The norton introduction to literature 12th edition pdf download

English Pages Year Edmund Husserl is widely regarded as one of the most influential philosophers of the twentieth century. The founder of p. A lively, straight-forward approach to the basics of American PoliticsWritten to engage students, and kept short to prov. From social security to social productivity: A vision for Public Services. The final report of the Commission on Public Services. Access Economics Potential benefits of a national strategy for child and youth wellbeing.

Adams, P. Nelson Eds. New York: Aldine de Gruyter. Alston, M. Innovative human services practice: Australia's changing landscape. South Yarra, Victoria: Palgrave Macmillan.

Patient- and family-centered care and the pediatrician's role. Pediatrics , A ladder of citizen participation. Journal of the American Institute of Planners , 35 4 , Neighbourhood regeneration: Facilitating community involvement. Urban Policy and Research, 21 4 , Attree, P. The experience of community engagement for individuals: A rapid review of evidence.

Tackling wicked problems: A public policy perspective. Bailey, D. What is the future of family outcomes and family-centered services? Topics in Early Childhood Special Education , 31 4 , Barnes, J. Children and families in communities: Theory, research, policy and practice.

Barraket, J. Communities of place. Griffith Review , Edition 3 Autumn. Bath, J. Impact of community participation in primary health care: What is the evidence? Australian Journal of Primary Health , 21 1 , Bauman, Z. Collateral damage: Social inequalities in a global age. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press. Bellefontaine, T. The evaluation of place-based approaches: Questions for further research. Ottawa, Canada: Policy Horizons Canada. Beresford, P. Participation in anti-poverty and regeneration work and research: Overcoming barriers and creating opportunities.

Blau, M. But Really Do. New York: W. Block, P. Community: The Power of Belonging. Boxelaar, L. Community engagement and public administration: Of silos, overlays and technologies of government.

Australian Journal of Public Administration , 65 1 , Boyle, D. Right Here, Right Now: Taking co-production into the mainstream. London, UK: new economics foundation. Bradwell, P. Making the most of collaboration: An international survey of public service co-design Demos Report No. London, UK: Demos. Burton, P. How would we know what works? Context and complexity in the evaluation of community involvement.

Evaluation , 12 3 , Butteriss, C. What is community engagement, exactly? Fitzroy, Victoria: Bang the Table. Carbone, S. Breaking Cycles, Building Futures. Promoting inclusion of vulnerable families in antenatal and universal early childhood services: A report on the first three stages of the project.

Cavaye J. Cavaye, J. Governance and community engagement - The Australian experience. Lovan, M. Shaffer Eds. Centre for Community Child Health. Chaskin, R.

Building community capacity: A definitional framework and case studies from a comprehensive community initiative. Urban Affairs Review , 36 3 , Building community capacity for children, youth, and families. Children Australia , 34 1 , Building community capacity.

Christakis, N. Connected: The surprising power of our social networks and how they shape our lives. New York: Little, Brown and Company.

Clarkson, M. Walk alongside: co-designing social initiatives with people experiencing vulnerabilities. Commission on the Future Delivery of Public Services Report on the Future Delivery of Public Service. Community Indicators Victoria Wellbeing reports. Hoboken, New Jersey: Wiley. Cooper, H.

The influence of social support and social capital on health: A review and analysis of British data. Cornwall, A. Unpacking "participation": Models, meanings and practices. Community Development Journal , 43 3 , Cortis, N. Engaging hard-to-reach families and children , Occasional Paper No. Council of Australian Governments National Partnership Agreement on Early childhood Education..

Council of Australian Governments a. The national early childhood development strategy - investing in the early years. Council of Australian Governments b. Protecting children is everyone's business: National framework for protecting Australia's children Council of Australian Governments c.

Belonging, being and becoming - the early years learning framework for Australia. Council of Australian Governments d. National quality agenda for early childhood education and care. Crnic, K. The effectiveness of providing social support for families of children at risk. In Guralnick, M. Baltimore, Maryland: Paul H.

