As the introduction to the case makes clear, the roles of the stakeholders in deciding a course of action, their relationships with one another, and the various historical and political issues exerting influence over their decisions were “hardly neat or clear cut” (p. 203). Beyond the failure to identify their respective roles and responsibilities, the numerous parties who participated in the planning and implementation of this decision also overstepped boundaries and committed ethical violations that contributed to an ongoing public administration dilemma with serious repercussions. While understanding the nuances of this case will not solve the present crisis, its lessons may help prevent future public administration disasters.

First, it is important to understand who, exactly, the stakeholders were. In addition to the members of the executive branch of the federal government, military officials, national intelligence agencies, foreign service officers, and international organizations including the United Nations all had an opinion and a role to play in the planning and implementation of the decision to go to war. It is important to point out that there were significant differences of opinion and degrees of influence among these disparate groups, and even within the groups themselves. While many of President Bush’s Cabinet members were hawkish and eager for war, others were cautious and openly advised the President against a declaration. The reasons for their divergent opinions were as diverse as the number of stakeholders themselves, but those who advocated an active and aggressive policy against Iraq all had ties, in one way or another, to the first Bush administration, and they argued that “the decision not to remove Saddam Hussein [in the early 1990s] was a profound mistake” (p. 204). The hawks did not want to make the same “mistake” twice.

On the other side were those stakeholders who advocated a more cautious and studied approach. Many did not understand why the President conflated the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 with a renewed pursuit of Saddam Hussein; their puzzlement was compounded when a United Nations’ inspection team found no evidence of weapons of mass destruction, which was another way that Bush and his supporters attempted to justify the war. Among those opposed to attacking Iraq were Colin Powell and a number of other high-ranking military officials and intelligence analysts who had found little tangible evidence that could support the administration’s claims against Iraq. Nonetheless, with the support of yet another group of stakeholders, the members of Congress, a war resolution was passed. Democrats who might otherwise have been opposed to the war, and many of whom are now renouncing their support of the resolution, nonetheless voted in favor of the war because of their “fear that a negative vote could be used against them in the upcoming elections” (p. 206).

Those stakeholders who were most intimately involved in the implementation and execution of the plan to go to war exhibited clouded judgment and questionable ethics throughout both processes. The President himself did not announce the war plan to the American public until four months after the decision was made. Once the announcement went public, the rhetoric used to build up and justify the war was astonishingly effective; Pfiffner reports that the results of a Time/CNN poll indicated that 78% of the respondents believed that Saddam Hussein had been involved in the 2001 terrorist attacks. Even when the evidence of two independent investigation teams substantiated that Iraq had neither been involved in the terrorist attacks nor had weapons of mass destruction, the administration did not retract its claims. Similarly, when the CIA produced an administration-requested intelligence report on the threat level posed by Iraq, the Vice-President and his advisers repeatedly pressured analysts to change both their data and their conclusions in order to support the administration’s position. When the analysts refused to do so, Secretary Rumsfeld created an Office of Special Plans to circumvent the established institutions of intelligence.

While all of these ethical matters are troubling, the administration made other serious blunders. Rushing into war, there was a failure to plan for the impact of the invasion upon the infrastructure and psyche of the Iraqi people. Bombing and the widespread looting that followed it caused certain utilities and services to be severely compromised; in addition, ancient cultural treasures were lost, some forever. As those who opposed the war resolution predicted, there were three significant outcomes of the war decision: (1) resources, both human and economic, from the “real” war on terrorism were diverted to fight the war in Iraq; (2) other nations in the Middle East and throughout the rest of the world were alienated by the hostile U.S. foreign policy; and, (3) a backlash of extremism was spawned in the Middle East. All of these outcomes might have been avoided had another set of alternatives been identified and pursued.

As Pfiffner explains the background to the current war in Iraq, public administrators only
identified two possible policies; one was a disengaged diplomacy, while the other was an aggressive, all-out war. Perhaps, though, there might have been other alternatives that were never considered. The most responsible course of administrative action was never taken because the administration rushed into its decision. It would have been more prudent to have directed concentrated resources and efforts to fighting the war in Afghanistan and then, later, if necessary, addressing Iraq. All of the available evidence suggests that despite the human rights abuses Hussein perpetrated against his own citizens, the threat posed by Iraq to the United States was exaggerated, and there was no clear reason to fight two wars simultaneously.

Those in the positions of decision-making power, however, were acting too quickly based on historical motives. Advocates of Bush’s plan wanted to finish what his father had started more than ten years earlier. Indeed, many of the younger Bush’s advisers had been in the elder Bush’s inner circle, which raises ethical concerns about what is identified as the key issue in Pfiffner’s case study: “the vital role political appointees play… both in setting policy and in carrying it out” (p. 202). Clearly, there were numerous conflicts of interest at play in the decision to initiate a war against Iraq. Rather than rely upon the studied assessments of professionals and experts, however, the administration made a grave decision with high-stakes domestic and international consequences by relying upon its own emotions and motivations.
At present, the future of the ongoing war is in question, with members of Congress debating whether they will approve additional funding and troops to fight a war that is being compared to Vietnam with increasing frequency (Raum, 2007). It is unlikely that the President will learn any important lessons from an analysis such as Pfiffner’s; indeed, the President still believes the war in Iraq to be justified (Watson, 2007). Nonetheless, it is possible, if one can set his or her politics aside, to glean some insights into the public administration process, for Pfiffner’s case study of the war on Iraq is a study on the opportunities and dangers of governmental and organizational decision making in general. No one would argue that the job of making such significant decisions is an easy one. However, with a clearly articulated set of principles, values, and measures for planning, implementing, and evaluating outcomes, it is possible to make the process of making serious decisions, if not easier, then at least more transparent to all of the people that the decision will affect (Denhardt, 2003).

As a public administrator, it is crucial to recognize that one’s decisions affect a large number and a wide range of individuals, and the decisions made can literally mean the difference between life and death. In a democracy, the citizens entrust their individual decision-making powers to a representative body, and there is the assumption that decisions will be arrived at by thoughtful, deliberate processes with the intention of advancing national interests. In the case of the war on Iraq, such a contract of trust was broken. There were other options available to President Bush and his war-favoring advisers. A more effective administrator would have seen that one viable alternative would have been waiting to take action in Iraq until more evidence was gathered and until the war in Afghanistan had been completed. There were no real time constraints pressuring the decision makers, other than the imaginary timeframe they imposed upon the decision and its implementation. This alternative was not chosen, however, because it did not fit the underlying motives of the most powerful decision-makers. The ethical sequelae were severe, and the nation, as well as the world at large, will be dealing with the consequences of the decision for many years to come.

