The Fourth Branch of Government

Telecommunication is the transmission of information over significant distances to communicate. The media has had a huge influence over citizens of the world for many years in many forms. For the United States, it all began with the first amendment of the Constitution. It states that U.S. citizens have the freedom of the press. This guarantees the right to express ourselves without the government interfering or preventing us from doing so. The first amendment alone, whether the fathers of the constitution realized it or not, created a “4^th branch” of government.

            The fourth branch of government is the action of the citizens for which it reports on. It has been existent since colonial times. During colonial times, colonists were like a pot of water over the fire. It remained dormant, but with a little heat began to boil. With the power of the fourth branch, a revolution began. An easy example would be the “Boston Massacre”. Tensions were already high between colonists and the British, but with the media playing its role, a volcano erupted.

            The “Boston Massacre” was an event played by the media in order to gain support from colonists in order to create a revolt against the British during a time of high tensions. According to the Boston Massacre Historical Society, only five colonists were killed in a fight that they provoked. The newspapers the next day reported it as a “massacre” in order to dramatize and hype the occurrence in order to get more people to oppose the British troops. This is a great example of the fourth branch of government in play because many believe that if it were not for the over dramatization of “Boston Massacre”, Boston would have never had such a big movement in the revolution and may not of even been part of it.

            This is not the only example of the fourth branch at work in the United States. The fourth branch also has a large effect on who becomes a member of office, such as the President of the United States. When analyzing political campaigns, the media will make or break that politician. The first notable occurrence of this would have to be Thomas Jefferson in his pursuit to become president of the United States. According to an article “How Presidents and Presidential Candidates Use The Media”, Thomas Jefferson created a newspaper sponsored by himself in order to promote is political campaign. By using his own paper, Thomas Jefferson was able to make himself look professional, advertise any policies for his campaign, advertise information that only he wanted to make public, and argue any statements made against him by his opponents. It was a genius idea for his period of time and definitely helped him on his way to office.

            In more modern times, it is a lot more difficult to do. For politicians to look professional in the present is a hard thing to do with the multiple news sources that are available. Everything can now be publicized instantly whether through radio, blogs, phone and tablet apps, internet, and television news feeds. In an instant, whether a debate, public speech, or even a sneeze, can be made public to the world. By having such power, the media plays a large role on the chances of a candidate wining office. Having such instant media is a great tool in order to see and here things instantly without the influence of anything else, when it is live.

             Recent examples can easily be seen of the fourth branches power with the Republican Party receiving so much attention for the Presidential run. According to cnn.com, Herman Cain was the former leader in the Republican polls for the Presidential candidate slot. Due to media coverage, the whole nation now knows of Herman Cain’s unpopular activity while working in the restaurant industry. Ever since his misconduct was exposed, his support in the polls have dropped. This is because of the fourth branch of government controlling the outlook of Herman Cain and then expressing the public opinion as well as influencing the public opinion of which it controls. This is a wonderful way for U.S. citizens to be actively involved in politics as well as have influence and understanding in what happens in society.

            The media does not only influence the personal image of politicians, but it also has influence over social movements. The Wall Street Occupiers are an example of the fourth branch at work. At first, the Wall Street Occupiers were simply people protesting Wall Street without a set goal or idea in mind. Through the media, attention was brought to these protesters and more people joined this protest and began having a target as to what they are doing and what they should do in order to have demands met. Without media coverage, this movement would not have been as effective or as large as it has become.

            The fourth branch of government may seem like a great thing, but like everything else there is also a negative side. The fourth branch of government can also use its power for corrupt purposes. Many examples come to mind when the fourth branch has used its power in order to control the population. The biggest events that media uses in order to do this is disease/infections/epidemics/etc. The H1N1 virus is a perfect example of the media latching on to something in order to gain ratings and influence the actions of people.

