The people who we solely rely on to protect our freedoms can barely be honest with us? Shameful, in my opinion.

To be quite honest it makes me not even want to vote. The right that Elizabeth Cady Stanton fought for with great effort, is meaningless if no canidates can even be honest as to whom they are.

Every day I hear politicians and their administrations promote themselves. I don’t care who they claim to be; I care about how everyone else feels about their experiences with the politician.

Various citizens feel as though the Obama Administration is perhaps as curropt as the Nixon Administration was. Times have changed, technology is at its peak and entrepeneurs are crowding indutries.

However, Politicians have stepped in places we never imagined. Political Curroption is destroying America. We are destroying ourselves!

“Obama for America,” or Obama against America?  Obama’s recent $447 Billion plan to create new jobs seems brilliant from the outside perspective. However, I am not as easily convinced.

Obama claims the benefits, money, and effort put into this plan will outweigh the extreme amount of money required to follow through with the plan.

Obama is sadly mistaken and could possibly cause America even more debt and a lovely increase in taxes. After all, American’s love taxes! I mean we only fought for taxation without representation in our Declaration of Independence, but what does Independence matter anymore? Were just a forming colony for China.

The only plan Obama needs to create in regards to jobs, is a plan that disallows American companies from hiring overseas operators and engineers. He needs to help preserve American jobs. I’m not sure if Obama has noticed, but people are still losing jobs. America needs to focus on bringing back jobs taken overseas and preserving jobs still existent.

That in itself will help rebuild America, not spending more money. Besides wanting to put America in to a larger pit hole, “This proposal is really not credible,” said Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell.

Although Republicans are not my most favored party, but neither are liars, criminals, and Presidents heading America towards a whirl wind of debt. It seems they have became a Political party all their own.

Politics is the art of the possible.

-Otto von Bismarck, 1867

The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president.

-Mitch McConnell, after the midterm elections of November 2010

In the wake of the 2008 electoral victory by Barack Obama and the Democrats, there was much discussion about what this meant for the Republican party. Was it inevitable they would have to become more liberal to keep in touch with changing demographics? Even the Conservative commentator Fred Barnes suggested post-election that it may be time to “elevate moderates to positions of leadership.”

Subsequent to the election, moderates have been largely rejected by the base of the Republican party. Michael Steele was chased out of his seat as head of the RNC, even as Republicans rode to victory in the midterm elections. House and Senate leaders John Boehner and Mitch McConnell have often been derided as too lenient to Obama by right-wing bloggers and talk radio.

Instead of trending to capture Hispanics and young voters, the GOP decided to embrace their Ayn Rand-loving ideological roots. The Tea Party evolved as a protest movement against spending, taxes, healthcare, and, most of all, Barack Obama. While it’s obvious that the genesis of this movement is riddled with a healthy layer of corporate-financed Astroturf, it cannot be denied that it does represent the purest distillation of popular Conservative political thought that we’ve seen in our lifetimes. The economic realism of Dwight Eisenhower and Richard Nixon has been purged from their history books to the disappointment of some Conservatives. But to today’s most prominent voices, it is Conservatism uncensored–and the message led to their sacking of the House of Representatives.

The Tea Party itself is not a bad thing. It is very good for Republicans to have this debate within their party and with moderates and Liberals. Ron Paul’s small-government anti-war Libertarianism is an intellectual movement that deserves to be considered and should be welcomed within the political arena.

But sober, reasoned voices of the Tea Party that genuinely want to have a back-and-forth debate about the future of this country have been drowned out. They’ve been drowned out by the likes of Sarah Palin, Glenn Beck, and Rush Limbaugh, who have hijacked the movement and turned it into a personality-driven article of faith that is both rigidly uncompromising and emotionally charged.

Fast forward to the debt ceiling debate. Under previous presidents, Bush and Reagan included, the debt ceiling has been raised with a moderate amount of consternation.

This country now possesses the strongest credit in the world. The full consequence of a default–or even the serious prospect of default–by the United States are impossible to predict and awesome to contemplate….The risks, the costs, the disruptions, and the incalculable damage lead me to but one conclusion: the Senate must pass this legislation before the Congress adjourns.

-Ronald Reagan, 1983

Republicans today argue that times have changed. Reagan’s “principles” would support their agenda, even if his actions didn’t. George W. Bush and the Republicans who ran both branches of Congress weren’t to blame because “9/11 changed everything.” Indeed, the debt has reached dizzying levels and it needs to be addressed. But why now? Why pick this battle when the economy is “cratering,” as John McCain might say? Why put a gun to the head of the United States’ AAA bond rating when higher interest rates could result (even the S&P favors the Reid plan over Boehner’s)? Why remain so intransigent on tax hikes for the wealthy when their share of America’s riches has risen so dramatically in the last 30 years?

There is no seriousness in the way Republicans are approaching this issue. There is, as Conservative New York Times columnist David Brooks noted, “no sense of moral decency” on the part of Republicans in Congress. The offers made by President Obama and Democrats in Congress average about 3 to 1 in the ratio of spending cuts to revenues. It is the deal of the century, and by any classic definition of “Conservative,” it is a gigantic victory for the Tea Party and for Republicans.

But Republicans are less interested in getting a good deal than they are at breaking the will of Barack Obama, and they are willing to take the American economy hostage to do just that. Mitch McConnell himself, as well and scores of other Republicans, have stated that the most important thing for them to accomplish is the ruination of President Obama. Being elected to office brings with it a responsibility to govern, and the act of governing necessarily includes the need to compromise, especially when your party only holds one branch of Congress. It is as if there were three people negotiating over how to divide a cake and one of them insisted on taking it all as a matter or principle.

McConnell floated the idea recently of allowing Obama to raise the debt ceiling himself while Congress passed an opposition bill that Obama would inevitably veto. Rather than take a great deal for his party, lowering the debt by trillions, he believed it more important to save political face and have the debt limit raised without any Republican support behind it so he and his cohorts could shirk any responsibility. It is one of the most craven, cynical acts in the history of politics, and tells us all we need to know about what the Republicans in Congress are about.

What is it in the heart of today’s Republican that drives them to such a level of inflexibility? Is it merely rigid idealism or is it a deep-seated political urge to destroy Obama at all costs? In fact, the two are one in the same, and it is especially accentuated by the fact that Obama ran as a uniter and an admirer of Ronald Reagan. By their definition, ANY act of compromise with Obama is a concession to him and is by definition an expansion of government–another step toward Socialism. If they are completely unwilling to compromise, why not go all-out? If every statement or offer is just an act of Kabuki theatre designed for political expediency, why show restraint? Restraint is suicide in the current Conservative echo-chamber, and these people want to keep their jobs and get re-elected.

For all of the criticism the mainstream media receives from the Right, no political group is more heavily influenced by their cadre of media elites than the Republicans.

It’s worth noting that for all the conservative obsession with the dreaded Mainstream Media, it is really the Republican party that is far more in thrall to its pet media organizations. A Democratic plan proposal can survive the disapproval of the New York Times. But Rush Limbaugh has veto power over the GOP as now constituted.

It’s incredible, it’s self-defeating, it’s absurd … but it’s the way it is.

-David Frum, Frum Forum

In a remarkably titled blog post by Erick Erickson of Redstate.com, he states:

In the past 48 hours I have had call after call after call from members of the United States Congress. They’ve read what I’ve written. They agree. But they feel the hour is short and the end is nigh.

So some are calling looking for alternatives. Some are calling looking for energy. Many are calling looking for absolution.

And so I address them and put it here so you can see my advice.

-Erick Erickson, The Absolution I Cannot Give, RedState.com

Why are members of Congress calling a Republican blogger on the phone to seek “absolution?” Could you ever imagine a Democrat doing this with Markos Moulitsas? Or Moulitsas having the balls to actually publish this fact? It is absolutely incredible, and the “lamestream media” would have a field day if a site like Daily Kos displayed even a fraction of the obvious influence that right-wing bloggers have.

So here we are. Obama and Boehner have made their speeches to America on this evening, the 25th of July, and the thought cannot be ignored: the best way to reduce the size of government is to run it like a crackhead and then point to the carnage as evidence. The small-government movement prospered under Bush thanks largely to his failure of leadership. For many, moments like Katrina only confirmed the Conservative view that government was useless. And to drill this idea even further into the heads of the American people, their behavior regarding the debt ceiling is appeasing their zookeepers like Limbaugh and Erickson while significantly eroding the foundations of America’s trust in their government.

I don’t want to abolish government. I simply want to reduce it to the size where I can drag it into the bathroom and drown it in the bathtub.

-Grover Norquist

The role today’s Republicans play in government is akin to letting Casey Anthony teach Kindergarten. If the American people speak loud enough, the Tea Party will ultimately fail. But if Republicans continue to work unfettered from the inside to sow the seeds of our government’s destruction, the consequences may be difficult to undo.

After working with that client I made the false assumption that I understood that industry pretty well.  Young, pretty girls from Eastern European countries like Ukraine, Russia, and Kazakhstan, along with women from some Asian countries like China, Philippines and Vietnam list themselves in hoping to land an American husband.  But when you think of South Korea and mail order brides, you shouldn’t necessarily think about women trying to come to the United States, but more about the South Korean men bringing girls from countries like Vietnam to them.

I just found a great video at the Al Jazeera website about South Korean men, and Vietnamese mail order brides.  One of the more interesting stats is that nearly 1/3 of men in rural areas of South Korea actually have foreign wives.