Davis, H. Working in partnership: The family partnership model. London, UK: Pearson. Dempsey, I. A review of processes and outcomes in family-centered services for children with a disability. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education , 28 1 , Denburg, A. The link between social inequality and child health outcomes. Healthcare Quarterly, 14 Sp , Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations Department of Education Tasmania.

An overview of child and family centres. Hobart: Department of Education. Devaney, J. Child abuse as a complex and wicked problem: Reflecting on policy developments in the United Kingdom in working with children and families with multiple problems. Children and Youth Services Review , 31 6 , Doherty, W. Family therapists, community, and civic renewal. Family Process, 39 2 , Dunst, C. Conceptual and empirical foundations of family-centred practice. Illback, C.

Cobb and H. Joseph Eds. Washington, D. Capacity-building family-systems intervention practices. Journal of Family Social Work , 12 2 , Meta-analysis of family-centered helpgiving practices research. Research synthesis and meta-analysis of studies of family-centered practices. Asheville, North Carolina: Winterberry Press.

Dunston, R. Co-production and health system reform - from re-imagining to re-making. The Australian Journal of Public Administration , 68 1 , Eckersley, R. Never better - or getting worse? The health and wellbeing of young Australians.

Weston, ACT: Australia Edwards, B. Neighborhood influences on young children's conduct problems and pro-social behavior: Evidence from an Australian national sample. Children and Youth Services Review , 31 3 , Egger, G. Planet obesity: How we're eating ourselves and the planet to death. Ellis, R. Filling the prevention gap: Multi-factor, multi-system, multi-level interventions. Journal of Primary Prevention , 19 1 , Fegan, M.

Isolation in rural, remote and urban communities. Bowes Ed. Fogel, A. Dynamic systems methods for the life sciences. Fogel, B. Shanker Eds , Human development in the twenty-first century: Visionary ideas from systems scientists. Fram, M. Managing to parent: Social support, social capital, and parenting practices among welfare-participating mothers with young children Discussion paper Gallo, L.

Understanding the association between socioeconomic status and physical health: Do negative emotions play a role? Psychological Bulletin , 1 , Gamble, D. Community practice skills: Local to global perspectives. New York: Columbia University Press. Gannon, Z. Co-production: The modernisation of public services by staff and users. London, UK: Compass.

Ghate, D. Parenting in poor environments: Stress, support and coping. Giddens, A. Runaway world: How globalisation is reshaping our lives 2nd ed. London, UK: Profile Books. Gooding, J. Family support and family-centred care in the neonatal intensive care unit: Origins, advances, impact. Seminars in Perinatology , 35 1 , The cuckoo clock syndrome: Addicted to command, allergic to leadership. European Management Journal , 28 4 , Hartz-Karp, J. Understanding deliberativeness: Bridging theory and practice.

Planning , 54 , Hayes, A. Head, B. Community engagement: Participation on whose terms? Australian Journal of Political Science, 42 3 , DOI: Wicked problems in public policy. Public Policy , 3 2 , Early Childhood Education. Electronic Engineering. Engineering: General Issues. Enquiry-Based Learning.

Environmental Studies. Features of a Threshold Concept. Food science. Forensic Science. Foundation Courses. Gender Studies. Graduate Employability. Inclusive Excellence. Indigenous Studies. Information Literacy. Information Systems. Integrated Threshold Concept Knowledge. International Students. Japanese Studies.

Just-In-Time Teaching. Land, R. Large Lecture Classes. Learning Disability. Leisure Studies. Library Studies. Lifelong learning. Mechanical Engineering. Meyer, E. Military Education. Museum Studies. National Student Survey. Nonformal Education. Overcrowded Curricula.

Overviews of the threshold concept. Pedagogic Directions. Peer Assisted Learning. Portfolios e-Portfolios. Practice Education. Professional Identity [non-academic]. Public Health. Qualitative Research. Qualitative Research Syntheses. Rasch Measurement. Refugee Camps: education within refugee camps.

Religious Studies. Research Education. Research Postgraduate Education. Retention on Courses. Retrospective Analysis. Reviewing The literature. Reviews of Threshold Concept Books. Reviews of Threshold Concept Conferences. Safety Engineering. Science Teaching. School Education. Serious Games. Sign Language. Social Identity.