Related Articles

Bush, Working Class Violations, and National PTSD: An Assessment of the Bush Administration through The Grand New Party and Right On

Bush, Machiavelli, and the Economization of Violence

The Current State of the International Arms Trade: Historical and Political Considerations

The Effects of War on Women Worldwide

References
Denhardt, R.B. (2003). Theories of public organization. Pacific Grove, CA: Wadsworth
Publishers.
Pfiffner, J. ( ).
Raum, T. (2007, January 28). Iraq War still being compared to Vietnam, as the war in Iraq
drags on, comparisons with the war in Vietnam grow. CBS News. Retrieved on
February 10, 2007, from http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/01/25/ap/politics/ main D8MSEFVG0. shtml.
Watson, I. (2007, January 23). Bush set to focus on home front. BBC News. Retrieved on
February 10, 2007, from http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6290927.stm.

The main cause is that the justice system in America is, by nature of its institutionalized policies that implicitly target the poor and minority groups (who are often in both categorizes due to other, larger social inequities) unfair and based upon biased sentencing practices. More generally, because of an unbalanced and, as many argue, unnecessary set of mandatory imprisonment policies for non-violent drug-related crimes, the population across racial groups remain high. To begin to correct this problem, drug sentencing issues need to be examined thoroughly, mandatory sentences for certain drug crimes need to be abolished, and treatment/rehabilitation efforts need to be favored over imprisonment as often as possible—assuming the crime is non-violent. If these three conditions for prison reform are met, the population currently in prison will be drastically reduced and more importantly, the minority prison population will dwindle.

This is because of the high numbers of African Americans and Latinos already in prison who are there only for non-violent drug offenses. As an African American himself, as well as a Democrat, Obama has clear objectives to address all three issues noted as critical for reform. Based on some of his public statements, he clearly recognizes the racist underpinnings of current drug laws in particular and aims to overturn them and create a new paradigm. However, it might be a fallacy to think that these are Obama’s aims just because he is black, just as it would be fallacy to think that because there is a black president in office for the first time in history, race issues are going to automatically be addressed. Despite our election of a black president by popular vote, this is not a “post-race” America by any means. While Obama has clear objectives in addressing the tied issues of race, poverty, and prisons, the system is far too ingrained from the bottom up for change provided one man. He offers great promise, but just because he is an African American will have little bearing on the issue outside of party-accepted changes he proposes.

Drug crimes seem to be at the center of the matter of high minority and poor inmates as current sentencing seems to be most racially motivated, however the problem of prisons being loaded to the maximum capacity is in itself worth addressing. Before beginning any discussion on the intersection of race, the prison system, and the future of this combination of historically opposed elements within a presidency led by a member of a minority population, it first best to address the striking statistical data to give appropriate weight to the issue. Currently, “there are 2.3 million prisoners in the United States today, almost one and a half times the number in China, whose population is four times greater. Our incarceration rate is six times the median of all nations, and we imprison people for a much wider range of offenses and for longer sentences. Of our prisoners, the vast majority are black and Latino.” (Williams, 2008, p. 9). Statistics about the racial composition of the prison population as well as about how large the population of American penal institutions is more generally abound, with the key ideas being that prisons reflect a society that still, despite the election of a black president and notable advances in civil rights, has major problems. Furthermore, statistics often note how Americans seem far fonder of imprisonment than most other nations with similar societies and economies. “One adult in every 100 is currently in prison…The annual budget for U.S. prisons come to $50 billion. The situation is particularly bad among young black males; about 11 percent of young black men are in prison” (Rees-Mog, 2008). Rees-Mog also notes, as do most other public policy resources, that most of the prison population has been jailed for drug offenses and non-violent crimes. A statement from a Washington Post reporter given to the House of Representatives states that, given the figures on high rates of Blacks and Latinos in the prison complex today, “Many of today’s crime control policies fundamentally impede the economic, political and social advancement of the most disadvantaged blacks and members of other minority groups. Prison leaves them less likely to find gainful employment, vote, participate in other civic activities and maintain ties with their families and communities” (Gottschalk, 2008, p. A15).

This racial dimension of the current incarcerated population is an important issue facing society, although one that has been mostly overlooked by previous presidents. Clinton had numerous complaints about the prison industrial complex and upon his election, had numerous ideas about how to reform and reduce the high numbers of inmates (regardless of race) but all in all, little was done and the problem continues. The problem itself is not merely that we have such prison population which is dramatically higher than other Western nations, the problem is that there seems to be an element of institutional racism that is related to sentencing and related issues, not that there is some determinism involved where blacks and Latinos are more profuse criminals. Obama has an avowed mission to address the high prison population and does seem to recognize that the problem is one of structural inequality. While his website does not cite racial issues as being involved, in numerous speeches, especially those given to the NAACP his feelings about black crime are expressed as anger, but certainly not at the black community itself. While he does note that black crime is a problem, he sees unequal and disparate sentencing guidelines that can be arbitrarily applied (thus open to the possibility of a race-based discretion of judges) as an equal, if not larger part of the problem (change.gov, 2008). Additionally, he advocates that drug crimes should not carry mandatory sentences of any kind and that it is due to such non-violent offenses that the prison population is so high. Without expressly stating that part of his motivation behind it is due to what he sees as a racial/structural inequality issue, this suggestion has been offered in speeches, although generally only those given to African-American audiences—most notably the NAACP.

In a nutshell, as explained on the website of the president elect (change.gov) Obama and Biden explain their positions on issues of prison reform future legislative measures rather broadly. While this issue is not given significant focus, most likely due to the economic crisis and the “pushing back” effect this has had on critical matters of social policy, they do see reform as an important goal in their administration. Their “three-pronged” approach to prison reform includes elements that are aimed at aiding ex-prisoners but more importantly at this point, at correcting some problems that are leading to prison overpopulation such as sentencing irregularities and the proposed use of special courts to handle drug-related crimes. Obama’s government policy position statement indicates that in terms of sentencing, “the disparity between sentencing crack and power-based cocaine is wrong and should be completely eliminated (change.gov, 2008) and furthermore that it would be most effective to provide “first-time, non-violent [drug] offenders a chance to serve their sentence, where appropriate, in the type of drug rehabilitation programs that have been proven to work better than a prison term in changing bad behavior” (change.gov, 2008). The third aspect of their stated prison policy is to provide various prisoner rehabilitation programs, which include a prison-to-work program—all with the end goal of preventing repeat offenses. His focus on rehabilitation and changes in sentencing guidelines seeks to change prisons from the bottom up and prevent new inmates from being added by providing them with more options once they are released.