The video focuses on several women and men seeking “love” through the match makers who pair up young girls in poor countries with guys in less poor countries like South Korea.  The interview of the Vietnamese girl crying when she has to admit that she would rather go to a University than marry some stranger in a foreign land was especially heart breaking.  I’m guessing the kind of guy doing this isn’t going to allow her to better herself through education.  Most of these guys being interviewed were already complaining that South Korean women are not subservient enough.

But on the other side of things, there was a guy I understood a bit more.  He’s 45 and admitted that after focussing on work for so long, and not leaving time to start a family, he now wants one.  As someone who had a child very early in life, I can understand what he’s saying.  I’m much more ready for a child at my current age than I was at 20.  But of course if a guy wants a family at 45, he is going to have to look for someone younger.  So he ended up with a 24-year-old woman from Vietnam, and they now have a child.

There are of course the other concerns, including these women paying the ultimate price for marrying the wrong man.  It’s defiantly worth checking out the video.  One side note, I love the fact they have a “Men’s Rights Activist” in Korea.  I have never seen that here.  I don’t think we are represented, besides of course Congress, the Senate and the White House.  Other than that, who will speak for us?

It just so happens that these beliefs somehow fall on the left these days.  I’m not without my more conservative views.  How I think a single-payer health care system would be ideal for this country, I think school vouchers is a no-brainer solution to our education crisis.  How I can understand the governments desire to regulate corporations through taxation, I love the idea of FairTax and think it should implemented immediately.

What I’m saying is that I think good ideas can exist on both sides of the aisle.  But it seems more and more the right has become centered around anti-intellectualism and racism.  All this concern over government spending didn’t pop up during Bush’s tripling of the deficit, but when a non-white man became president.  Within a week a whole group of people “want their country back”.

This past Tuesday saw shift in power with the mid-term election.  And how we were sparred the the craziness of Christine O’Donnell and Sharron Angle, we did get saddled with Rand Paul, and have 4 more years of that Joe Wilson idiot.  The Republicans have taken back the House.  Fixing a broken system is going to be much more difficult with the people who broke it now having more of a say.

But looking over the past couple years, I can’t help but feel the Democrats deserve this.  To be clear, I’m not saying we, the American people who will suffer, deserve this; but the arrogant group who was to busy with their internal bickering and power grabbing certainly had this coming.

I can clearly remember the insane hold ups and debates over health care reform.  I can easily recall two Republican congressmen sitting on Bill Maher’s show with smirks on their faces when they said, “If this bill is so great, why is it not being passed?  They don’t need our votes.”.  This statement was almost completely true.  Sure, the Republicans could filibuster like they do with everything right down to choosing pizza toppings lately.  But in the end the Democrats could have pushed public option health care reform through.  Instead groups like the Blue Dog Democrats, many of which are now in the preverbal dog house, fought against providing health care to Americans.

The same can be said on measures surrounding gay rights and and repelling the Bush tax cuts.  But so afraid are these wimps of sound bites about raising taxes, increasing the deficit or violating “family values”, that they back away from doing the right thing, acting on the mandate of the President when he was voted into office.

The Democrats have squandered away one of the greatest amounts of political capitol this country has ever seen.  And they have squandered it at a time when this country may have needed it more than ever.

As the Party of Ignorance rejoices in their victory, people like myself are left wondering what will happen to a country we love, but see being turned into something different.  The United States was founded on tolerance, compassion, intellect and a desire to be free.  But it was founded by far greater men than we have leading us today.

My awakening to the sad state of politics came around 2002.  I had an upfront seat in a legal disaster that certainly caused people a lot of harm.  After looking into how such a nightmare could occur, I found that partisan politics were to blame.  More politicians were concerned about sound bytes than the real implications of the policies they were enacting.

But even with this epiphany, I found myself rooting for George Bush to win reelection in 2004.  I say “rooting” because I don’t think you could call it support — I didn’t vote or donate money to his campaign, I simply watched the debates and disliked John Kerry.  I don’t think my views on John Kerry every changed, I still think he’s an ass, but by 2008 my views on George Bush, like those of most of the country, were very unfavorable.

Sometime in early 2008 I read Barack Obama’s book.  He had risen so fast that I had to see what the big deal was about, much in the same way I started watching Mad Men.  What I read was encouraging to say the least.  His views appeared to be very middle of the road.  He was pro-choice, but displayed empathy for those on the other side.  He wasn’t afraid to call out his own party, and even praise members of others.

It was hard not to like John McCain, especially the characteristics that were touted by his campaign.  He was a war hero, a sponsor to some very good legislation, and had a reputation for reaching across the aisle.  There were things that concerned me (like the Keating 5 scandal), but it wasn’t until his erratic behavior on the campaign trail that I was completely turned off by McCain as a candidate.  The choice of Sarah Palin was the final straw, but his remarks about the economy and his wimpy attempts to get out of the debates were the nails in the coffin.

I made my decision based on the policies and character of each candidate.  McCain’s military record was impossible to overlook, but a man with a private jet, more houses than he can remember, and millions in the bank, running against a man who had just paid off his student loans several years prior, made the choice much easier.  Clearly Obama had a better clue of what was happening with the economy, which wasn’t saying much.

I knew that despite Obama’s chants for “change”, and McCain’s “reputation as a Maverick,” these two candidate would essentially say the same things all Democrats and Republicans say about the economy.  The Republicans want to cut taxes to stimulate the economy, and the Democrats want to pay for programs to get back to work. The truth is, neither of these candidates really represented any significant change in the status quo, but Obama was clearly a better choice than a man who voted with Bush 90% of the time.

Being more politically active than in the past, I was anxious to engage with others.  That’s when I started to find a disturbing trend.

I knew I would have a few Republican friends, and I was prepared for good conversations about the need to move away from Bush’s policies, but not into a liberal quagmire of big government and increased taxes.  But that’s not what I found.  It seemed that I was not the only type of person who had become more political.  I started to hear the drumbeats of a racism and hatred that I never knew existed.

I was talking with a business partner (whose intelligence I was never overly impressed with) about the upcoming debate and John McCain’s attempt to get out of it.  “Yeah, Obama wants to waste time on a debate when the country is melting down . . . Wrong Answer!”, he shouted.  I told him that it sounded to me like a guy not wanting to debate the former head of the Harvard Law Review.  I got no response, but it was clear that he felt strongly against Obama.

I was a little concerned that I was in business with someone who was either too stupid to see through McCain’s attempts to avoid the debates, or had other issues with Obama.

But it was on a business trip to Austin where I really started to see first-hand the coming storm of the Tea Party.  I had an extra ticket to the event in Austin, so I offered it up to a former employee who had always enjoyed the event, but couldn’t afford to go under his new cheap-ass boss.  During our trip to Austin in the March before the election, we spoke about the coming event and I was shocked at the flat-out racist responses.  No thought to throwing the “n-word” around, and no real reasons why he would support John McCain.  After talking to him for a couple hours, it was clear that I could list more real reasons (military record, experience, school vouchers, immigration policies, etc…) to support John McCain than he he could.

In the following months this person became increasingly …I can’t really say political because he had no real views . . . vocal.  Any rumors about Obama being a Muslim were quickly regurgitated on his Facebook wall.  We once had an argument where I was trying to get him to decide if Obama was a Muslim, or a follower of Rev. Wright.  He declared that Rev. Wright was a Muslim and was pretending to be a Christian.  His racist opinions started to show so much on his Facebook wall that I had to remove him from my list of friends, purely from the embarrassment of being associated with such ignorance.

The election ended and we had a our new president.  I could tell there was a widening gap between some of my former co-workers and me that was strongly tied to my support for the President.  Considering that I never considered myself, or them, to be especially political, I eventually realized this was not about politics, it was about being part of group that I was sick to find existed.

The idiot former employee Tweeted a message about the race being over and us burying the hatchet, but it was quickly followed by more racist jokes.  He has since become a “member” of the Tea Party.  I know this person well enough to know that he will not be going to any rallies or donating money to any political party, but just likes the camaraderie of idiots that is part and parcel of the party.

Recently, my cousin’s stepmother joined Facebook.  This is a woman who has lived off food stamps, welfare, and every type of public aid imaginable.  She has paid less in taxes in her whole life than I pay each year.  She has raised two kids who are honestly the dumbest individuals I have ever had the misfortune of meeting.  One has been declared legally retarded, at least enough to get money from the state, and the other has been in and out of prison.  She also happens to be a proud member of the Tea Party.  She makes her own signs about socialism, which (like most Tea Party members) she has no clue about.  And she feels she is taxed enough already, even though I’m fairly certain she has never paid any federal taxes.

The fact that the only Tea Baggers I know also happen to be the dumbest people I know is not the most depressing part of this — it’s their kids.  Their kids are even more ignorant, and carry an anger in them that is impossible to ignore.  It’s not good enough that these people release their ignorance and hatred onto the world, but they have infected their kids with their sickness, too.

Somehow, a party has formed that relates universal health care to the Holocaust, thinks global warming is a myth, and can’t separate the Constitution from the Bible.  They want to extend tax breaks to the top 2% of the country while they go out of work, they are offended by Obama going after BP, and they think the President has been faking his citizenship for over 40 years.  I remember a Dilbert strip that asked the question: “When did ignorance become a point of view?”.  We now have our answer — when it got it’s own party.

Let’s look for example at the GOP.  After eight years of running up the largest deficit in U.S. history, they are suddenly concerned about the amount of money we spend. I’m a true fiscal conservative.  I flinch a little every time I hear about funding a new government  program.

But seeing how when President Bush came into office, the national debt clock was stopped (because it was not built to run backwards), and by the end of his term they needed to add another digit to the box, I can’t see how the GOP can claim to be working towards small government.  The literally broke the national debt clock with their spending, and what do we as American have to show for their spendfest?  I’m not felling any wealthier after 8 years of George W.

