doing, to occupy the principal Saudi Arabian airfields  and ports, the United States would have been in enormous difficulty. What General Powell did not tell his audience, but what  Major General Edward B. Atkeson, formerly of the Central Intelligence Agency, had made plain more than three years earlier  in an article in Armed Forces Journal International was that for a period of several weeks, until major U.S. land and air forces  could be inserted, a determined, large-scale Iraqi invasion could be stopped only by n uclear weapons.                   But American journalism has neither the technical competence to recognize the long-term implications of an article  such as General Atkesons nor the structural means to relate it to a crisis that occurs years, or even months, later. So the  public – American or otherwise – was never informed that in declaring his intention to defeat Iraqi aggression the president of  the United States was, in fact, committing the United States to nuclear war during the period when the first token U.S. land  forces flown to the region were in danger of being overrun. Passion for Seeking Out the Truth                   As with every major military story since the end of World War, the press failed. It did not fail because of government censorship. Rather, it failed because of the inadequacies of its own training and organization, deficiencies that prevented it from reporting matters of crucial importance, even when all of the essential facts were in the public domain.                   The media, much similar to the American people, began losing optimism in the government, so broadcasters  subsequently would create such newscasts that would also fill the American people with a strong sense of doubt. A major  loss to the reliability of the public was the leaking of information to the public from the Pentagon Papers. These documents  were discovered by journalists to contain far higher rates of American fatalities and far less victorious battles than the  publicly released government statistics had specified. No longer would the press recognize the government press releases;  now they began more analytical journalism to check the truth of the official reports.                   We need to realize that media is there to raise the voice for truth, not to support the exaggeration of the simple,   uncomplicated anecdote. What the media at this stage need to do is  to make an attempt and realize that to ‘cover a war and  for a nation determined to comprehend it, there  is merely one course. They must share a passion for seeking out the truth’  (DeParle, 1991). MediAffect                   Where do the media fit in this procedure? An average American high school graduate spends more time in front of  the TV than in the classroom. The mass media is an influential socializing agent. Media is not restricted to the contented of  media messages. Media have an effect on how we learn regarding our world and interrelate with one another. Media actually  reconcile our relationship with social institutions. We base a large amount of our knowledge on government news accounts,  not knowledge. We are reliant on the media for what we distinguish and how we narrate to the world of politics due to the  media-politics connection. We read or   watch political discussions followed by immediate analysis as well as commentary by  experts. Politicians rely on media to converse their message. Related dynamics are present in other mediated events such  as televised sports and televangelism. Media is part of our usual relations with family and frie nds. They describe our  communication with other people on a daily foundation as a diversion, sources of disagreement, or a uniting force. Media  have an impact on society not merely through the contented of the message but also through the procedure.    DeParle, Jason. Covering the War†. New York Times, 5 May 1991. Venzon, Anne Cipriano. The United States in the First World War. Garland Publishing, 1995. Jowett, G. S., and ODonnell, Victoria. Propaganda and Persuasion. 2nd ed., Sage Press, 1992. Edward B. Atkeson. â€Å"The Persian Gulf. Still a Vital U.S. Interest?† Armed Forces Journal International, April 1987): 46-56 Get your free MLA Essay template only today!