            H1N1 began recently in the year 2009 when people began reporting cases of this flu. During that time, every news source imaginable latched on to this for months and declared that it was a pandemic which resulted in many people panicking over the virus. It was almost as if nobody had ever heard of the flu before as multiple cases were being reported and in some instances death. According to Center of Disease Control, the average number of deaths from the H1N1 was 12,470 and the average number of hospitalization was 274,000. This seems like a lucrative number and something many should be concerned about until the regular influenza statistics are taken into account. Reports by the Center of Disease Control are as follows in reference to the regular flu: It is estimated that, on average, approximately 5% to 20% of U.S. residents get the flu, and more than 200,000 people are hospitalized for flu-related complications each year. Over a period of 30 years, between 1976 and 2006, estimates of flu-associated deaths in the United States range from a low of about 3,000 to a high of about 49,000 people.

            By doing more research and truly being aware of the extent of H1N1, it did not seem as serious as the media made it out to be and yet many people feared this disease that they knew nothing about and resulted in mass spending and a need for the vaccine for H1N1. Not that it is important or discredits anything, I have never received a flu shot and have only been infected by the flu once in my life and I certainly did not need hospital attention to become healthy again. 

            Although it is nice to be informed about such things, it is also nice to have valid information on the subject at hand before going Armageddon. Besides H1N1, there are many things that the fourth branch of government uses in order to gain power from the public through fear of minimal information. This includes reports on Y2-k being Armageddon, December 21, 2012 being Armageddon, microwaves creating harmful radiation levels to your body by standing in front of them, President Obama’s religious backround, former President Bush’s search for secret weapons in the Middle East, President Obama supporting the construction of a Mosque near the 9/11 World Trade Center site, and so on.

            Y2-k obviously never happened, the Mayan prediction is based on loose interpretation and small amounts of information, tests on microwaves showed that it was impossible to be exposed to radiation (unless you stick your head in the microwave while it’s on), President Obama’s religious backround has no factual support to prove the claims made against him, former President Bush was never able to find the “secret weapons” that he claimed existed, and the Muslim Center built near ground zero wasn’t as close as the multiple Mosques that are near ground zero. This is just to name a few of the hypes that the media creates in order to persuade and influence the public in a certain favor that had minimal information, but a large impact.

            By using the media many politicians and organizations can influence the nation on a wide scale. What media tends to report on that the government tends to avoid is religion. Religion has had a strange alteration over the years in terms of media coverage and how the general public perceives different religions. For example, Christianity has taken a wide turn in society and is at its demise through media coverage. More and more the radical, beuracratic, fundamentalists are viewed in the news instead of the general, average community of Christianity and yet people believe Christianity is dysfunctional due to news coverage. For example, Wethro Baptists received huge publicity and gave the image that Christians are almost cult like by preaching hate messages and holding anti homosexual and military protests. Things such as this receive publicity which give a negative outlook on Christianity. Many media sources report on this and yet did not report the positive things that Christian organizations did for the nation. For example, after Hurricane Katrina happened the only thing reported was the lack of action done by the government. The untold story was the amount of Christian organizations that responded immediately and did most of the clean-up and volunteer work during the recovery of the area. Even in sports it is visible that Christianity is something that reporters don’t like to cover. When Tim Tebow involves his faith in football, media absolutely hates it which is why he is not present in many interviews. It is even present in SEC football when very few football players are interviewed because the media is aware at this point that many of them are Christians and will talk about God helping during the game as they are being interviewed.

            It’s not just Christianity that gets a bad rep in the news, but Islam has been getting an excessive amount of negative coverage ever since the United States went to war back in 2003. Due to only certain coverage and a lack of understanding, many people believed all Muslims were terrorists and enemies to the United States and only found in the Middle East. After years of being at war with terrorist groups, studies were finally done and information was let out about the different degrees and levels of Islam, which gave Americans a better understanding, but many still remain skeptical or opposed to Islam. Some people even blame Muslims for 9/11 even though it was acted upon by a terrorist group. 