Another ingredient in political par ticipation is political efficacy, the belief that ordinary citiz ens can affect what government does. Why bother to par ticipate if y ou believ e it makes no difference?

In , only 25 percent felt shut out of government. Not every effort of ordinary citizens to influence government will succeed, but without any such efforts, go vernment decisions will be made b y a smaller and smaller circle of powerful people. Such loss of broad popular influence over government actions undermines the key featur e of American democracy— government by the people.

There are ways that individuals can build their sense of political efficacy. Most people do not want to be politically active every day of their lives, but it is essential to American political ideals that all citizens be informed and able to act.

Who Are Americans? Who are Americans? Through the course of American history, politicians, religious leaders, prominent scholars, and ordinary Americans have puzzled over and fought about the answer to this fundamental question. Since the Founding, the American population has gr own from 3. At the time of the F ounding, when the U nited S tates consisted of 13 states along the Eastern Seaboard, 81 percent of Americans counted by the census traced their roots to Europe, mostly England and northern Europe; and nearly 20 percent were of African origin, the v ast majority of whom w ere slaves.

There was also an unkno wn number of N ative Americans, the original inhabitants of the land, not counted b y the census because the go vernment did not consider them Americans.

The first estimates of Native Americans and H ispanics in the mid s showed that each gr oup made up less than 1 percent of the total population. The country now stretched across the continent, and waves of immigrants, mainly from Europe, boosted the population to 76 million. In the United States was predominantly composed of whites of European ancestry, but this number now included many from southern and eastern as well as northern Europe; the black population stood at 12 percent.

Residents who traced their origin to Latin America or Asia each accounted for less than 1 percent of the entire population. By the time this photo of Red Cloud and other Sioux warriors was taken, around , Native Americans made up about 1 percent of the American population. The growing numbers of immigrants fr om southern and eastern Europe who were crowding into American cities spurred heated debates about how long those with United Kingdom and northern European ancestry could dominate.

Much as today, politicians and scholars argued about whether the country could absorb such large numbers of immigrants. Concerns ranged fr om whether their political and social values were compatible with American democracy to whether they would learn English to alarm about the diseases they might bring into the United States. Those worried about new immigrants noted their different religious affiliations as well. The first immigrants to the United States were overwhelmingly Protestant, many of them fleeing religious persecution.

The arrival of G ermans and I rish in the mids began to shift that balance with incr easing numbers of Catholics.

Even so, in four out of five Americans w ere still P rotestants. The large-scale immigration of the early tw entieth century threatened to reduce the proportion of Protestants significantly. Many of the eastern E uropean immigrants pouring into the countr y, especially those fr om R ussia, w ere J ewish; the southern E uropeans, especially the Italians, were Catholic.

A more religiously diverse country challenged the implicit Protestantism embedded in many aspects of American public life. For example, r eligious diversity introduced new conflicts into public schooling as Catholics sought public funding for parochial schools and dissident Protestant sects lobbied to eliminate Bible reading and prayer in the schools. Anxieties about immigration spar ked intense debate.

S hould the numbers of immigrants entering the countr y be limited? S hould restrictions be placed on the types of immigrants to be granted entr y?

After World War I, Congr ess responded to the fears swirling ar ound immigration with ne w laws that sharply limited the number who could enter the countr y each year. This diversity and the changes in the population have frequently raised challenging questions in American politics.

It did not include Native Americans or other groups. The census did not count Hispanic Americans. In , the U. Census Bureau estimated that the population of the South and the West continued to grow more rapidly than the Northeast and Midwest. What are some of the political implications of this trend? Today, Americans over age 37 outnumber Americans under 37—and older adults are more likely to participate in the political process.

What do you think this means for the kinds of issues and policies taken up by the government? Today, individuals hoping to immigrate to the United States often apply for a visa at the U.

Customs and Border Protection checks their identity and legal status. The new system set up a hierar chy of admissions: nor thern European countries received generous quotas for ne w immigrants, whereas eastern and southern European countries were granted very small quotas.