One of the most important proposals Obama puts forth is through his suggestion of having special “drug courts” that only handle cases for non-violent drug offenders. This will help minimize problematic sentencing issues that plague criminal courts and might offer a more focused solution to equalizing the glaring racial issues present, especially in terms of the disparities between crack and cocaine—the same drug—which have dramatically different sentencing and are, as many suggest, inherently racist and classist in nature. Consider the fact that “Although statistics that African Americans account for only 12 percent of all illegal drug use, they make up for 44 percent of all drug arrests” and that furthermore, most of these are for crack, which has a much higher mandatory sentence, and marijuana, which many argue should be legalized as it is far less dangerous and addictive. Furthermore, according to a 2007 report by law.jrank.org, 2007, “In 1993, the Bureau of Justice Statistics in the Justice Department concluded that blacks are jailed longer than whites for drug offenses. The bureau explained that ‘the main reasons that African Americans’ sentences were longer than whites’ … was that 83 percent of all federal offenders convicted of trafficking in crack cocaine in guideline cases were black, and the average sentence imposed for crack trafficking was twice as long as for trafficking in powdered cocaine” (2007). Some have made a compelling and well-supported argument that the tougher sentences for crack-cocaine versus its far more expensive and “glamorous” powdered counterpart is in itself racist. While Obama knows better than to clarify his policies expressly by making a controversial claim such as “black people use crack more than whites, thus my policy recommendation” this is exactly what seems to underlie this mission. There are multiple data sources that support the claim that blacks and other minority groups are more often arrested for crack cocaine (Mahan, 1994) and furthermore, since crack-cocaine is dramatically less expensive than crack, it is associated with poverty. In other words, prisons punish more heavily the use of the same drug by means of its price to buy, which thereby in itself discriminates against minorities and the poor. Through his policies, Obama is, on the outside just talking about matters of drug policy and its punitive measures, but really, he is recognizing the deep racist motivations that underlie such problems in American prisons. He sees how the poor and minorities (again, an often dual-categorized group in the context of a prison population) are victimized at a far greater rate than whites who commit drug offenses (as they can, in the case of cocaine, afford the powdered form, for instance) and seeks to correct the issue through these reforms.

Although the black community has reason to celebrate, as do all Americans who feel that personality and policy has triumphed over race with Obama’s recent election, several commentators from all backgrounds have noted that just because president elect Obama is a black president does not automatically mean, by proxy, that he will take specific care of racial issues as a top priority. In fact, one can expect that as his presidency wears on and the “honeymoon” many Obama supporters are still on is over, there will be some tough questions he face specifically on his lack of too-enthusiastic provisioning for black-only or racial issues. Even when he was first poised to become one of the few African Americans in the Senate, Obama faced tough words from black activist groups who felt that he was not doing enough for his own race’s advancement. One commentator from a small news outlet reported far before Obama was even a presidential candidate and had just won a seat in the senate that this presented “undeniable progress but it also worth noting that many of Obama’s policy positions do not mesh with the large majorities of the Black voting populace” (Armstrong 2004) and goes on to note in question form, “Is reflexively voting for someone who does not share your value system really progress?” (Armstrong, 2004). The an article from The Nation, Williams weighs the validity of the statements of whether we are living in a “post race” or “post civil rights” but in the face of mass inequity such as that which exists within our prison system, suggesting we’ve “transcended race” simply by our election of a black president is optimistic, perhaps even in a way that is harmful. The country must avoid thinking about Obama in terms of race and not expect him to make decisions based on his own racial alliances. The election of President-elect Obama is an unprecedented historical event, but it is occurring at a time of great economic unrest. It will be easy for Obama at the beginning of his presidency to avoid ruffling the many feathers his prison and drug-crime policy recommendations certainly will as he will be expected to focus on the pressing issues at hand. When he does bring up these issues, however, there will be great backlash as many, especially Conservatives, will see him as tolerating drug crime. It will be difficult for him to bring up in a public policy debate too that the reason why these issues are important and come out and say it is to even the playing field for drug crimes and help take down the high numbers of minorities in prisons.

All positive feelings aside about the progress made in terms of race in American through the election of a black president, just because he is an African American and poised to bring about great change, especially in the prison reform and drug sentencing context discussed here, he is up against a great force. America’s War on Drugs is serious and long-standing business and changing it by suggesting going what many will see as “easier” on those who deal and use drugs will put him up for a great deal of criticism—perhaps even within his own party. The war on drugs is in itself an American institution and changing its course will be a difficult, if not impossible task for only one presidential term. Obama has positive ideas about reducing prison populations, especially in their minority and class disparities, but it is a long, although much-needed path he will pave.

Related Articles

The Importance of Social Research

Case Studies in Social Deviance : Deviant Behavior in Societal Context

The Criminal Justice System : Police Harassment

Race Cycles Model and Racial Democracy

Race, Class, and Structural Inequality in Post-Katrina New Orleans

References

Armstong, W. (2004). Is this progress? New York Amsterdam News, 95(37), 8-8.

Gottschalk, Michelle (2008, April). Two separate societies: one in prison, one not. Retrieved December 9, 2008, from Washington Post Web site: http://www.house.gov/scott/pdf/wapo_twosepsoc_080415.pdf.

Mahan, Sue. 1996. Crack Cocaine, Crime, and Women: Legal, Social, and Treatment Issues. Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage Publications.
Rees-Mog, William (2008, March 3). Can Obama break their prison bars? : a symbol of hope for young blacks. The Times U.K., Retrieved December 8. 2008, from http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/william_rees_mogg/article3471216.ece.

Obama, Barak (2008, November 30). The Office of the President Elect. Retrieved December 9, 2008, from Civil Rights Agenda: Plans to Strengthen Civil Rights Web site: http://change.gov/agenda/civil_rights_agenda/

Williams, P. J. (2008). Let Them Eat Waffles. Nation, 286(19), 9-9.