As hypocritical as the GOP is, the ones that really blow my mind are the ignorant Glenn Beck zombie masses that show up to town hall meetings, comparing Obama to Hitler, because he wants to insure American citizens.  I would find it difficult to believe that these people are the well-insured affluent that insurance companies protect.  More than likely, these are the people who are either uninsured, or under-insured and don’t know it.

The Hitler comparison is beyond hyperbole, it’s nothing short of a demonstration of ignorance to both our current social issues, and the disgusting history of a mad man who wanted to rid the world of minorities, not insure them.

The demonstrations, now including idiots with loaded assault rifles strapped to their backs, has taken over the debate.  The genuine issues (like real cost of the program, the effects on Medicare, the public option vs. single payer, etc…) are all lost in the noise of revved up crowds that look more appropriate at NASCAR or UFC events than a political rally.

But a large part of the blame falls on me, and the rest of us normal people.  While the ignorant shout obscenities at our leaders, us educated stay at home relaxing with scented candles, watching Mad Men.  It’s up to us, the silent, educated, non-Bill O’Rielly watching, to make our voices heard.

Failure to act would risk that school district’s relevance and position in the primary and secondary education market, as research indicates that the outcome of raising student performance is not only positively correlated with having teachers who know their subject matter and how to teach it, but, conversely, it is negatively correlated with teachers less qualified in their subject matter. Moreover, the increased competition threat from private schools, charter schools, and other options that parents of school age children are provided, intensifies the importance for school districts to link teacher compensation to performance in order to strategically enhance their market position.

Options and Criteria for Decisions on Merit-Based Pay

A number of possible opportunities with linking teacher performance to teacher compensation have been identified. Listed are four synthesized options and a discussion of the criteria and reasoning behind the option.

Option #1: Teachers Developing and Achieving Student Learning Objectives

Decision: School districts should implement a program where teachers begin each school year by developing two student learning objectives after reviewing the prior performance data on their incoming students. Teachers will also identify tools that will serve as measurements of those student-learning objectives. Success on achieving those objectives should be tied to teacher compensation. Three assumptions and add-on recommendations are coupled with the decision: (a) the student learning objectives should be aligned with broader goals and objectives of the individual department, the school as a whole, district-wide, state standards-based measurements of student performance, etc; (b) the merit-based pay should begin as an add-on value to the current teacher compensation (i.e., extra compensation) until teachers are more familiar with the process; and (c) along with the teachers, the entire system must be engaged in the process – this includes principals, district staff and administrators, parents, communities, and local, state, and federal politicians. 

Criteria and Reasoning: This option has strength since developing student learning objectives is uniquely a teacher activity; thus, it is suitable for use in extra compensation. Moreover, this option increases teacher accessibility to student data that the district has already collected. This option also works with individual teachers and does not impose a specific teaching model. Furthermore, this option influences the entire organization to be open, accurate, and reflective about student outcomes. Finally, since teacher quality is important to student achievement, these techniques will enhance teacher quality since they enhance a teachers capacity to plan, focus, problem-solve, and seek solutions. 

Option #2: Strengthen Evaluations

Decision: School Districts should strengthen the evaluation process for probationary teachers as well as teachers who have already been tenured. Tenure should not be an automatic outcome for probationary teachers, as bad teachers should not have their contracts extended or be awarded tenure without consideration of the evaluation. Furthermore, there should be an annual or a once every two years evaluation system for tenured teachers. This evaluation for tenured teachers should be tied to a reward system. This reward system should be an add-on to the current compensation system.

Criteria and Reasoning: Unfortunately, tenure in the public primary and secondary education sector has become a formality, and currently the system does not make it easy to get rid of teachers who have been identified as not being effective. Current data indicates that 73% of tenured teachers believe that evaluations have become either a formality or well-intentioned but not particularly helpful. Thus, it does not help improve poor teachers’ performance, as it is not tied to a reward system. Strengthening the evaluation process will make it easier for principals to identify and remove teachers in their probationary period prior to them becoming tenured. Furthermore, the additional reward system for already tenured teachers could act as a motivator for the teachers to take the evaluation process more seriously.

Option #3: Compensation Tied to Other Performance Measurements

Decision: School districts should pay teachers in tough neighborhoods, teachers who have National Board for Professional Teachings Standards certification, teachers in hard-to-fill subjects, and teachers who consistently receive outstanding evaluations by their principals more then other teachers.

Criteria and Reasoning: Data from surveys of current teachers indicates that teachers believe that it is justifiable to pay colleagues differently based on working conditions and extra efforts. This is also a set of merit-pay standards that teachers are familiar with; thus, it makes it easier to justify the decisions to both teachers and the unions. This will encourage more teachers to get this type of certification and training, which will in turn make them more qualified in the profession. As previously indicated, the research suggests that more qualified teachers are positively correlated with higher scores on standards-based measurements of student performance. 

Option #3: Reduce Rules/Regulations and Allow Teachers To Leave Without Loosing Retirement Benefits

Decision: School districts should make it easier for teachers to leave and return without loosing retirement and other benefits. Furthermore, school districts should treat teachers as the professionals that they are, and reduce the many rules, policies, and regulations that the teachers have to follow.

Criteria and Reasoning: Reducing the many rules that teachers and principles have to follow will allow them to see themselves as more professional. For example, most teachers have at least a bachelor’s degree, and some have a master’s degree. It is demoralizing and does not serve to teachers feeling as professionals when they have to, like in most districts, sign-in to work using a time card. Furthermore, teachers complain that it is difficult for teachers to leave the system if they are not effective because of the benefits and retirement system that is strictly tied to longevity. Thus, it is important for school districts to make it easier for teachers to take sabbatical and receive more education or re-training without loosing benefits.

Opportunities of the Options as an Action Plan

The four options above, if implemented, serve as a coherent set of intentional actions that link teacher compensation and performance with a goal of strengthening the instructional core for the purpose of raising scores on measurements of student performance. One of the opportunities of the above as an action plan is that they are based on teacher survey data of changes that teachers are comfortable with. This is particularly important in environments where the unions are powerful. While the first option was not surveyed for favorability, the other survey data does indicate that teachers are more open to the idea of pay based on student outcomes if it comes as additional compensation or add-on value.

Since good teachers will effect a student’s performance, the above options, taken together, create environments where schools can attract, retain, and move-around teachers in a tactical approach that is tied to the overall strategy of improving performance on standards based tests. These decisions, when coupled with the larger district-wide strategy can serve as important tactics in strengthening the school district’s market position in comparison to private schools, charter schools, and other options that parents of school age children may have.

Disadvantages, Limitations, and Risks of the Options as an Action Plan

There are some disadvantages and limitations of the options as an action plan. First, a number of the options are logistically a nightmare. For one, especially with the first option, individual students are not stagnant within the classroom, school, or district. For instance, the Philadelphia School District has a district transfer in-or-out rate was over 40%. This indicates that the numbers are even higher at the school level and the classroom level. This makes it very difficult for teachers, principals, and districts to track a teacher’s effect on an individual student’s performance. Some students will leave within week of the year starting, while others may join the classroom weeks before the school year ends. Should teachers be evaluated only on the students that remain in the classroom from beginning to end? Or should they be evaluated and compensated based on the performance of all the students, even if they only had one week to implement their pedagogical approaches to that individual student? Would teachers get pro-rated merit pay for students they only had half a year? And is the assumption that the first half was equally as important as the second half?

A second limitation and disadvantage is that it is based on the assumption that student learning from one classroom is not interconnected to their learning in another classroom. How should the system account for a poor quality English teacher who will have negative implications his or her students’ ability to answer world problems on the mathematics performance examination? Cognitive development research indicates that increases in standards based performance is inter-related with both academic and non-academic factors; thus, it becomes very difficult, if not truly impossible, to associate a students’ performance measurement with a particular teacher or a particular course. 

A third disadvantage of this approach is it focuses on short-term results rather then long-term results and it does not account for factors beyond a teacher’s control. Furthermore, this will increase rules and regulations that are tied to compensation and benefits. Thus a poor teacher will set lower standards and objectives for his/her students, which may show him/her as meeting the standards and eligible for the add-on pay, while in reality actual student performance and learning may have not occurred. 

Response and Conclusion

School districts and individual schools need to weigh both the opportunities and risks involved in moving toward a merit-based pay system for teachers. While there are many risks and limitations involved for the system, one thing that still remains clear is that poor teachers are going to have negative effects on their student’s performance scores on standards based measurements of achievement. Thus, it is critical to create a system that can work within the context of each individual district, its schools, teachers, administrators, and unions in order to find ways to remove poor performing teachers, while rewarding and retaining teachers who excel in their performance and abilities to effect standards based performance score gains in their students. This is not only important for the individual students, but it is also critically important if the schools and districts want to retain the relevance and position they have in the public education market.

Back in the 2000 election, I supported a candidate that sat in the debate and spoke of better foreign policy by being humble. He also spoke of tightening spending in Washington, and accountability and transparency. I supported that candidate, even tough I didn’t agree with every policy, and got 8 years of a George Bush that was nothing like the man from the campaign trail.

So of course I was a bit concerned over what might change about Obama once he had the office. And my concerns deepened immediately after the election. I wasn’t completely sold on his choices for cabinet positions, especially Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State. This was a women who so lacked true foreign policy experience that she had to make stuff up about being under gun fire in Bosnia.