These restrictions ratcheted down the numbers of immigrants so that b y the foreign-born population in the United States reached an all-time low of 5 percent. The very first census, as just mentioned, did not count Native Americans; in fact, no N ative Americans became citiz ens until Although the Constitution infamously declar ed that each slav e would count as three-fifths of a person for purposes of apportioning r epresentation among the states, most people of African descent were not officially citizens until , when the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution conferred citizenship on the freed slaves see Chapter 2.

Over half a century earlier, the federal government had sought to limit the nonwhite population with a law stipulating that only free whites could become naturalized citizens. Not until did Congr ess lift the ban on the naturaliza tion of nonwhites.

In addition to the restrictions on blacks and Native Americans, restrictions applied to Asians. Additional barriers enacted after World War I meant that vir tually no Asians enter ed the country as immigrants until the s. People of Hispanic origin do not fit simply into the American system of racial classification. In , for example, the census counted people of Mexican origin as nonwhite but reversed this decision a decade later—after protests by the Mexican-origin population and the M exican government.

Only in did the census officially begin counting persons of Hispanic origin, noting that they could be any race. One consequence of the shift has been the gr owth in the H ispanic, or Latino, population.

Census figures for sho w that H ispanics, who can be of any race, constitute The black, or African American, population is Non-Hispanic white Americans account for 61 percent of the population—their lowest shar e ever. Moreover, 3. How does that compare with immigration in the twenty-first century? The blurring of racial categories poses challenges to a host of policies—many of them put in place to r emedy past discrimination—that r ely on racial counts of the population. Large-scale immigration means that many more r esidents ar e foreign-born.

I n , By just Estimates put the number of undocumented immigrants at Doe that Texas could not deny funding for undocumented students. Religion The new patterns of immigration combined with differences in birth rates and underlying social changes to alter the r eligious affiliations of Americans. In , 80 per cent of the American adult population was P rotestant; by only 44 per cent of Americans identified themselves as P rotestants.

A small Muslim population had also grown, with nearly 1 percent of the population. One of the most important shifts in r eligious affiliation during the latter half of the twentieth century was the percentage of people who pr ofessed no organized religion: in , 23 per cent of the population was not affiliated with an organized chur ch.

These changes suggest an important shift in American r eligious identity. How does the racial and ethnic diversity of the United States compare to that of other countries around the world?

Racial and ethnic diversity stem not only from immigration but also geography, historical legacies, and whether the government has favored certain groups over others. Many countries in sub-Saharan Africa were colonized by multiple empires, whose governments often drew borders that encompassed multiple ethnic groups in the region. State-building and nationalism are also very new to these regions, meaning that local identities remain stronger than national ones. In contrast many western European and Asian countries have histories of past conflict and strong state-building efforts, resulting in less diversity either by eliminating rival groups or forcibly assimilating them.

More recent waves of immigrants, however, have highlighted potential problems with this policy. What types of values and policies would we expect to see in countries with a high degree of diversity versus those with less diversity? John R. In only 4 per cent of the population was o ver age As life expectancy increased, the number of older Americans grew with it: by , Over the same period, the per centage of children under the age of 18 fell, from The share of the population aged 65 and o ver is 20 per cent in the E uropean Union and 27 per cent in Japan.

As the elderly population gr ows and the wor king-age population shrinks, questions arise about how we will fund programs for the elderly such as Social Security.

Increasing racial and ethnic diversity? Increasing urbanization? Increased economic inequality? Before less than half the population liv ed in urban ar eas; today 82 per cent of Americans do.

The constitutional provision allocating each state two senators, for example, overrepresents sparsely populated rural states and underrepresents urban states, where the population is far more concentrated.

In addition to becoming more urban over time, the American population has shifted regionally. During the past 50 years especially, many Americans left the N ortheast and M idwest and mo ved to the S outh and S outhwest. As congressional seats hav e been r eapportioned to r eflect the population shift, many problems that particularly plague the Midwest and Northeast, such as the decline in manufacturing jobs, receive less attention in national politics. Socioeconomic Status Americans hav e fallen into div erse economic gr oups throughout American history.