While the main goal of the following discussion about illegal immigration is concerned with revealing the ways illegal immigrants enter the United States, the underlying concern rests also with the notion that there are thousands who put their lives at risk to come to the United States. Those who are desperate enough to try to come into the United States illegally obviously have compelling reasons to do so and in order to best explore such causes, motivating factors will be given considered. Finally, a conclusive element to the following discussion about illegal immigration will touch on policy and the future of immigration in the United States and will reflect on the issues of risk, reasons driving migration, and how the United States is prepared to handle this issue as it continues.

One of the first thoughts that come to mind when someone mentions the topic of illegal immigration into the United States is the entry through the U.S. and Mexico border. This most prominent relationship many make to illegal immigrations exists because the vast majority of illegal immigrants already in the country are those of Mexican nationality. According to data from 2008, “an estimated 600,000 illegal immigrants enter the United States each year, the vast majority along the border with Mexico” (Gathmann 1927). Undocumented workers and residents who are here illegally come from many other countries and find entry into the United States in much different ways. In addition to crossing the border by being smuggled in or otherwise sneaking across the border, there are a few less dangerous modes of entrance into the United States, at least physically. The majority of other illegal immigrants remain in the country after the legal period for their stay has passed—something that happens most frequently with foreign students (Edmonston 21) and another way is by visiting the country as a tourist but never leaving or attempting to gain official citizenship. While these processes of illegal entrance into the United States all come with risks of deportation, the most pressing issue surrounding many contemporary debates about illegal immigration concerns those who are willing to risk their lives to get into the United States and who come at great peril.

The U.S. and Mexico border is one of the most dangerous and risky crossing zones in the United States due to the harsh conditions of the dry desert and the long fence that seals it off from the border of the United States. Estimates concerning the number of deaths that occur due the extreme heat of the day in this region are quite inconsistent and difficult to find with any regularity in the projected numbers (Edmonston 107). Still, it is known that many Mexicans succumb to the heat and lack of water during their trip and that at night, the temperatures can drop below freezing in the very same area. Mexican citizens with enough money and who are female, have children along with them, or are otherwise unwilling or unable to make the dangerous trek across the desert often hire smugglers at great cost to get them through border security and in the United States. These smugglers pack as many immigrants into one small space as possible at one time to make their risk worth it and this is also a leading cause of death among illegal immigrants crossing the border. There are many things that can go wrong when being smuggled and there have been reports throughout the years of car crashes in which immigrants were found dead in mangled vans and other reports of smuggled immigrants suffocating due to a lack of oxygen in their containers. This is indeed one of the riskiest journeys, but is not the only dangerous physical border crossing.

In addition to the border with Mexico and the high risks involved with illegal border crossing there, other countries contribute vastly to the population of illegal immigrants in the United States. “Two Caribbean countries, Cuba and the Dominican Republic, today stand as among the top ten countries of origin of foreign-born residents of the United States. The U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) estimates that 105,000 Haitians, 75,000 Dominicans, and 50,000 Jamaicans reside in the United States without legal authorization” (Haines 273). While Haines and other scholars note that of illegal immigrants from non-European nations, those from Caribbean nations are more likely to have stayed over working Visas, there are still a large number who cross into port cities such as Miami, Florida on small and dangerous boats, some of which are handmade and not seaworthy. “In one case, forty Dominicans died as their vessel was flooded and captains familiar with illegal immigration routes talk of human bones littering the shoals and inlets between the Dominican Republic and Puerto Rico and the United States” (Haines 350).
While those illegal immigrants who overstay their Visas or continue to live in the country after their legal ability to do so has expired face possible short jail time and oftentimes certain deportation, this is a much less risky form of illegal immigration. The most deadly and personally risky efforts to enter the United States illegally involve physical attempts to cross into borders. “Subsequent to U.S. Border Patrol efforts to control illegal immigration throughout the 1990s, concern arose over an apparent increase in deaths of illegal migrants as they began to take more treacherous routes to enter the United States” (Guerette 245). These deaths continue, especially now as immigration, particularly as it exists in Texas, Arizona, California, and other border states grows even more strict.

In all of the policy-making and large amounts of funding that goes into erecting physical border markers and deterrents that prevent illegal immigration, the one element is ignored is the reasoning behind such great personal risks simply to move to another country. It has been suggested that “The numerous deaths of immigrants are ostensibly by-products of the inability of administrators to understand the complexity of economic destabilization that forces people to migrate across barren deserts” (Bejarano 269). As it stands, economic reasons are one of the main reasons cited by most scholars for why those, especially from Latin American nations, risk their lives. They are often coming to the United States to work in unskilled labor positions for minimum (or under) wage. This is because the economy of Mexico is so disproportionate to that of its northern neighbor that for one Mexican illegal immigrant to make it, get a job, and work for week—the same amount of money for the same amount work could take almost six months to generate in Mexico (Bejarano 271). In short, the main motivator is simple economic need. While social and political freedoms are also a reason cited by illegal immigrants who enter because they are oppressed in their home country and are seeking relative freedom from polical or social persecution, this is not the majority of reasons cited, although is certainly worth noting.

Some whom have argued against current policies in the United States suggest that the only way to prevent deaths incurred during illegal crossing is “through liberalization of immigration policy and relaxing of border security” (Guerette 246) but that this is becoming more impossible because of still-heightened concerns following the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2006. There needs to be more agreement on a balanced solution that integrates notions of national security with basic human compassion but with two sides that are so diametrically opposed to one another, this seems impossible. Until greater awareness of how risk and reason are related and drive so many to undergo perilous journeys for reasons most Americans have a difficult time relating to, the current situation of thousands dying in boats or in deserts will continue just as others will be deported.

Related Articles

The Importance of Social Research

An Analysis of Common Opinions on Illegal Immigration in the United States

Bush, Working Class Violations, and National PTSD: An Assessment of the Bush Administration through The Grand New Party and Right On

References

Bejarano, Cynthia L. “Senseless deaths and holding the line. Criminology 6.2 (2007), 267-274.

Edmonston, Barry, and National Research Council (U.S.). Committee on National Statistics, National Research Council (U.S.). Committee on Population. Statistics on U.S. Immigration: An Assessment of Data Needs for Future Research. Washington D.C.: National Academies Press, 1996.

Gathmann, Christina. “Effects of enforcement on illegal markets: Evidence from migrant smuggling along the southwestern border.” Journal of Public Economics 92.10-11 (2008), 1926-1941

Guerette, Rob T. “Immigration policy, border security, and migrant deaths: an impact evaluation of life-saving efforts under the border safety initiative. Criminology & Public Policy [No Volume/Issue] (2007), 245-266.