So I decided to take a look at President Obama’s first week in office and see how things are going. And I have to say, so far, pretty, pretty, pretty good. In his first week he has moved towards closing down Guantanamo Bay, lifted the gag rule on banning federal funds for international groups that promote or perform abortion, very publicly opened a dialogue with muslims, and even stepped in to stop Citibank from using bailout money to purchase a $50 million private jet. That’s change I can believe in.

This is of course just the first week. And these are the types of things we should expect to see. The real test is still ahead with turning around the ever declining economy and successfully pulling us out of Iraq. And of course all it takes is one issue, like 9/11, to potentially throw the administration off track. But so far, I’m feeling optimistic. How do you feel?

Today, the term democracy has many definitions, which, in turn, cloud the fight for true democracy.  This situation is due to the fact that scholars have not been able to agree on how to define the term.  Some believe that certain definitions might themselves be a threat to democracy (Touraine, 1994/1997).  The problem with this development, however, is that it makes democracy subjective and open to manipulation and abuse, enabling those in power to use the term to their benefit.  Others have used different approaches to defining democracy, including looking at characteristics of countries that are typically called democracies (Lijphart, 1984).  The problem with this definitional fallacy is that it would not be logical to define the term by looking at countries considered democracies when we have no criteria for defining or measuring democracy (Beetham, 1994).  Even a study of ancient Greece illustrates that not all people were able to rule.  Out of 250,000 individuals who lived in ancient Greece, approximately 30,000 were allowed to be citizens, as women, slaves, and metics were not allowed to be citizens.  Out of those who were citizens, only approximately 5,000 attended the meetings where issues were discussed and decisions were made (Cartledge, 2001).  This, by any definition, is not rule by the people.

A more accurate approach might be to define democracy based on a number of basic principles that are embodied in the idea of rule by the people (Saward, 1994).  Using this approach, Beetham (1992) defines two basic principles.  The first principle is popular control, which assumes that people should have a say on the issues that affect them.  The second principle is political equality, which assumes that all people have an equal ability and right to have a say on the various issues that affect them and to have their opinions taken into account when the decisions are made (Beetham).

Taking the above as a baseline, the United States has been violating these basic principles since its founding.  The second sentence of the Declaration of Independence, a document based on principles of democracy, states, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal.”  In reality, millions of women, slaves, and Native Americans were not considered to be equal and could not participate in the democratic process (U.S. Census Bureau, n.d.).  These antidemocratic practices were not limited to the early years of the United States.  In fact, a review of the literature shows a long history of scholars discussing antidemocratic trends in the United States, especially in the 20th century (Cannon, 1922/1969; Cram, 1936/1969; Ireland, 1918/1969; Ivie, 1964/1969; Skinner, 1956/1969; Smith 1942/1969).  This fact is troubling because it illustrates the crisis that democracy finds itself at in the United States.

Cornel West, a professor of African American Studies at Princeton University, wrote Democracy Matters: Winning the Fight Against Imperialism (2004), which examines the declining democratic liveliness and traditions in the United States.  In the book, West argues that the biggest threats to democracy in the United States are three dominant antidemocratic dogmas of free market fundamentalism, aggressive militarism, and escalating authoritarianism.  West also identifies other factors that have led to a decline of democratic energies and traditions in the United States.  Specifically, he discusses the growth of three forms of political nihilisms, which are evangelical nihilism, paternalistic nihilism, and sentimental nihilism.  West then discusses three forces that can renew the democratic spirit of the United States, which are Socratic commitment to questioning, prophetic commitment to justice, and the tragicomic commitment to hope.

The purpose of this paper is to review West’s (2004) book, Democracy Matters, within the context of the ongoing debate over the United States and democracy.  This review includes an analysis of the purpose and primary arguments that West presents in his book, and a discussion of the implications and limitations of the book.

Purpose and Arguments

West’s purpose for writing Democracy Matters was to make the reader aware of the declining levels of democracy in the United States and the major factors that have contributed to the decline.  In an interview with Amy Goodwin (2004), West explains that the reason he wrote the book was due to the “pervasive sleepwalking that’s now taking place in this country,” and he hopes that the result is a “democratic awakening.”  

West wants the reader to understand that democracy is more then just the act of voting and that it is something that has to be fought for in order for it to be preserved.  Although he wants the reader to put on their democratic armor and to fight for democracy, he is also honest with the reader.  West understands that the fight may not be won; but as he indicates in Democracy Matters, if the fight is lost, the fighters will be remembered as those who “went down swinging like Ella Fitzgerald and Muhammad Ali—with style, grace, and a smile that signifies that the seeds of democracy matters will flower and flourish somewhere and somehow and remember our gallant efforts” (p. 218).

West argues that there are different forms of dogmas and nihilisms currently present in the United States that are antidemocratic.  He specifically focuses on what he feels are three of the dominant antidemocratic dogmas of free market fundamentalism, aggressive militarism, and escalating authoritarianism.  He then discusses the growth of evangelical nihilism, paternalistic nihilism, and sentimental nihilism, which have all led to declining democratic energies.  West concludes by providing the reader with hope by discussing the Socratic commitment to questioning, the prophetic commitment to justice, and the tragicomic commitment to hope, which are all weapons for those wishing to fight for democracy.  The three combined create a “democratic armor” (p. 217).  The following sections provide a discussion of West’s primary arguments relating to the three antidemocratic dogmas, the growth of the three forms of nihilisms, and the three forces that can revive the democratic tradition and spirit in the United States.

Three Antidemocratic Dogmas

Cornel West believes that numerous factors threaten the democratic experiment in the United States.  He contends that the major threats are three antidemocratic dogmas that have existed and have grown to dominate the American empire.  The antidemocratic dogmas of free market fundamentalism, aggressive militarism, and escalating authoritarianism are at the center of West’s argument that democracy in the United States is at a crossroads.  West believes that the three antidemocratic dogmas did not come to rise naturally in the United States; instead, they were endorsed and furthered by different influential powers.

Free market fundamentalism.  Cornel West argues that the first of the three antidemocratic dogmas is free market fundamentalism.  At the core of its belief is the idea that a market that is completely unrestricted is what should be desired and achieved in the United States.  West contends that the rise of this belief has resulted in a “callous corporate-dominated political economy” (p. 3), where instead of valuing and allowing democratic questioning of the market and the different market players, those with the most political influence are consistently given the ability to survive no matter their questionable practices.  He further observes that this dogma creates resentment between the different classes because of the large differences in wealth distribution.  He believes that free market fundamentalism has led to individuals being apathetic to the democratic process, since the only ones who are rewarded are “false prophets” (p. 4).  Ultimately, West argues that free market fundamentalism has led to a shift in attention “from schools to prisons, from workers’ conditions to profit margins, from health clinics to high-tech facial surgeries, from civic associations to pornographic Internet sites, and from children’s care to strip clubs” (pp. 4-5).

West is not the only scholar who believes that free market fundamentalism is a threat to democracy.  Other scholars have also expressed that free market fundamentalism, which is also referred to as neoliberalism, is a major factor in the declining democratic energies in the United States and other countries (Barber, 2000; Macleod, 2006; Miller, 2002; Minati, 2004; Reich, 2007; Xing, 2001).  In discussing free markets as an antidemocratic trend, Reich argues that free markets are diminishing the power held by the people because the common good takes a back seat to the bottom line.  Reich further asserts that due to the need to be able to compete on both the national and global levels, corporations have spent a significant amount of money on lobbying efforts and sometimes even bribes and kickbacks, ultimately looking to have laws in their favor to allow for an advantage over competitors.  This race for political influence, according to Reich, has left the needs of the average citizen out of the process.  Macleod contends that the very basic principles that support democracy would require the market to be arranged in ways that are contradictory to the view of neoliberals.  Xing concludes that the free market has resulted in the rise of economic inequality among the classes in the United States.  Xing further believes that democracy is defined and has been weakened by the free market, “leaving political outcomes to be bought and sold” (p. 92).

In contrast, Mandelbaum (2007) believes that the establishment of free markets is the best way to foster democracy.  He argues that the promotion of free markets is an indirect promotion of democracy, even if immediate results are not observed.  He further asserts that after approximately a generation, the worth of free markets has led to the establishment of democracies in countries of Asia, southern Europe, and most of Latin America.  However, Macleod (2006) cautions readers that democracy can be interpreted in a variety of ways allowing for individuals to state that free markets promote democracy.  He conveys that free markets promote democracy only when democracy is defined using the “least demanding—narrowly procedural—democratic ideals” (p. 157).

Aggressive militarism.  West believes that aggressive militarism is another existing antidemocratic dogma.  According to West (2004), this dogma affects the actions of the United States internationally and domestically.  The consequences of this dogma have been changes in foreign policy resulting in preemptive and unilateral strikes, the repudiation of the United Nations and its rules, and the death of thousands of U.S. soldiers and hundreds of thousands of other innocent individuals caught in the way of this regime.  Domestically, according to West, this dogma has resulted in the expansion of powers for the police, the prison-industrial complex, and men.  This expansion of power has promoted a belief of “crime as a monstrous enemy to crush … rather than as an ugly behavior to change” (p. 6).  West argues that the decision of what or who is moral and right is not a democratic one, made by individuals and the international community; instead, it is a decision made by the one who has the “most and biggest weapons” (p. 5).