For much of Americanhistory most people were relatively poor working people, many of them farmers. By nearly one -quarter of the total annual income w ent to the top 1 per cent of earners; the top 10 percent took home 46 percent of total annual income. After the New Deal in the s, a large middle class took shape and the shar e going to those at the top dr opped sharply. By the top 1 per cent took home only 9 percent of the national annual income.

S ince then, however, economic inequality has once again widened as a tiny group of super-rich has emerged. By the top 1 percent earned Population and Politics The shifting contours of the American people have regu- larly raised challenging questions about our politics and go verning arrangements. The lower graph shows the portion of all income in the United States that goes to each group, with an increasing share going to the richest Americans in recent years.

What are some of the ways that this shift might matter for American politics? Does the growing economic gap between the richest groups and most other Americans conflict with the political value of equality? These changes have sparked controversy over political issues. These conflicts have major implications for the representation of different regions of the country—for the balance of representation between urban and r ural ar eas.

The representation of v arious demographic and political groups may also be affected, as there is substantial evidence of gr owing geographic sorting of citiz ens b y education, income, marriage rates, and par ty v oting.

The different languages and customs that immigrants bring to the U nited States trigger fears among some that the countr y is changing in ways that may undermine American v alues and alter fundamental identities.

The large number of unauthorized immigrants in the country today makes these anxieties even more acute. Yet a changing population has been one of the constants of American histor y. M ost Americans affirm the values of liberty, equality, and democracy. I f Americans shar ed no v alues, they would hav e difficulty communicating, much less agreeing on a common system of government and politics.

However, sharing broad values does not guarantee political consensus. We can agree on principles but disagr ee over their application or ho w they ar e to be balanced. Analyze whether the U. Even though Americans have disagreed over the meaning of such political ideals as equality, they still agree on the importance of those ideals.

The values, beliefs, and attitudes that form our political culture and hold together the United States and its people date back to the time of the founding of the Union.

The essential documents of the American Founding—the D eclaration of Independence and the Constitution—enunciated a set of political principles about the purposes of the new republic. In contrast with many other democracies, in the United States these political ideals did not just r emain words on dusty documents.

Americans actively embraced the principles of the Founders and made them central to the national identity. Let us look mor e closely at thr ee of these ideals: liber ty, equality, and democracy.

For Americans, liberty means both personal fr eedom and economic fr eedom. Both are closely linked to the idea of limited government. I n fact, the wor d liberty has come to mean many of the fr eedoms guaranteed in the Bill of Rights: freedom of speech and writing, the right to assemble fr eely, and the right to practice r eligious beliefs without interference from the government.

Over the course of American history, the scope of personal liberties has expanded as laws have become more tolerant and as individuals have successfully used the courts to challenge restrictions on their individual freedoms. Far fewer restrictions exist today on the press, political speech, and individual moral behavior than in the early years of the nation.

Even so, conflicts persist over how personal liberties should be extended and when personal liberties violate community norms. Designed to limit the pr esence of the homeless and make city str eets more attractive to pedestrians, the ordinances have also been denounced as infringements on individual liberties. The central historical conflict regarding liberty in the United States was about the enslavement of blacks.

The facts of slavery and the differential treatment of the races have cast a long shado w over all of American histor y. In fact, scholars today note that the American definition of freedom has been formed in relation to the concept of slavery. Since the Founding, economic freedom has been linked to capitalism, free markets, and the pr otection of priv ate property.

Laissez-faire capitalism allowed very little room for the national government to regulate trade or restrict the use of private property, even in the public interest. Americans still strongly support capitalism and economic liberty, but they now also endorse some restrictions on economic freedoms to protect the public. Today, federal and state governments deploy a wide array of regulations in the name of public protection.

These include health and safety laws, environmental rules, and workplace regulations. Not surprisingly, fierce disagr eements often er upt o ver what the pr oper scope of government r egulation should be.

What some people r egard as pr otecting the public, others see as an infringement on their o wn freedom to run their businesses and use their pr operty as they see fit. For example, many business leaders opposed the Affordable Care Act, the health care reform legislation informally known as Obamacare, because it required businesses with over 50 employees to provide health coverage for their emplo yees and establishes standar ds about which health ser vices should be covered by the insurance.