Haines, David, and Karen Elaine Rosenblum. Illegal Immigration in the United States. New York: Greenwood Publishing, 2005.

The United States has been facing difficulties in its effort to provide health care for all citizens for the past several decades and the problem is expected to become worse in the context of the the global economic crisis. In the midst of the current economic turmoil and in light of decades-long debates, it is becoming clear that the capitalist system is not aligned with the provision of healthcare for all citizens. As it stands, healthcare in America is far more about market competition and rewards rather than promoting equal coverage for all. In short, despite the way capitalism has been touted as the panacea to the world’s ills, it is quickly becoming more associated with inequality now more than ever before as the divides between rich and poor grow more drastic in line with ever-increasing healthcare costs.

Many view America as the place where any dream and ambition could be achieved, which is in part due to the perception that our capitalist system with its healthy market economy promotes well-being and wealth for all. These sentiments seemed especially true after the end of the Cold War, as United States of America improved their positions in the world as the superpower and many became more convinced that confident that capitalism is the best economic system in existence.

We were the first to send men to the moon, we developed the most advance weapon, we have the most millionaires in the world, we were able to win the Cold War and prove the inferiority of the communist model. It seemed that that there was no limit to what America was capable of. However, despite all of the visible signs of progress and advancement, at the same time these great accomplishments were being achieved, America had 47 million people with no access to health care. Oberlander (2008). This same discussion by Oberlander, an associate professor of social medicine and health policy and administration at University of North Carolina, states that “In the face of escalating costs, uneven quality of care, and the growth of the uninsured population, there is broad agreement that the U.S. health care system requires reform (p.781).” Clearly there are large gaps in American development priorities as it seems that the most money is granted to agencies that can promote the image of dominance across several realms while at the same time allowing an issue of vital national importance dwindle.

The debate over healthcare has always been a prominent one during political campaigns, although the issue has been receiving more attention lately as general healthcare cost continue to climb in parallel to lessened ability for many to pay due to job losses and other consequences of the financial downturn. For example, during the presidential campaigns of 2008, Democrats and Republicans offered deeply-felt different views and approaches toward health care reform but little in the way of how they could reach their lofty goals. Still, the issue of healthcare figured prominently in how voters were aligned for the election. For instance, Oberlander (2008) in his interpretation of data from the Kaiser Family Foundation, found that Republican voters are more inclined to support a new health plan that is limited and would cover only some uninsured groups but involve less spending. In short, Republicans wanted a continuation of the same system, although one that was cheaper—a rather difficult deliverable, no matter what kind of political might is behind it. On the other hand, Democratic voters generally supported a major effort to provide insurance for all or nearly all of the uninsured, which is a much more progressive plan but one that would undoubtedly involve a substantial increase in spending. As it stands, the 2008 Democratic presidential candidate is suggesting proposals that “build on existing private and public group insurance with shared responsibility for financing coverage” (Fuchs, 2008, p. 1749) in order to cover the majority of people. Fuchs, who is an economics professor at Stanford University goes on to suggest that “The high cost of care, the large number of uninsured people, and the rapid increase in expenditures year after year have convinced many that our system is a mess…The present impasse must give way to recognition that major change will not be an option much longer, it will be necessary” (p. 1749).

History
There have been many attempts, historically speaking, to implement universal health care policies in the United States, with Medicare being one of the most broad-based and aggressive, especially in the context of more recent movements that lack the necessary bi-partisan and unilateral cohesion necessary to succeed. Medicare is the most influential health program to provide health access to vulnerable part of population and continues to thrive, despite its inability to keep up with the demands of ever-growing costs.
To truly understand what is required for healthcare reform to happen, at least in terms of the critical political function, it is crucial to look back at the creation and implementation of Medicare. After several years in process, President Harry S. Truman officially endorsed national health insurance in 1945, but decided not to move forward with this idea by the end of his administration. It was not until 1961 when President John F. Kennedy recommended that Congress should provide health insurance for the elderly through social security system that greater calls to fully realize Medicare took shape and began to be realized in policy action. Finally, after so many years moving across deks in Washington in many forms, in 1965, President Lyndon B. Johnson signed Medicare and Medicaid into law to provide health care to elderly and poor segment of population. In 1972, individuals with long term disabilities and end-stage renal disease became eligible to Medicare. Hospice benefits were added on a temporary basis in 1982, and became permanent in 1986. The law on outpatient service and home health agencies took effect in 2000. In 2006, Medicare Part D, which provided the all-important outpatient prescription drug benefit became available.
Using Medicare as a case study for the actions that are required for true healthcare reform reveals that it is guaranteed to be a long process that will most likely stretch across presidential terms and different majorities in Congress that have varied aims and goals for such reform. Indeed, it should be noted that Medicare achieved something beneficial and have had been trying to improve more. However, complaints from many unhappy and sick people still exist, and the process of improvement is getting slower and slower. Medicare part A, B, and D covers the basic traditional Medicare benefits, provides partial coverage of prescription drugs and does not cover eyeglasses and hearing aids. Medicaid coverage varies from state to state. Medigap insurance does cover some benefits not covered by Medicare, but the premiums could be high for some people. Medicare advantage plan also covers extra benefits which are not included in Medicare, but choice of providers is restricted. The need for health care reform is continuously increasing. The 1993 proposal by Clinton’s administration could have been a major breakthrough. According to Bukhardt and Nathaniel (2008), it was supposed to provide universal health care access through managed competition, mandated coverage at places of employment, with employers to pay large percentage of premiums, subsidize small business, and federal authorities would be responsible for people who are not covered by employer-based plans”. (p. 391) However, this proposal was defeated.

The problem of unemployment and joblessness in this country is not due to the fact that work week is too long, but rather, it is the result of more complex social, economic and other factors that research in these fields has sought to unravel.

While most people who already hold standard 5-day workweek jobs might be glad to have a shorter workweek, this alone will not solve the issue of unemployment on a larger scale but it is conceivable to think that the benefit of having a shorter work week might influence some to rejoin the workforce, but again, this would not be a panacea to unemployment, even if it does allow certain individuals to find regular employment within a standard workweek.

Joblessness in an issue that is rooted in a more complex framework when one thinks about it widely. For instance, many people who are currently unemployed might be suffering from illnesses, mental and otherwise, that prevent them from working a standard 5-day week. By simply stating that the typical work week would be shortened by one or even two days would not make a difference to those who weren’t working since there are likely very good reasons why they do not seek full-time employment.