The beliefs of many scholars coincide with the argument by West that aggressive militarism is an antidemocratic dogma (Cassidy, 1990; Cuomo, 2004; Naím, 2004; Perry, 2006; Sullivan, 2007; Sundhaussen, 1998; Wrona, 2006).  Saundhaussen contends that the military is by its very definition antidemocratic.  He puts forward that the essence of democracy is based on individual freedom, while the military is based on strict discipline and the application of rigorous hierarchy; thus, making the two incompatible.  While the United States has used aggressive militarism as a tool in an attempt to bring democracy to the Arab and Muslim states, Sullivan asserts that evidence suggests that the democratization of the Arab and Muslim states cannot occur through military interactions with the United States.  In fact according to him, the only way to democratize the Arab and Muslim states is through economic, cultural, and personal interactions with the United States.  The North American Congress on Latin America (1998) finds that the quest for aggressive military in the United States has led to military-style intervention on crimes domestically.  In addition, the report notes that any person or group found to be rebellious to the neoliberal mission, including immigrant and welfare recipients, has been stereotyped as internal enemies worthy of military-style intervention.

Escalating authoritarianism. The final major antidemocratic dogma presented by West is the dogma of escalating authoritarianism.  He argues that fear of outsiders and each other has led to the rise of this dogma, ultimately resulting in citizens allowing politicians and judges to pass and sustain the Patriot Act, which limited the civil liberties of citizens.  The dogma of escalating authoritarianism, West further postulates, has also led to a diminishing level of the dialogue in the United States.  A shift in the media to a profit-based-news has resulted in the focus being shifted away from what is important for citizens to know and, from the questioning of the politicians or authorities, to a focus on sound bites and entertainment news.  In addition, West maintains that a similar depression of dialogue has occurred in schools and institutions of higher education.  Overall, this silencing of individuals has resulted, according to West, in the “classic triumph of authoritarianism over the kind of questioning, compassion, and hope requisite for any democratic experiment” (p. 7).

West’s belief that escalating authoritarianism is weakening the democratic energies within the United States has been noted by other scholars (Agozino, 2003; Hilsum, 2007; Joynt & Poe, 2004; Melby, 2006; Phelan, 1969).  Even in the late 1960s, Phelan examined the antidemocratic trends in the United States due to increasing authoritarianism.  He argues that the election of President Nixon and his plans for the 1972 reelection campaign were a movement toward authoritarianism and a movement away from traditional constitutional democracy that was present in the United States.  Hilsum maintains that terrorism and Islamic fundamentalism create less of a threat to democracy than do administrations that are authoritarian.  Furthermore, Zakaria (2007) argues that although President George W. Bush has attached his name to democracy more than any other president in the United States, his authoritarian and “arrogant” views and approaches have turned most of the world off from the idea of achieving democracy.  Ultimately, Zakaria believes that evidence suggests that in 2006, there was a worldwide setback to democracy.  Finally, Melby argues that authoritarianism is antidemocratic because it requires the masses, because they are seen as inept and unable to govern themselves and decide what their values and beliefs are, to be subjugated to the power of the few who are selected.  This lack of confidence in the abilities of the demos, according to Melby, is a direct contradiction to the prescriptions of democracy.

Some scholars are critical of West’s belief that escalating authoritarianism is occurring in the United States and that it is an antidemocratic dogma.  In fact, some believe that the fight for diversity and political correctness is actually an authoritarian form of dialogue suppression, which in turn is a threat to democracy.  Fonte (1995) argues that when leaders in colleges and universities speak of oppression, patriarchy, institutional racism, and marginalization, they are removing the legitimacy of democracy.  However, West cautions against such narrowly scrutinized views of authoritarianism.  He believes that the idea of political correctness is not the “major culprit” (p. 7).  Instead, West believes that individuals need to examine all authoritarian forces to have a broader understanding of this dogma.

Antidemocratic Political Nihilisms

Along with the three antidemocratic dogmas, West discusses three forms of nihilisms that are becoming increasingly present and forceful in the United States.  According to West, the evangelical, paternalistic, and sentimental forms of nihilism are found across party lines and are additional threats to democratic energies domestically and abroad.  

West compares an evangelical nihilist to Thrasymachus from Plato’s Republic, who believes that “might makes right” (p. 30).  West explains that evangelical nihilists are militant, power hungry, and accept nonconforming opinions.  These individuals, like those within the Bush administration, actually believe that power determines what is right; because if they were not right, they would not be able to become so powerful.  

Paternalistic nihilists, according to West, could be compared to the Grand Inquisitor from Fyodor Dostoyevsky’s The Brothers Karamazov, who believes that a corrupt system is the best that one can hope for, and that individuals must work within it and hope for the best.  These individuals, like elites within the Democratic Party, join a corrupt system, strive for more power, and lie to the public, with the ultimate belief that they are, at least, working for some interests of the people.  

According to West, political nihilism has moved past the politics of the two-party system in the United States, which provides one more choice than communist Russia to the media.  This development has brought about sentimental nihilism, resulting in the news organizations to move from a political watchdog role to providing entertainment news.  A sentimental nihilist, according to West, could be best compared to Mr. and Mrs. Baldwin from Tony Morrison’s Beloved.  The sentimental nihilists, those who provide this type of news, go around the truth or even lie to provide market-driven emotional stories that target those whom advertisers seek: middle- and upper-class white Americans.  

Some scholars concur with West that political nihilism is on the rise in the United States and that these nihilisms are antidemocratic (Bufacchi, 2001; Novak, 1994).  A number of scholars have presented arguments that evangelical nihilism is on the rise and that it is affecting the democratic energies of the United States (Bhatia, 2007; Blitz, 2003; George, 2005; Gilbert, 1992; Postel, 2003; Rockmore, 2006; Swazo, 2004; Tucker & Hendrickson, 2004; Wells, 1995).  George notes that the Bush administration and neoconservative elites actually believe that they have both the right and the obligation to lie to the American public so that they will remain in power and continue to make what they feel are the right decisions for the country.  George further explains that these nihilists use maximum force in the face of anything that threatens their opinion.  Rockmore believes that the philosophy driving the Bush administration is that the United States can do as it pleases, without the approval of other countries, because it is the only remaining superpower in the world, which is a justification in itself.  Rockmore states that the foreign policy of President Bill Clinton was to be cooperative whenever possible and go-it-alone when no other choice exists.  On the other hand, according to Rockmore, the policy of George Bush is go-it-alone whenever possible and cooperative when no other choice exists. Finally, according to Gilbert, the might-makes-right philosophy morally separates national interests from democracy and the wellbeing of individuals.

Scholars have also presented evidence, concurring with West’s beliefs, which suggest the rise and antidemocratic effects of paternalistic nihilism (Brown, 2003; Goodin, 1993; Riemer, 1957; Smiley, 1989).  Brown argues that individuals in the Democratic Party, in an attempt to bring back the support of the American public, have begun working within the system instead of trying to change the system.  Brown continues by stating that elites within the party, such as Richard Gephardt and John Kerry, are positioning themselves as individuals who want to preserve current policies, instead of revolutionizing them.  These Democratic elites now argue that those partisans in the Republican Party are outside the norm because they are trying to revolutionize the current system.  These actions, according to Brown, have normalized the neoconservative rhetoric that anything liberal or left is outside the mainstream, and should be feared.  Brown concludes that the willingness to work within the parameters created by neoconservatives leads to the end of democracy.  

Many scholars have focused their attention on antidemocratic issues within the media resulting in a focus on market-driven entertainment news versus performing their social duty of being a political watchdog, a shift that West coined as sentimental nihilism (Berry & Hume, 2005; Calhoun, 2007; Keane, 1992; McChesney, 2004; Prior, 2005; Sparks, 2007).  Calhoun argues that aggressive militarism in the United States has had antidemocratic effects due to assistance of this new form of corporate profit-driven media.  Prior argues that changes in the media have led to less political participation from those individuals who choose not to search for the information necessary to make informed choices, and instead turn to entertainment news.  Finally, McChesney asserts that the corporate media, which is supported and continued through policies in the United States, has caused numerous problems threatening a healthy democracy in the United States.

Traditions that Fuel Democratic Energies

West presents in his work the chilly state of democracy in the United States; however, he does offer perspective on how the country’s democratic energies can be restored.  West envisions a democratic armor that is comprised of three traditions of a Socratic commitment to questioning, a prophetic commitment to justice, and a tragicomic commitment to hope.  When combined, West argues that these three traditions provide the best fighting chance against those who seek to diminish the democratic energies of the United States.  

According to West, the Socratic commitment to questioning is a Greek innovation that holds at its core the questioning of the self, other, and authority, along with questioning of values, opinions, beliefs, and actions of all three.  Socratic commitment to questioning manifests itself in brave and bold dialogue, and is needed to combat the lies of elites and those who hold power.  The Jewish prophetic commitment to justice, according to West, is needed to combat nihilism toward the effects of the imperialistic actions of the United States.  Prophetic commitment to justice is summarized by a stance against oppression, a highlighting of wrongdoings, and condemnation of imperialistic and xenophobic actions.  The final element of the armor, the tragicomic commitment to hope, according to West, is needed to fight to blind acceptance of the status quo and the mainstream.  The tragicomic commitment to hope, which is seen in the Black creation of the blues and different literary works, holds at its core a “righteous indignation with a smile and deep inner pain without bitterness or revenge” (p. 19). 

West is not alone in his view that the traditions of the Socratic commitment to questioning, the prophetic commitment to justice, and the tragicomic commitment to hope can revive democratic energies and traditions in the United States.  Dyson (2005) argues that without Socratic inquiry, there can be “little basis for informed truth telling” (p. 7) by the elites and authority.  Johnson (1990) contends that individuals who seek justice, respect for human rights, ethics, morality, virtue, and freedom create an environment in which a democratic political community can exist.  Similar to values of the prophetic commitment to justice, Barber (2001) asserts that values of liberty, equality, and social justice are needed in a democracy.  Finally, similar to West’s view on the tragicomic commitment to hope, Daniels (1985) notes that different interpretation of the tragicomic commitment to hope, like the blues music and experience, provide strength to individuals to prevail over disenchantment.  Daniels adds that experiences of the oppressed in America, like those felt by Blacks, usually begin with optimistic expectations and conclude with disappointments.  Finally, Daniels explains that hope provides the ability to understand and overcome the experiences through the arrival of a solution.