In addition, the law required that insurers pay for access to contraceptiv e care. Many businesses, ho wever, opposed the law as unwanted go vernment intr usion. And some businesses strongly denounced the r equirement to cover contraception, in par ticular, as a violation of their fundamental liberties to run their businesses as they see fit. In fact, in a company called Hobby Lobby successfully challenged this provision of the act when the Supreme Court ruled that family firms could be exempted on the basis of religious objections.

The NSA is the agency charged with protecting the United States by monitoring electronic data flows— including radio, email, and cellular telephone calls—for foreign threats. The leaked documents revealed that the American go vernment was listening in on the priv ate communications of for eign go vernments, including many American allies, such as G ermany and B razil.

The revelation that the NSA had been collecting this information for three years without public knowledge set off a storm of controversy since the NSA is supposed to monitor foreign communications, not track Americans. However, a new court order to Apple related to an iPhone used in a drug conspiracy case made it clear that the tension between privacy and security will continue.

On the one hand, w e tr easure liber ty; but on the other hand, w e r ecognize that the liv es of thousands of Americans have already been lost and countless others ar e threatened by terrorism. Can we reconcile liberty and security? Liberty and order? In previous national emergencies, Americans accepted r estrictions on liber ty with the under standing that these would be temporary. Few Americans have wholeheartedly embraced the ideal of full equality of results, but most Americans share the ideal of equality of opportunity—that is, the notion that each person should be giv en a fair chance to go as far as his or her talents will allo w.

Yet it is hard for Americans to reach agreement on what constitutes equality of oppor tunity. Should inequalities in the legal, political, and economic spheres be given the same weight? In contrast to liberty, which requires limits on the role of government, equality implies an obligation of the government to the people.

Political equality means that members of the American politi cal community hav e the right to par ticipate in politics on equal terms. Although considerable conflict remains over whether the political system makes participation in it harder for some people and easier for others and whether the role of money in politics has drowned out the public voice, Americans agree that all citizens should have an equal right to participate and that government should enforce that right.

In par t because Americans believ e that individuals ar e free to wor k as har d as they choose, they have always been less concerned about social or economic inequality. Many Americans regard economic differences as the consequence of individual choices, virtues, or failur es.

Because of this, Americans tend to be less suppor tive than most Europeans of government action to ensure economic equality. One area of debate is in education. Data from www. Even then, however, they have endorsed only a limited government role designed to help people get back on their feet or to open up opportunity.

Because equality is such an elusive concept, many conflicts have arisen over what it should mean in practice. Americans hav e engaged in three kinds of controversies about the public role in addressing inequality. The first is determining what constitutes equality of access to public institutions. I n the Supreme Court ruled in Plessy v.

S ome argue that the unequal financing of public schools in cities, suburbs, and rural districts is a violation of the right to equal education. To date, these claims hav e not been supported by the federal courts, which have rejected the notion that the unequal economic impacts of public policy outcomes are a constitutional matter, leaving the issue to the states. Although Americans generally agr ee that discrimination should not be tolerated, people disagree over what should be done to ensure equality of opportunity see Table 1.

Supporters of affirmative action claim that such programs are necessary to compensate for past discrimination in order to establish true equality of opportunity today. Opponents maintain that affirmative action amounts to r everse discrimination and that a society that espouses tr ue equality should not ackno wledge gender or racial differences. The question of the public responsibility for private inequalities is central to gender issues. In November fast food workers in hundreds of cities around the country went on strike to rally for higher pay and the right to unionize.

How do these survey results reflect disagreement about what equality means in practice? See endnote 47 for specific reports. In this perspective, the challenges women face in the labor force due to family responsibilities fall outside the range of public concern. I n the past 30 years especially, these traditional views have come under fire as advocates for women have argued that private inequalities are a topic of public concern. Unlike in other countries, income inequality has not been an enduring topic of political controversy in the United States, which currently has the largest gap in income and wealth betw een rich and poor citiz ens of any dev eloped nation.

Americans hav e generally tolerated great differences among rich and poor citizens, in part because of a pervasive belief that mobility is possible and that economic success is the pr oduct of individual effort. Many politicians and news commentators say that inequality is threatening the middle class. Is there any evidence that the American public is worried about the growth in inequality?