Can Removing Federal Government Be That Simple?

The federal government of the United States is seen as necessary and unnecessary. Currently, many Republicans wish to diminish the federal government by removing bureaucratic offices and entitlement programs. By doing so, Republicans believe that the United States would be better off for it. This is obviously not the case.

            When analyzing the federal government, there are plenty of flaws within its structure, but its madness is its management. By having bureaucracy, government can remain organized and efficient by making the most qualified individuals the ones with the most power. It is also a way to keep things in the status quo. When bureaucratic offices are in action, the government remains efficient, the status quo is kept, and the most qualified people ensure the efficiency of government.

            By not having bureaucracy within the United States government, work would become overwhelming, government would become unorganized, and nothing would get done. Bureaucracies also keep the best intentions for the American people in mind. By having these agencies, Americans can insure that government revenue, internal national security, and foreign threats are all taken care of. This includes the treasury, justice, defense, state, and homeland security. Without these agencies, The United States would not be able to function at any capacity on numerous levels.

            Many people blame the federal government for their problems and see it as being inefficient. Many complain about how inefficient the federal government is, but without the agencies they provide, many states would be left in the dark and unprotected. When people use examples about the inefficiency of the federal government, FEMA comes to mind.

            FEMA stands for federal emergency management agency. Citizens began to lose faith in federal bureaucracy when FEMA took a long time to get to New Orleans after hurricanes and flooding devastated the area. Although it did take a long time for the federal government to act, it must be considered that neither Louisiana nor any of the surrounding states could provide help and safety for the victims in New Orleans. Without FEMA, New Orleans would have been in an even more critical state.

            Military agencies are also a very important part of federal agencies that we could not go without. By having such a large military agency, the federal government is able to provide safety and security for American citizens and at alarming rate. Without a large military agency, the United States would not be able to react against such tragic events as 9/11, Hurricane Katrina, terrorist’s attacks against foreign allies, domestic natural disasters, foreign natural disasters, civil war, and other circumstances. Also, by having such a bureaucratic military, the United States is able to specialize military branches for particular scenarios which ensure the safety and security of the United States.

            Republicans also mentioned the opposition of entitlement programs. Entitlement programs are guarantees of access to benefits based on established rights or legislation. In the United States, this includes social security, Medicare, and welfare. Many claim that the United States federal government should not take on the responsibility of so many by providing these programs and supporting those who are less fortunate. Though, if this is the land of the free then it is its duty to ensure that everyone has the right to certain standards of life. Also, by having these programs, individual states do not have to take on the responsibility of the lower income class and the lower income classes are given a chance to possibly gain ground in society.

            Another federal government program that is fairly important to the younger population of America is FAFSA. FAFSA is free application for federal student aid. According to studentaid.ed.gov the programs they administer comprise the nation's largest source of student aid. Every year they provide more than $150 billion in new aid to nearly 14 million postsecondary students and their families. If the 14 million did not have student aid, society would be split in two with only upper and lower class where education would only be provided for the wealthy that could afford it.

            The question remains as to whether the United States would be able to function without these agencies and the obvious answer is no. By having a weak federal government division among the states would occur which would eventually result in the warring of states and could even create an anarchy-like state (see previous blog on factions). Also by removing government agencies that are paid for by taxpayers, private industries would spring up and create lucrative services that would not be worth the investment.

If entitlements were removed, the United States would be reduced to animals and inhuman decency by leaving those who are in need in the dust just to save money. All-in-all without the federal government and its agencies, the United States would become the divided states and would no longer be a country of unity, but a country of division.

Factions vs Tyranny of Majority: What has America come to?

Factions in society and tyranny of the majority were two things that Madison and Tocqueville expressed concerns for in the United States. The difference between a majority and a faction is how you divide and break down groups on a particular basis. The majority defines the difference between the two. The majority is a significant part of a group, where as a faction is the division of a group and not necessarily the majority.