Implications

In his discussion of the three antidemocratic dogmas and three rising political nihilisms, West mentions the implications of not taking any action while we are at the current crossroads.  West believes that the divide in the United States, due to the split on many important issues, has left individuals feeling as if they lived in two different countries.  He also doubts that a new president will provide the necessary change needed to fill emptiness felt by the American people due to their democratic desires.  In addition, West observes that the antidemocratic dogmas and rising political nihilisms have resulted in a need to forge new Jewish and Islamic democratic identities, a crisis in the identities of Christians in America, and a need to engage with youth culture, among many other consequences.

According to West, the only way to overcome the consequences of the current state of democracy in the United States is through a fight for democracy, using as our protection a democratic armor consisting of a Socratic commitment to questioning, a prophetic commitment to justice, and a tragicomic commitment to hope.  Without this fight, democracy, according to West, will be reduced to simply a right to vote and elect public officials.  Furthermore, West argues that if nothing is done, the country will ultimately move toward imperialism.  Zakaria (2007) finds that Bush has attached his name to the fight for democracy more than any other president.  However, West notes that the Bush administration has been one of the reasons why the country’s democratic energies are at their current low levels.  According to West, current imperialist elites are false prophets who are lying to the public to make them believe that they are defenders of democracy; these lies will ultimately allow them to win this war if nothing is done.

Limitations

West provides an informative discussion on democracy matters in the United States.  However, Democracy Matters does suffer from a number of limitations.  First, West does not provide the definition or characteristics of the democracy he conceptualizes.  This lack of clarification of what his conceptualization is ultimately leaves little ability for fighters of democracy to measure their success when applying the three traditions of Socratic commitment to questioning, prophetic commitment to justice, and tragicomic commitment to hope.  Scholars note a need to frame a discussion of democracy through clearly defined conceptualizations and measurement tools (Munck & Verkuilen, 2002).

Another limitation of West’s book is that West provides a framework of his argument that leads readers to imagine that he believes that there was once a democracy in the United States and that “true” democracy can be achieved.  Blaug and Schwarzmantel (2001) stated that “democracy is everywhere praised, yet nowhere achieved” (p. 1).  However, West seems to believe that there once was a democracy, and he offers no real discussion of antidemocratic practices in the history of the United States.  

A third limitation of West’s Democracy Matters is that it provides no discussion on whether democracy is the best political system, and it fails to examine the possible alternatives.  In addition, West provides no discussion of the negative consequences of democracy.  Mann (1999) explains that democracy can be linked to genocide.  He asserts that democracy creates a we the people attitude where those who disagree with the majority are considered the others or the minority.  The minority or the others in democracies have been subjected to genocide in different countries, and Mann argues that history could and has repeated itself.

A final limitation of West’s arguments in Democracy Matters is his lack of focus on education.  He provides no discussion on how formal education in the United States has allowed for the rise of the three antidemocratic dogmas and the three rising political nihilisms, and how education can also be a double-edged sword used to combat antidemocratic dogmas and rising political nihilisms.  Meier (2006) argues that education in the United States does not teach students about democracy and in fact makes most students apathetic toward democratic issues, ultimately undermining democracy.  Scholars, however, have found that changes in the education system and pedagogy, like a focus on service learning, can ultimately be a strong weapon for the fight against antidemocratic dogmas and rising political nihilisms (Battistoni, 1997; Mendel-Reyes, 1998).

Conclusion

Cornel West’s Democracy Matters is a well-presented examination of the declining democratic liveliness and traditions in the United States.  His arguments of the increasingly present three antidemocratic dogmas and the rise of three forms of political nihilisms are well supported by other scholars.  Furthermore, his proposition of the three commitments that could reignite the democratic energies in the United States and provide armor for the fight against false prophets and imperialist elites who have benefited from the antidemocratic dogmas and political nihilisms provide hope for his readers and are also well established by history and other scholars.  Overall, the reader is left with an understanding that we are at a crossroads, and that action is needed as the battle has already started.

The state of democracy has real implications for individuals domestically and abroad.  West properly explains how the rise of imperialism has had real consequences for Arab and Muslim states, Israel, Christians in America, and youth in America, among many other groups and individuals.  Imperialist elites have had recent victories, but West hopes that his book will awaken the sleepwalkers and drive them to the battleground.

Although Democracy Matters suffers from limitations, West still provides important information and offers a great piece of literature for individuals of all ages.  He calls for individuals to devote themselves to the duty and service of fighting for democracy.  He requests individuals to stop participating in a democracy of cynicism and start participating in democracy of hope.  Ultimately, those who read the book will feel the same passion, energy, urgency, and hope that West does and will seek to question authority, fight for justice, and have hope in the face of hardship, difficulty, and uncertainty resulting in a day when democratic energies in the United States will once again be alive and well.

References

Agozino, B. (2003). The crisis of authoritarianism in the legal institutions. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 19(3), 315-329.

Barber, B. R. (2000). Can democracy survive globalization? Government & Opposition, 35(3), 275-301.

Barber, B. R. (2001). Strong democracy. In R. Blaug & J. Schwarzmantel (Eds.), Democracy: A reader (pp. 447-457). New York: Columbia University Press.

Battistoni, R. M. (1997). Service learning and democratic citizenship. Theory into Practice, 36(3), 150-156.

Beetham, D. (1992). Liberal democracy and the limits on democratization. Political Studies, 40(1), 40-53.

Beetham, D. (Ed.). (1994). Defining and Measuring Democracy. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.

Berry, S., & Hume, J. (2005). News incorporated: Corporate media ownership and its threat to democracy. Journalism History, 31(3), 172-173.

Bhatia, A. (2007). Religious metaphor in the discourse of illusion: George W. Bush and Osama bin Laden. World Englishes, 26(4), 507-524.

Blaug, R., & Schwarzmantel, J. (2001). Introduction. In R. Blaug & J. Schwarzmantel (Eds.), Democracy: A reader (pp. 447-457). New York: Columbia University Press.

Blitz, M. (2003). Leo Strauss, the Straussians and American foreign policy. openDemocracy. Retrieved December 19, 2007, from http://opendemocracy.net/content/articles/PDF/ 1577.pdf

Brown, W. (2003). Neo-liberalism and the end of liberal democracy. Theory and Event, 7(1), 1-43.

Bufacchi, V. (2001). Sceptical democracy. Politics, 21(1), 23-30.

Calhoun, L. (2007). The enemies of democracy. International Journal on World Peace, 24(2), 63-83.

Cannon, C. J. (1969). American misgivings. In R. L. Delorme & R. G. McInnis (Eds.) Antidemocratic trends in twentieth-century America (pp. 55-66). Palo Alto, CA: Addison-Wesley Publishing. (Original work published 1922)

Cartledge, P. (2001). The democratic experiment. British Broadcasting Corporation. Retrieved March 4, 2007, from http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/ancient/greeks/greekdemocracy_01.shtml

Cassidy, K. J. (1990). Economic conversion: Industrial policy and democratic values. Policy Studies Review, 9(4), 775-786.

Cram, R. A. (1969). The end of democracy. In R. L. Delorme & R. G. McInnis (Eds.), Antidemocratic trends in twentieth-century America (pp. 25-35). Palo Alto, CA: Addison-Wesley Publishing. (Original work published 1936)

Cuomo, C. (2004). Philosophical sisters, incite! Hypatia, 19(4), 233-236.

Daniels, D. H. (1985). The significance of blues for American history.  The Journal of Negro History, 70(1/2), 14-23.

Dyson, M. R. (2005). Awakening an empire of liberty: Exploring the roots of Socratic inquiry and political nihilism in American Democracy (BEPress Legal Repository No. 460). Berkeley, CA: Berkeley Electronic Press.

Fonte, J. (1995, February 6). Ill liberalism. National Review, 47(2), 48-54.

George, J. (2005). Leo Strauss, neoconservatism, and US foreign policy: Esoteric nihilism and the Bush doctrine. International Politics, 42(2), 174-202.

Gilbert, A. (1992). Must global politics constrain democracy? Realism, regimes, and democratic internationalism. Political Theory, 20(1), 8-37.

Goodin, R. E. (1993). Democracy, preferences, and paternalism. Policy Sciences, 26(3), 229-247.

Goodwin, A. (Host). (2004, September 7). Wining the fight against imperialism: Cornel West on democracy, authoritarianism, and Iraq [Radio transcript]. Democracy Now! New York: Democracy Now! Retrieved November 10, 2007, from http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=04/09/07/140202#transcript

Hilsum, L. (2007). Give us democracy—but not yet. New Statesman, 136(4850), 25-26.

Ireland, A. (1969). Democracy and the accepted facts of heredity. In R. L. Delorme & R. G. McInnis (Eds.) Antidemocratic trends in twentieth-century America (pp. 45-50). Palo Alto, CA: Addison-Wesley Publishing. (Original work published 1918).

Ivie, W. (1969). Who shall decide? In R. L. Delorme & R. G. McInnis (Eds.) Antidemocratic trends in twentieth-century America (pp. 115-121). Palo Alto, CA: Addison-Wesley Publishing. (Original work published 1964)

Johnson, J. T. (1990). Is democracy an ethical standard? Ethics & International Affairs, 4(1), 1-17.