Additionally, there is the issue of childcare and family matters, which is another reason why many people do not have regular 5-day per week jobs. Instead of working at a job, there are plenty of people who need to stay at home and take care of their children or elderly family members. Going to work at a job might actually end up being more costly to these people because they would have to find care for these loved ones during the hours they are at work. For these people who take care of family members, it might be reasonable to think that a shortened working week might encourage employment because they would not be expected to commit 40 or more hours of employment per week, which is the expected standard at most places they would work.

In addition to the lessened cost of childcare for those who simply do not work because it is more feasible economically to stay at home and take care of the children or elderly family members, the fact that gasoline is used extensively on a daily basis to get to work, thus taking away from a family’s income might be another issue. For example, if some people worked slightly longer hours for four days per week and on the fifth day were spared having to get in their cars and drive to work, costing anywhere from a small to great amount (sometimes totaling what amounts to one hour of work) this might be more incentive. This is not suggesting that people are simply not working because it’s too expensive to drive to work (at least not at this point, we will see what happens in a few years when gasoline becomes unaffordable) but this might be an added economic advantage to those who very likely have other reasons for staying at home instead of going into the workforce.

In sum, joblessness in this country occurs because people have varying needs that are not, for whatever the reasons might be, suited to a full-time work week. Offering a shorter workweek might sweeten the situation for those who already are employed full time and also might encourage caretakers and other similar individuals to enter the workforce, but it would not solve the problem of joblessness.

Related Articles

The Need for Health Care for All

Industrialization, Social Ferment and Consideration of Socialist Responses

The Policy Response to the Great Depression by Europe

The Importance of Social Research

The scope of China’s influence and the position it stands to assume in international affairs is considerable (Ikenberry, 2008). Ikenberry (2008) points to three particular accomplishments that have strengthened China’s credibility as a superpower. First, he notes, the size of the economy has quadrupled since the latter part of the 1970s and its steady, consistent rise is expected to continue, irrespective of the general downturn in world markets (Ikenberry, 2008).

Second, the world’s other powers are increasingly depending upon China to serve as a site of manufacturing and production, solidifying China’s role as an indispensable actor in world markets (Ikenberry, 2008). Finally, China has maintained an impressive import-export ratio and has amassed a formidable reserve of more than $1 trillion, insulating the country against any sudden and unanticipated threats to the economy (Ikenberry, 2008).

Despite these important accomplishments, the Chinese president is advised to acknowledge and respond to a matter of urgency that may not only undermine the national economy, but which may also erode other nations’ trust and confidence in the country as an equal trade and political partner. China has worked diligently over the past 40 years to gain a respectable position as an influential world actor, but as much of the country’s policies and practices, both domestic and foreign, have matured other crucial policy agendas have been overlooked.

One policy area in need of critical executive attention is the matter of human rights. Given that China was granted accession to the World Trade Organization in 2001 and that the country will be hosting the 2008 Olympics in the capital city, the world’s eyes and expectations are cast towards China, hopeful that the country will prove to be not only a robust leader in trade and economic affairs, but also a trendsetter in human affairs. It is time for the executive powers of the nation to review and revitalize human rights policies, both domestic and foreign, not only as confirmation that China has achieved holistic growth, but also as an assurance that China possesses all of the attributes necessary to become and remain a respectable world power.

Overview of Current Policy Concerns

In the modern era, China has had a number of embarrassing and, world critics would say, egregious, episodes in which human rights violations caused negative attention to be directed towards the Chinese government. Beginning with the intellectual oppression of the Cultural Revolution, the poor handling of the Tiananmen Square protests, ongoing concerns about sovereignty in Tibet, Taiwan, and Hong Kong, and persistent complaints about religious freedoms for groups such as Falun Gong and freedom of speech issues for journalists, activists, and government critics, China has been criticized for “supporting a string of despots, nuclear proliferators, and genocidal regimes, shielding them from international pressure and thus reversing progress on human rights and humanitarian principles,” both within the country’s own borders and in the region, as well as beyond the continent (Klein-Ahlbrandt & Small, 2008, p. 38). At present, the Chinese government is bearing intense scrutiny for its alleged involvement in providing Sudanese rebels with arms in exchange for oil and other natural resources, thereby exacerbating the civil war and genocide in Sudan (Klein-Ahlbrandt & Small, 2008). The provision of arms has only intensified existing concerns about China’s modern human rights history, and it is anticipated that protestors, activists, and other concerned stakeholders will use the Olympic Games as a platform for exposing China’s human rights track record before the world and embarrassing the government into pursuing a new policy agenda. In order to avoid this type of public shaming before an international audience at an event of world importance, President Hu is urged to consider implementing the policy recommendations articulated below.

Policy Recommendations
The sphere of China’s influence is vast. As the most prosperous country in the region, China possesses the resources needed to exert influence and authority over other nations where human rights abuses are rampant, such as Burma. However, the government cannot rightfully exercise this influence until it acknowledges and corrects its own deficiencies (Klein-Ahlbrandt & Small, 2008). For this reason, it is recommended that President Hu implement a three-pronged policy for improving China’s human rights practices and protections, as well as for improving the country’s human rights reputation. The three-pronged policy includes making immediate and highly visible adjustments in China’s involvement in Sudan; taking immediate and highly visible actions to support Tibet’s sovereignty; and to take immediate and highly visible action with Falun Gong. By focusing on these three specific areas, President Hu will be addressing the world’s most acute, persistent, and visible concerns. Furthermore, by making observable and measurable advances in these three areas, the world will gain assurance that China is working on a broader agenda of social change, one that does not stop with addressing the most profound and persistent problems, but one that begins by addressing those problems. The specific recommendations for each area are discussed below.

Change Nature of Involvement in Sudan
As China’s economy has flourished, its interest and ability to engage with other nations as an investor and trade partner has expanded substantially. Although China has a storehouse of natural resources, as its role as the world’s manufacturer has grown and as economic and physical growth has accelerated, the country has become more dependent upon foreign oil; as a result, China has expanded its presence in Latin America and Africa. In exchange for oil, China has provided weapons to rebel forces in Sudan, exacerbating a genocidal crisis and attracting the criticism of other developed nations. China must reevaluate the arms policy and consider withdrawing support through arms, providing other forms of payment for oil. In addition, China must diversify its oil dependencies, relying not only upon Sudan as a source of oil, but also upon Venezuela and other oil-rich nations. In this way, the country not only reduces the likelihood of scandal through association with rebel forces, it also decreases dependency upon a single nation for its needs, thereby averting problems should relations with the oil providing nation sour.