            The concern of the two is how these groups will have influence in the system and society. In a society when the “tyranny of majority” plays in affect, the majority will have the power in society and the minority will go unspoken for. The tyranny of majority can be seen in many societies. The example that comes to mind is a government formed by direct democracy. In a direct democracy, citizens of that area will vote directly for a certain politician to be the leader of the area.

 Unlike the United States, every vote counts and goes directly to the politician and does not have an electoral college. Sometime in a direct-democracy there will be a lot of candidates so the winner could have a small amount of votes since there are so many candidates. Even if the vote count is low, the majority will take play and that candidate will win even if a vast amount of people didn’t vote for them.

 For example, there could be five candidates and one hundred twenty voters that will be involved in the election. The winner receives fifty votes. Second place gets twenty votes, third place gets seventeen votes, fourth place gets eighteen votes, and the fifth place candidate gets fifteen votes. Although the winner had fifty votes it neither means they were the most qualified nor the desired candidate in office. Only fifty of those voters will be spoken for while the remaining seventy will not be spoken for while that politician is in office.

 The concern with the “tyranny of the majority” is the lack of representation in government and the fear that society as a whole will lose certain rights and eventually resort to a strong central government and weak individuality. On the other hand by having this majority, society can move along at a faster rate and be more productive with certain protection and unity. James Madison was a huge supporter of a strong central government and believed if factions were prevalent in society it would cause too much of a divide in a nation.

            Factions have been seen as a way to support individual’s rights and to ensure equality among citizens. By having factions, there is a better chance that citizens will be represented, but could cause delay or controversy within that society. The use of factions is very prevalent in the United States. For example, during a presidential election citizens do not get a direct vote to the President of the United States. Instead, American citizens vote and the representative in the Electoral College votes corresponding to the number of votes that candidate gets.

 If the majority of the representatives for that state vote for a particular candidate, then the candidate wins that state and gets those votes. Another example of factions and the power of sovereign states in the United States is local government. The local government of each state usually has a decent amount of power for its state. The legalization of marijuana is very good proof of the power of factions. Although marijuana is illegal on a national level, it is legal in the state of California. Some see this as beneficial and a way to promote individual rights in California. At the same time it causes many issues with the federal government as well as other states who might not agree with it, which would further divide the United States as a whole.

The most prevalent example of factions within the United States is the political parties within the United States. By having republican and democrat parties in the United States, it creates a faction and a divide within American society. It causes many disputes because many people will simply support their party regardless of who the candidate is and also causes the best interest of the people to not be met, but rather the faction that is being represented. This is something that Madison stated as a problem in the federal papers.

            The differences between the two theories is having a majority and having a faction. The majority can be seen as tyranny and disruptive to society by not having the minorities represented in politics and could very well lead to a form of dictatorship. Factions can be seen as disruptive by trying to represent minorities and being very slow in how demands are met in society and could further divide a nation by trying to meet the demands of everyone instead of trying to do what is absolutely best for society as a whole.

            There are blatantly obvious differences in perception between Tocqueville and Madison, but believe it or not there are some similarities too. In United States government, factions and majority go hand-in-hand in a few ways. By having a faction for states, counties, and cities most people can be well represented for. As representatives of those factions, politicians will meet in caucus to determine what laws will be passed. The majority of the representatives who voted will pass the bill to the next branch for a similar process to undergo and allow that bill to be law. The Electoral College is also a good example of balancing factions and majority. The way it does so is by having representatives in the Electoral College represent a particular faction. When that faction votes, the majority of it will be represented by a member of the electoral college and whatever candidate receives the most votes will win the votes of that state.

             The similarities is that both will be used highly in society and create great alterations to society. The biggest similarity is that both of these are obviously not perfect and by putting both hand-in-hand creates a more perfect society that fights for liberty, freedom, and equality.