Joynt, J., & Poe, M. (2004). The unfree world. Atlantic Monthly, 293(2), 52-53.

Keane, J. (1992). Democracy and the media—Without foundations. Political Studies, 40(1), 116-129.

Lijphart, A. (1984). Democracies: Patterns of majoritarian and consensus government in twenty-one countries. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Macleod, A. M. (2006). Free markets and democracy: Clashing ideas in a globalizing world? Journal of Social Philosophy, 37(1), 139-162.

Mandelbaum, M. (2007). Democracy without America. Foreign Affairs, 86(5), 119-130.

Mann, M. (1999). The dark side of democracy: The modern tradition of ethnic and political cleansing. New Left Review, I(235), 3-17.

McChesney, R. W. (2004). The problem of the media: U.S. communication politics in the twenty-first century. New York: Monthly Review Press.

Meier, D. W. (2006). Undermining democracy. Dissent, 36(4), 71-75.

Melby, E. O. (2006). Authoritarianism. Clearing House, 79(5), 224-227.

Mendel-Reyes, M. (1998). A pedagogy for citizenship: Service learning and democratic education. New Directions for Teaching & Learning, 73, 31-38. 

Miller, M. (2002). The “free market” and democratic responses. Social Policy, 32(3), 2-3.

Minati, G. (2004). Buying consensus in “free” markets: The end of democracy? World Futures: The Journal of General Evolution, 60(1/2), 29-37.

Munck, G. L., & Verkuilen, J. (2002). Conceptualizing and measuring democracy: Evaluating alternative indices. Comparative Political Studies, 35(1), 5-34. 

Naím, M. (2004, September/October). Casualties of war. Foreign Policy, 144, 95-96.

North American Congress on Latin America. (1998). Militarized democracy in the Americas. NACLA Report on the Americas, 32(3), 15.

Novak, M. (1994). Awakening from nihilism: The Templeton Prize address. First Things: A Monthly Journal of Religion and Public Life, 45, 1-7.

Perry, G. E. (2006). Imperial democratization: Rhetoric and reality. Arab Studies Quarterly, 28(3/4), 55-87.

Phelan, W. D. (1969). The authoritarian prescription. Nation, 209(15), 467-473.

Postel, D. (2003). Noble lies and perpetual war: Leo Strauss, the neo-cons, and Iraq. openDemocracy. Retrieved December 19, 2007, from http://opendemocracy.net/content/articles/PDF/1542.pdf

Prior, M. (2005). News vs. entertainment: How increasing media choice widens gaps in political knowledge and turnout. American Journal of Political Science, 49(3), 577-592.

Reich, R. B. (2007, September/October). How capitalism is killing democracy. Foreign Policy, 162, 38-42.

Riemer, N. (1957). Some reflection on the Grand Inquisitor and modern democratic theory. Ethics, 67(4), 249-256.

Rockmore, T. (2006). On justifying the first blow (Ridgway No. WP2006-9). Pittsburg, PA: University of Pittsburg, Matthew B. Ridgeway Center for International Security Studies.

Saward, M. (1994). Democratic theory and indices of democratization. In D. Beetham (Ed.) Defining and measuring democracy. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.

Skinner, B. F. (1969). Freedom and the control of men. In R. L. Delorme & R. G. McInnis (Eds.) Antidemocratic trends in twentieth-century America (pp. 89-98). Palo Alto, CA: Addison-Wesley Publishing. (Original work published 1956)

Smiley, M. (1989). Paternalism and democracy. The Journal of Value Inquiry, 23(4), 299-318.

Smith, G. L. K. (1969). We take our stand. In R. L. Delorme & R. G. McInnis (Eds.) Antidemocratic trends in twentieth-century America (pp. 45-50). Palo Alto, CA: Addison-Wesley Publishing. (Original work published 1942)

Sparks, C. (2007). Extending and refining the propaganda model. Westminster Papers in Communication & Culture, 4(2), 68-84.

Sullivan, A. T. (2007). Islam, America, and the political economy of liberty. Modern Age, 49(2) 130-138.

Sundhaussen, U. (1998). The military: A threat to democracy? Australian Journal of Politics & History, 44(3) 329-349.

Swazo, N. K. (2004). Primacy or world order? The new pax Americana. International Journal on World Peace, 21(1), 15-37.

Touraine, A. (1997). What is democracy? (D. Macey, Trans.). Boulder, CO: Westview Press (Original work published 1994)

Tucker, R. W., & Hendrickson, D. C. (2004). The source of American legitimacy. Foreign Affairs, 83(6), 18-32. 

U.S. Census Bureau. (n.d.). Bicentennial edition: Historical statistics of the United States, colonial times to 1970. Retrieved November 11, 2007, from http://www.census.gov/prod/www/abs/statab.html

Wells, D. F. (1995). No place for truth: Or whatever happened to evangelical theology? Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing.

West, C. (2004). Democracy matters: Winning the fight against imperialism. New York: Penguin Books.

Wrona, R. M. (2006). A dangerous separation. World Affairs, 169(1), 25-38.

Xing, L. (2001). The market-democracy conundrum. Journal of Political Ideologies, 6(1), 75-94.

Zakaria, F. (2007, January 29). The limits of democracy. Newsweek, 149(5), 35.

However, there is no doubt that events that unfolded during his time continue to impact on America and the world even today  Some would suggest that the outcome of World War I led either directly or indirectly to World War II. In addition there were the social reforms Wilson believed in and which he strived for during his time in the White House. 

America’s Entry into World War I

At the time of the outbreak of World War I President Wilson was engaged in both personal and political difficulties. The death of his first wife Ellen in 1914 led to a period of mourning for the president. In addition he needed to navigate the political waters carefully as he was up for re-election in 1916. Wilson needed to carefully consider whether or not to enter the war. In that same year he addressed the 63^rd session of Congress in which he declared the country’s neutrality. “The United States must be neutral in fact, as well as in name, during these days that are to try men’s souls. We must be impartial in thought, as well as action, must put a curb upon our sentiments, as well as upon every transaction that might be construed as a preference of one party to the struggle before another.”

However, despite Wilson’s declaration of neutrality the U.S. would eventually enter the war. Events that sent America into the war began on February 4, 1915 when Germany declared the waters around the British aisles open for submarine warfare. Although only a small percentage of ships in those waters were American, Wilson nevertheless took it as a threat to the country’s interests. He subsequently warned Germany that any attacks on American ships would be considered a violation of American neutrality (Brewer  2007,  52).  

Wilson continued to pursue a course of what he termed ‘balanced neutrality’. Eventually he decided that Germany posed a far greater threat to America than the Allies or anyone else. The American public which had been largely against the war began to change its opinion. “The American League for the Limitation of Armaments gave way to the League to Enforce Peace. Anti-war sentiment and anti-militarism now became a theme entirely dominated by leftist groups associated with the suffragists and radicals.” By the time the 1916 election was in full swing, Wilson’s re-election was based on the fact that he had kept America out of the war.  That promise was not to be kept as Wilson attended a meeting with his key advisors on February 24, 1916 with the specific intent to gain their support to enter the war (Brewer  54). 

Although he did not gain support that day, events would soon lead America to war. Two key events would highly influence Wilson’s decision. First, Germany publicly announced that they would resume unrestricted submarine warfare and the Zimmerman Telegram. The latter contained “…the laughable proposal by the German foreign minister to a Mexico torn apart by civil war, of a return of territory lost to the United States in 1848 in the event of a German victory.” (Brewer  56). March 21, 1916 proved to be the turning point as it was on that day that Wilson announced his intention to enter America into the war. There is no doubt that Wilson agonized over America’s entry into World War I. Although he saw it as a necessity, he found himself in deep conflict with his own personal beliefs as exemplified by the words he spoke before Congress. 

Once the declaration for war was made the Americans for the most part stood behind their president. In the first month and a half after the war declaration was made, over 73,000 Americans volunteered (Brewer  57) and the country was fortunate to be involved in a quick victory. 

Woodrow Wilson, the Fourteen Points and the League of Nations

In January 1919 the Peace Conference in Paris served as the foundation for the establishment of the League of Nations. Peace was an issue that was very close to the president’s heart. Even though he allowed America to become involved in World War I, he did so very late into the war and only when he deemed it absolutely necessary. Wilson’s interest in the development of a League of Nations was laid out in a speech he made in 1918 which has come to be called ‘The Fourteen Points.’  The basics of these fourteen points were set out as follows: open covenants of peace, freedom to navigate open waters, removal of trade barriers (equality of trade), reduction of national armament levels, impartial adjustment of colonial claims, evacuation of all Russian territory, evacuation and restoration of Belgian territory, freedom and restoration for French territory, readjustment of Italian boundaries, freedom for the people of Austria-Hungary, evacuation of Serbia, Montenegro and Rumania, secure sovereignty for the Turkish portions of the Ottoman Empire, an independent Poland and a general association of nations to guarantee political independence.

It is obvious from these points and his deep and abiding commitment to the League of Nations that Woodrow Wilson believed deeply in the concept that nations working together could secure world peace. He also believed very strongly in the process of mediation and negotiation as a means of resolving differences between nations. The fourteen points represent Wilson’s contribution to the development of a world organization that could and would be devoted to international peace and negotiations. Wilson could well be described as an idealist. The prelude to his fourteen points reads as follows: 

It will be our wish and purpose that the processes of peace, when they are begun, shall be absolutely open and that they shall involve and permit henceforth no secret understandings of any kind.  The day of conquest and aggrandizement is gone by; so is also the day of secret covenants entered into in the interest of particular governments and likely at some unlooked-for moment to upset the peace of the world.