Assess Sovereignty Issues in Tibet
China’s relationship with Tibet has long been a point of contention and criticism in discussions about China’s human rights policies, and the Tibet issue has become the cornerstone of Western activists’ demands for reform. Recognizing that the issue of sovereignty is more complex than activists and critics would like to admit, it is recommended that President Hu take a more active role in reassessing the feasibility of Tibetan sovereignty. One immediate and visible step to take would be to schedule a series of meetings with the Dalai Lama to reestablish diplomatic relations and to open a dialogue about sovereignty and concerns. Should the Tibetan leader and his people vote for sovereignty, the Chinese government must assist the Tibetans with a comprehensive decolonization plan that will take into account political, economic, and social factors. While tangible affirmation of sovereignty need not be implemented immediately, discussions and negotiations with the Dalai Lama would be a good-faith step that would assure the international community of China’s commitment to work towards a peaceable solution.

Provide Vocal Restitution to Falun Gong
As with Tibetan sovereignty, the granting of full religious freedoms is a complex issue that will take time and considerable attention to a wide range of historical and contemporary variables. However, one immediate and visible step that is recommended is for President Hu to meet with Falun Gong leaders and listen to their concerns and requests. By providing this form of “vocal restitution” to Falun Gong adherents, the Chinese government is not endorsing the religion, but it is signaling a willingness to discuss concerns openly and to begin laying the foundation for revision of long-standing policies.

Conclusions
As with any policy process, the decision to address these three prominent and persistent concerns about human rights in China will require a significant investment of time, energy, and genuine commitment on the part of the president and his staff. Yet by initiating discussions and revising policies that have clearly been ineffective for all stakeholders—including the Chinese government, which has attracted intense world scrutiny and approbation—the president will be affirming the fact that China has entered a new era, is fully modernized, and is willing and able to be a full and influential power on the world stage. Conversation is a natural place to begin policy revisions; the development of theory and practice through dialogue and reflection has long been central to this culture (Angle, 2008). A renewal of traditional Chinese and Confucian values that have sustained the country for centuries can be a logical first step for reshaping human rights policy in China (Angle, 2008).

Related Articles

Balanced, Non-Ethnocentric Cross-Cultural Mediation in the Era of Globalization

Cultural Differences Between China’s Northern and Southern Regions

The Path to Prosperity : Economic Development in Hong Kong

Trading Issues of China and the United States

Chinese Clothing Imports

References
Angle, S.C. (2008). Human rights and harmony. Human Rights Quarterly, 30(1), 76-94.
Austin, A.E., & Chapman, D.W. (2002). Higher education in the developing world. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.
Klein-Ahlbrandt, S., & Small, A. (2008). China’s new dictatorship diplomacy. Foreign Affairs, 87(1), 38-56.
Ikenberry, G.J. (2008). The rise of China and the future of the west. Foreign Affairs, 87(1), 23-37.
Layne, C. (2008). China’s challenge to US hegemony. Current History, 107(705), 13-18.

This focus is in part also due to the fact that the Bush administration made radical changes in nearly every political arena and thereby ushered a new and particularly corrosive brand of Republicanism—especially damaging to relationships with working class Americans. The myriad renegade elements of Bush administration policies were inherently misaligned with the overall value set of working class Americans, who were once considered a guaranteed voter base for Republicans. This is also certainly true of those who opposed the election of Bush both the first and second times although for the sake of brevity, it almost goes without saying explicitly that Bush and his policies were considered irresponsible in nearly every aspect—from social, fiscal, legislative, and international angles simultaneously. This analysis suggests that the Bush administration inflicted permanent damage on the American political psyche and the effects have resulted in a sort of national post-traumatic stress disorder.

Symptoms of this post-Bush-era PTSD include a massive shift toward the Democrats, especially from the working class the authors carefully define. Oddly, however, this is the case even though many of the social values this large population holds are not in alignment at all with their new champion. In short, as the authors argue, the success of Democrats is not in the way they appeal to vast elements of the population as in fact, they demonstrate how Democratic ideas are not aligned with the working class to begin with. Instead, they suggest that Democratic success has hinged on the multiple, record-setting failures of the past Republican reign of George W. Bush, which has resulted in unprecedented levels of voter and consumer dissatisfaction. This discussion will continue along these lines and will further explore the theory of Bush-era national PTSD in a massive shift in voter alliances through the primary text of Douthat and Salam with ample support from the collection of analyses provided in Right On: Political Change and Continuity in George W. Bush’s America.

What is most striking about the collection of insights, assessments, and points of analysis into the Bush administration that is expressed in Right On? Political Change and Continuity in George W. Bush’s Amercia is that is provides unique perspectives in terms of contemporary history and more broadly, in that it encompasses the Bush administration’s actions in a more global context. For one thing, the series of essays that are provided in the text are written prior to some of Bush’s most appalling and disengaging (voter-wise) political moves as he was on the verge of his second term at the book’s inception. While it is interesting to read this text from the viewpoint of the “futurist” (since we know the outcome and correctness of the authors’ predictions) for the purposes of the analysis presented here, it is worth noting how Bush’s first term policies were signals to working class and other voters that he may not have had the “average” American’s best interests in heart. Just as importantly, this provides a view of how the Bush administration was perceived outside of the United States and some of less publicized issues about the administration’s handling of international relations is revealed. What emerges from this text, although it is less argumentative in nature as a text and more based on analysis and project, is that there should have been ample “warning” to American voters that problems lay ahead. While the arguments presented in Right On were not consistent enough or vocal enough in providing such a warning that might have been useful if this text was more publicly accessible and promoted more heavily.

As the analysis in this text makes clear on several occasions, the problems that Douthat and Salam saw with the “loyalty over brilliance” paradigm were present from the very beginning of the administration and only continued to worsen in severity and, as the writer of this analysis here suggests, in outright nose-thumbing at the same voting population that propelled this administration into the White House in the first place.