During the presidential race, Democratic candidates Hillary Clinton and B ernie S anders discussed economic inequality , as did R epublican candidates such as D onald Trump and M arco Rubio, although their pr oposed solutions dif fered. Public opinion polls revealed concerns about inequality as well.

In twothirds of Americans said the distribution of wealth and money is not fair and should be more evenly distributed; in , 63 per cent of Americans said upper -income people pay too little in taxes, and 67 percent said corporations pay too little. In a democracy, political power ultimately comes from the people. The idea of placing power in the hands of the people is known as popular sovereignty.

In the United States, popular sovereignty and political equality make politicians accountable to the people. I deally, democracy envisions an engaged citiz enry prepared to ex ercise its po wer over rulers. As we noted earlier, the United States is a representative democracy, meaning that the people do not r ule directly but instead ex ercise power through elected r epresentatives. Forms of participation in a democracy vary greatly, but voting is a key element of the representative democracy that the American Founders established.

American democracy r ests on the principle of majority rule with minority rights. Majority rule means that the wishes of the majority determine what go vernment does.

The House of Representatives—a large body elected directly by the people— was designed in par ticular to ensur e majority r ule. Concern for individual rights has thus been a part of American democracy fr om the beginning. The rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights and enfor ced through the courts provide an important check on the power of the majority. The first is the restricted definition of the political community during much of American history.

Property restrictions on the right to vote were eliminated by ; in the Fifteenth Amendment to the Constitution granted African Americans the v ote, although later ex clusionary practices denied them that right; in the N ineteenth Amendment guaranteed women the right to vote; and in the Voting Rights Act finally secured the right of African Americans to vote.

The Twenty-Sixth Amendment, ratified in during the Vietnam War, gave to year-olds the right to vote. Just securing the right to vote does not end concerns about democracy, however. The organization of electoral institutions can have a significant impact on access to elections and on who can get elected. During the first two decades of the twentieth century, states and cities enacted many reforms, including strict registration requirements and scheduling of elections, that made it har der to v ote.

The aim was to rid politics of corr uption, but the consequence was to r educe participation. More r ecently, v oter ID laws r equiring go vernment identification to register or to vote have been enacted for similar reasons and with similar consequences.

A fur ther consideration about democracy concerns the r elationship betw een economic power and political power. Money has always played an important role in elections and go verning in the U nited S tates. M any argue that the per vasive influence of money in American electoral campaigns and lobbying activities today undermines democracy.

With the decline of locally based political parties that depend on party loyalists to turn out the v ote and the rise of political action com mittees, political consultants, and expensiv e media campaigns, money has become the central fact of life in American politics.

M oney often determines who r uns for office; it can exert a heavy influence on who wins; and some argue that it affects what politicians do once they are in office.

The widespread interest in the election and the near -record levels of v oter turnout, which, at While levels of participation in politics are relatively low for young Americans, the presidential primary campaigns of and saw the highest levels of youth turnout—to volunteer and to vote— in decades. What factors might have energized young people to become involved in these particular campaigns?

What Americans Think about Government Since the U nited S tates was estab lished as a nation, Americans hav e been reluctant to grant government too much po wer, and they hav e often been suspicious of politicians. These sites are just one way in which the government serves its citizens. Congr ess passed legislation that br ought the go vernment into the businesses of home mor tgages, farm mor tgages, cr edit, and r elief of personal distr ess. M ore r ecently, when the economy threatened to fall into a deep r ecession in and , the federal government took action to shor e up the financial system, oversee the restructuring of the ailing auto companies, and inject hundr eds of billions of dollars into the faltering economy.

In federal go vernment funds helped fight wildfires in the American West and provide hurricane relief in Texas and Florida. Today the national government is enormous, with programs and policies reaching into every corner of American life. Americans use government services, benefits, and infrastructure every day and ar e simultaneously skeptical about the r ole of go vernment in society. We might consider these contradictory feelings and low government trust additional aspects of contemporary American political culture.

When asked questions about the role of government in general, the majority of Americans give answers on the conservative side of the political spectrum.