Through his involvement in the League of Nations, Wilson secured not only a role of international leadership for himself but for America as well. In some ways, the League could be described as a personal journey and goal for Wilson. He absolutely believed that war could be avoided if nations banded together and worked diligently on behalf of peace. Wilson’s devotion to this endeavor provides us with a view into his personal interpretations of democracy and the commitments necessary to keep the world safe. As part of the development of the League of Nations, Wilson was also involved in the creation and signing of the Treaty of Versailles. Some have suggested that the treaty was so damaging to Germany that it ultimately led to World War II. In addition, some criticized President Wilson’s involvement in the treaty as being a violation of the principles he laid out in his fourteen points. 

Although Wilson was devoted to the Versailles Treaty, Americans were not. Wilson gave his best efforts to try and persuade the Senate of its importance but the Senate did not agree with him and rejected it in a vote that took place in 1918. The president’s devotion to the treaty would prove to be his undoing as he suffered a massive stroke during a national tour to convince the American people of its importance. 

Woodrow Wilson: A Tragic Figure? 

Ultimately, it is the decision of history as to whether a not a president is successful during his term(s). We often do not see the full ramifications of a president’s actions until longer the presidency has ended. As noted above, the Treaty of Versailles which Wilson played a strong role in developing and promoting hit Germany very hard in the aftermath of World War I. Hitler was able to promote national sentiment in Germany over the treaty and raged in his public speeches about the treat as an insult. The German people obviously agreed with Hitler as it was a rallying call in the months preceding World War II.  Of course Wilson and his colleagues could not have possibly known the events that would take place in Germany. However it is interesting to note that the U.S. Senate did not support the treaty and thus there may have been those who saw it as a dangerous document. 

Wilson’s involvement in the League of Nations will probably be the endeavor he is most remembered for rather than eventually leading America into World War I.  The late Herbert Hoover was a colleague and friend of Wilson. He remembers him in his own memoirs and his involvement in the reconstruction of Europe after World War I.  Hoover recalls that irrespective of the criticisms laid on Wilson he was deeply devoted to the notion of world peace and a person who was committed to strong ideals.  “He frequently has been described as obstinate. In my view this was not true. His mind ran to moral principles, justice and right. In them he held deep convictions” (Hoover  1958).

Hoover goes on to describe Wilson as a leader who was reluctant to enter the war and saw it as a violation of his own personal principles. He goes on to describe Wilson in the following way: “The trouble into which he fell with these principles and ideals lay in their conflict with the age-old concepts and aims of nations in Europe. In these conflicts he was at times compelled to choose the lesser of evils. But he was slow to budge. He was not a snob but he had little patience with small minds” (Hoover 1958). To Hoover, Wilson believed in the fourteen points as a prelude for world peace. He did not do so in an arrogant way but rather as an idealist, as one who believed that with the right intentions, nations could live in peace together. In Hoover’s opinion, the fourteen points could have been an international triumph, although they were not. 

Hoover explains that although the fourteen points were, in principle, a brilliant concept, they were not accepted as such by Europe. For all his eloquent speeches, the Europeans saw Wilson as someone who was meddling in their affairs. “Mr. Wilson was a menacing intruder in the concepts of British, French and Italian statesmen and a threat to their secret treaties dividing all Europe” (Hoover  1958).  Hoover concludes that although Wilson was a brilliant man, he did not completely understand the dynamics of European relations and was too highly entrenched in his idealistic beliefs. In addition to European suspicion, Wilson now had to face the growing face of Communism. The revolution in Russia had transformed the country into a Communist force and would grow into the Soviet Union. “Communist Russia was a specter which wandered into the Peace Conference almost daily. There was no unity among the Big Four on how to deal with it” (Hoover  1958).  However, Hoover goes on to state that there was in fact pressure on the U.S. to join in a possible attack on Communist Russia, a plan Wilson disagreed with.

Hoover states that Wilson’s difficult relations with European allies was a dominant force in his later life and one that left him a rather tragic individual. “There can be no doubt that, despite his efforts to ignore them, these emotions contributed greatly to his many ordeals and to his final tragedy” (Hoover  1958). In his conclusion on Wilson’s legacy he suggests that Wilson sought to do more than he was capable of. He hoped to bring nations together in the pursuit of peace. 

Even though the League of Nations was formed there was a great deal of enmity towards him in Europe and this ultimately affected him in America. The ultimate price that Wilson paid was with his own health. His devotion to the notion and principle of the League of Nations and the Versailles Treaty took more out of him than he had to give. Upon his arrival back home he predicted (to Hoover) the coming of another world war. He crusaded passionately for international peace but the treaty which he fought so diligently for ultimately became the rallying call for another world war, which as noted above, he himself predicted. His legacy will continue to be debated. The irony of being a president is they are often less understood within their own lifetime.

Bibliography

Brewer, Paul.  “The Journey to War: Woodrow Wilson and American Pacifism.” History Today 57 no. 9 (2007): 49-57. 

Clements, Kendrick A.  “Woodrow Wilson and World War I.”  Presidential Studies Quarterly  34  no. 1 (2004):  62-73. 

First World War. “Who’s Who: Woodrow Wilson”.  http://www.firstworldwar.com/bio/wilson.htm (accessed April 13, 2008).

Hoover, Herbert. “Herbert Hoover Describes the Ordeal of Woodrow Wilson.” American Heritage Magazine 9 no. 4  (1958): http://www.americanheritage.com/articles/magazine/ah/1958/4/1958_4_65_print.shtml (accessed April 13, 2008).

Lynn, Kenneth S.  “The Hidden Agony of Woodrow Wilson.”  The Wilson Quarterly 28 no. 1 (2004):  59-84. 

The White House Archives. “Woodrow Wilson.”  http://www.whitehouse.gov/history/presidents/ww28.html (accessed April 13, 2008). 

Wilson, Woodrow. “President Wilson’s Declaration of Neutrality.” Message to Congress, 63rd Cong., 2d Sess., Senate Doc. No. 566 (Washington, 1914), pp. 3-4.The World War I Document Archive,  http://wwi.lib.byu.edu/index.php/President_Wilson%27s_Declaration_of_Neutrality (accessed April 13, 2008). 

Wilson, Woodrow. “Wilson’s War Message to Congress.” War Messages, 65th Cong., 1st Sess. Senate Doc. No. 5, Serial No. 7264, Washington, D.C., 1917; pp. 3-8, passim. The World War I Document Archive, http://wwi.lib.byu.edu/index.php/Wilson%27s_War_Message_to_Congress (accessed April 13, 2008). 

Wilson, Woodrow. “Wilson’s Fourteen Points.” The Woodrow Wilson Presidential Library, January 8, 1918, http://www.woodrowwilson.org/learn_sub/learn_sub_show.htm?doc_id=377217 (accessed April 13, 2008). 

Endnotes

 World War I Archives, “President Woodrow Wilson’s speech before the 63^rd Congress 2^nd Session “ (Washington, 1914),  http://wwi.lib.byu.edu/index.php/President_Wilson%27s_Declaration_of_Neutrality.

 Paul Brewer,  “The Journey to War: Woodrow Wilson and American Pacifism.” History Today 57  (2007):  49-57. 

 Woodrow Wilson, “Wilson’s Fourteen PointsThe Woodrow Wilson Presidential Library ” (January 8,1918).  http://www.woodrowwilson.org/learn_sub/learn_sub_show.htm?doc_id=377217  (accessed April 13, 2008).

 Ibid.

 The White House Archives, “Biography of Woodrow Wilson”  http://www.whitehouse.gov/history/presidents/ww28.html (accessed April 13, 2008). 

 Kendrick A. Clements, “Woodrow Wilson and World War I” Presidential Studies Quarterly 34  (2004):  64.  “On February 4, 1915, the Imperial German government announced the establishment of a war zone in the waters surrounding the British Isles. (1) In that zone, German submarines would sink Allied ships on sight, and because the Allies frequently used neutral flags to disguise their ships, the Germans warned that neutral ships might also be in danger and would be wise to avoid the zone. The announcement was a direct challenge to the Allies’ economic lifeline, but it was scarcely less a threat to neutrals like the United States, for whom trade with the Allies had become an economic necessity.”

 Paul Brewer, “The Journey to War: Woodrow Wilson and American Pacifism.” History Today 57  (2007):  54. “It is clear, however, is that Woodrow Wilson won the extremely close 1916 election largely on the basis of the slogan, arising out of a chant by the crowd at the nominating convention in June, that ‘he kept us out of war’. It may not have been his deepest wish.”

 Paul Brewer, “The Journey to War: Woodrow Wilson and American Pacifism.” History Today 57  (2007):  49-57. Considerable effort was devoted to selling the war to Americans, via the Committee on Public Information that reinforced the long-standing British propaganda campaign in the country. 

 The full text of his speech before Congress can be read here: “Wilson’s War Message to Congress” (April 2, 1917)  http://wwi.lib.byu.edu/index.php/Wilson%27s_War_Message_to_Congress. (accessed April 13, 2008). 

 Controversial even today, it is often argued that the punitive terms of the treaty supported the rise of the Nazis and the Third Reich in 1930s Germany, which in turn led to the outbreak of World War II. The Versailles treaty deprived Germany of around 13.5% of its 1914 territory (some seven million people) and all of its overseas possessions.  Alsace-Lorraine was returned to France, and Belgium was enlarged in the east with the addition of the formerly German border areas of Eupen and Malmedy. Primary Documents: Treaty of Versailles, 28 June 1919, First World War Archives (October 28, 2001)  http://www.firstworldwar.com/source/versailles.htm (accessed April 13, 2008).