Douthat and Salam’s assessment of the current state of the Republican party and its alignment with working class voters offers a valuable introduction that is critical in understanding some basic definitions the authors freely throw around, including the very term “working class” itself. Whereas this term used to typify those in labor or agricultural jobs and was more aligned with “blue collar” exclusively, at least as far as income association went, this new group of working class voters can be much more intricately defined. The authors suggest that “the working class of today is defined less by income or wealth than by education—by the lack of a college degree and the capital associated with it” (Douthat and Salam 7). Furthermore, they contend that far from being defined by economics solely, this incredibly large segment of the population has its heart fundamental problems that have “as much to do with culture as with economics” (7). This group, which is swelling in numbers, especially as more families need both partners working in order to maintain a basic standard of living is feeling the pinch, particularly as economic conditions sour. They need to feel that they are living in a manner that allows for payment of mortgages and credit card debt, staggering healthcare costs, as well as the newer insertions into the “Sam’s Club” party’s laundry list of worries the almost arbitrary hikes in gas prices and the more distant-than-ever seeming notion of college education for their children—all of these basics in life that were once more affordable and attainable are being slowly stripped away, leaving bare bones behind of once acceptable paychecks. While the blame cannot be placed exclusively on the current Bush administration, there are few ways in which they have helped ease one mounting crisis after another. They have created a situation that is utterly unique in modern political history; one that caused a sea-change in political associations and alignments out what Douthat and Salam endlessly refer to as “insecurities” that are not just economic or political—there are more broadly and meaningfully defined a cultural in nature.

The broader cultural issues at stake include the problems with mounting credit card debt, problems rooted in the globalized economy, including a shift in emphasis from production to knowledge-based sectors, and the rise in illegal immigration that has put the squeeze on unskilled labor positions and has added a new, cultural-based set of fears and insecurities. What the authors of Grand New Party did not anticipate, however, is just how heated these issues would become, even following the election. The credit crisis is worsening and American jobs are being slashed across all sectors and class lines in an effort of national belt-tightening that is quite unprecedented—at least in recent memory. Still, despite these more clear and present concerns that can do nothing but increase in the “fear factor” with the growing crunch, the authors view even more basic, civic cultural notions at the heart of the conflict among this group. The authors contend, quite arguably, that both parties have had a historical misunderstanding of how working class Americans place value and emphasis on cultural and social issues such as the definition of marriage, women’s reproductive rights, life and death issues ranging from stem cell research to the death penalty. What they aim at exploring is just how these hot-button issues for this core constituency can be addressed or, perhaps more insidiously, exploited.

The issue of exploitation of working class Americans and their social values forms part of the lighter critique of the future of the American Republican Party as offered by Philip Davies in Right On: Political Change and Continuity in George W. Bush’s America where the suggestion is made that the evangelical Christian movement, which was enthusiastically endorsed by the born-again president George W. Bush, formed part of the strongest source of support for the Republicans during both elections. In his critique, Davies contends that this social end of the political process was the main thrust behind Bush and his initial success and approval ratings. Following 9/11 where issues of patriotism, god, and country were at their height, it was easy to overlook the burgeoning theocracy and it was not until relatively recently, most notably with the growing economic crisis, that religion and social policy took a backseat. Still, both texts identify the evangelical movement as critical to the presidency of Bush in that it allied him with the core values of working class voters, but by the end of his term with the election of Barak Obama, even those theological principles were not enough to salvage the Republican party. With both critiques in mind, one has to wonder how much the Bush administration, particular in its second bid for the White House, which was only a narrow and highly contested success, did exploit evangelical support. While this is a topic that is guaranteed to ruffle feathers and is not the topic of this analysis per se, it is a notable contribution in examining how Bush first won his position through his advocacy of evangelical principles and continued to cling to some success in the second election, again in part because of these stated values.

After the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, U.S. citizens began to see how liberty, equality, and security could be cast in dynamic opposition with one another, and polis decision making processes were used to justify certain constraints on liberty. The creation of the Homeland Security Department and the subsequent sweeping changes that were made to certain rights and protections that we had historically been guaranteed were rationalized by politicians by saying that the compromises were necessary to ensure American citizens’ security. Without security, it was argued, it would be impossible for Americans to exercise their liberties.

This is but one example of how liberty, equality, and security are played against each other. In my own opinion, I do not believe that there has to be a trade-off; however, such an opinion presumes that each individual takes seriously his or her responsibility to exercise rights and liberties in a manner that is not merely self-serving, but which takes the public and the greater good into consideration also. Sadly, as we well know, this is not always the case; however, I find the alternative to be more dangerous to safety, liberty, and equality, than holding up a high standard of expectations for ourselves as citizens of a democratic nation such as the United States, where all three of these conditions were ensured by the founding fathers.

The polis model of decision making, by contrast, is deliberately more ambiguous. Whereas the rational model of decision making involves a cost-benefit analysis to determine the best course of action, the polis model introduces ambiguity and even indecisiveness or inconclusiveness at every step in the decision making process. The polis model of decision making is characteristic of politicians, public figures, and corporate managers, who intentionally frame problems incompletely, identify goals either partially or articulate one set of goals publicly and another privately, fail to reveal all possible alternatives, and who choose the alternative that will preserve his or her own interests, not necessarily the interests of the larger group.

One pertinent example we can use to understand the difference between the rational decision making process and the polis model is the current war in Iraq and the debate involving troop withdrawal. The Bush administration is definitely using a polis model of decision making to talk and make decisions about the trajectory of the war. First, the administration has partialized the problem of troop withdrawal, looking primarily at the effect that withdrawal would have on Middle East political and social stability, and not looking at some of the more difficult and equally preoccupying problems of troop mental health and the effects of war on families. Second, the administration has identified only two possible goals—withdraw completely or remain in Iraq—which obscures other alternatives. Finally, the administration is clearly pursuing the decision that will satisfy its own goals, not necessarily the needs or greater good of either the Iraqi people or the American people. For these reasons, one can begin to see how a polis decision making model, while common, is problematic and even dangerous.

While there is evidence that makes the free-rider theory compelling, Stone argues that its logic is betrayed by reality because the theory fails to explain the persistence and success of particular interest groups that have organized and which have been cohesive and active in the pursuit of mutual goals for decades. Although he acknowledges that some people will always be free-riding, Stone contends that people are influenced by many sources, and make their decisions based not simply on material gains in the short-term, but based on other intangibles, such as their reputation among family and friends. Among the groups that have had lasting power, Stone cites examples such as environmentalists, anti-nuclear interest groups, pro-life groups, and other special interests. As Stone points out, many of these groups do not offer any particular benefits to their members, but have loyal members who have achieved significant and lasting social change, not only for themselves as individual members, but for society at large. For this reason, Stone finds the free-rider theory inadequate for explaining social participation and collective movements.