Category: Uncategorized

Federalism and the prevalence of its role in our government has been debated since the inception of our country. The start of federalism began with the Federalist Papers written by Hamilton, Madison and Jay. In the Federalist 39 on page 119 and onto 120, Madison insists that the only way to effectively govern is to derive the government from the broad range of people rather than a select group of nobles, however, Madison sets up no guidelines to see that this dynamic is enforced. In the present day, Super PACs and wealthy individuals have the resources to buy votes in Washington with the goal of influencing federal policy and essentially drowning out the general will of the people. Because of this, 63% of people believe their state government is trustworthy and open to citizen input, compared to only 40% who said the same of the federal government. (The Hill). This data would suggest that constituents feel they are better represented in their state as opposed to nationally and thus would prefer state to state policy as opposed to uniform policy nationally. This is not necessarily what the Founders intended. Outlined in the Federalist Papers, Hamilton, Madison and Jay envisioned a union of federal and state governance in which the two were equally trusted and worked in harmony together. 

Often times, the federal government and state governments are at direct odds with each other, leading to different laws varying across the country. Using immigration as an example, I read a paper by the US Immigration Policy Center, and learned how much immigration policy varies from state to state and apparently even from city to city. I think this is a rather inefficient and chaotic system as it lacks a uniformity and allows states to defy the federal government and cities to defy states. However, I believe this seemingly absurd power dynamic is the best system we could realistically achieve. In a perfect world, immigration policy would be the same nationwide. This would be more clear for residents, immigrants and even ICE itself, but no one on either political side would be happy with this as the nationwide immigration policy would be delayed for months if not years due to bipartisan bickering, and would result in a moderate policy as both sides would be forced to make concessions. In this case I believe the status quo is the best representationally, as it allows residents who are impacted by immigration to dictate the terms of how it works where they live. I still believe this is the most realistic system this country could achieve as I would not count on bipartisan cooperation on such a divisive issue.

 Seeing federalism basically holding the country together on immigration may be enough for people to just accept the current system in place, but I want to acknowledge that political parties have abused this system in the past.  A prime example of federalism failing is racial discrimination before the Civil Rights Act. Federalism was used to ensure national policy on the matter was not implemented. In a Washington Post article, author Ilya Somin states, “For many liberals, the ideal of state and local independence was permanently tainted by Southern states’ “massive resistance” to federal attempts to remedy racial discrimination in the 1950s and ’60s. ‘If one disapproves of racism, one should disapprove of federalism,’ political scientist William Riker categorically asserted in 1964.” (Washington Post). Federalism caused an indisputable injustice went on longer than it had to. Some would say this case in an example for why states should have less power over issues closest to them. However, I find that using morality to justify an increase in federal power could set a dangerous precedent for more ambiguous and complicated issues. Take a non-black and white issue like discrimination, and replace it with something more grey, such as abortion or gun control, and political parties with a majority using the guise of a moral high ground to justify the nationalization of a policy becomes dangerous. Values and priorities, like demographics across America are diverse and complex. A 21-year-old student living in California is going to have different views than a 50-year-old farmer in Nebraska, and because of this, the laws in their respective states should reflect the views of the people who live there, not the agenda of the political party that happens to be in power at the time in DC.  

In conclusion, federalism is not exactly working as it was necessarily intended. Citizens trust their state government much more than the federal government, leading to them being less receptive to national policies. Federalism also creates an array of variations from state to state, making it difficult for citizens to know the state of the law. Federalism has also been abused so evil purposes in the past, specifically by Southern states in the 1950’s and 1960’s. However, despite all of the apparent drawbacks, federalism is still the best system that could be put in place. Representationally, it gives the people a voice in their state that is not often seen at the federal level. Allowing people to determine the law in their state is a good thing, because it helps cater to different demographics, priorities and needs. It is far from a perfect system, but a system that needs to continue nonetheless if we are to believe that voters’ voices truly matter.

Manchester, Julia. “Pollsters Say Americans Have More Trust in Local Government than in Federal Government.” TheHill, 18 Oct. 2018, thehill.com/hilltv/what-americas-thinking/412117-pollsters-say-americans-have-more-trust-in-local-government. 

Somin, Ilya. “Perspective | How Liberals Learned to Love Federalism.” The Washington Post, WP Company, 12 July 2019, www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/how-liberals-learned-to-love-federalism/2019/07/12/babd9f52-8c5f-11e9-b162-8f6f41ec3c04_story.html. 

Tom Wong et al. 2019. Fractured Immigration Federalism: How Dissonant Immigration Enforcement Polices Affect Undocumented Immigrants (Links to an external site.). US Immigration Policy Center.

 

 

As mentioned in my previous post, America’s democratic structure is strongest when voters are properly informed on issues the parties differ on. Voters need to properly understand the consequences of their vote to properly contribute their opinion in elections. So, for the majority of elections, where have most voters received their information from? The obvious answer is news organizations like CNN, FOX and MSNBC. While I recognize that social media has recently overtaken traditional news organizations, with 55% of American adults reporting they get their news from social media sites, it should be noted that few of these American adults trust the information they see on social media. For example, only 11% of people think news on social media is accurate or trustworthy (Market Watch). Similarly, 41% of Americans think “mass media”, or TV, print and radio, are accurate or trustworthy (Gallup Poll). Because of this, I will only be focusing on the role of mass media in politics.

There are 3 aspects of the media pertaining to politics that must be considered. Firstly, people primarily watch news organizations that cater to their ideology. This is seen in a Pew Research study that shows 49% of Fox viewers being right-leaning, and 64% of CNN being left-leaning. Secondly, news organizations are business, and thus strive to generate revenue through amassing a broad, consistent viewership. Thirdly, the media should ideally provide the public with high quality information in order for voters to create informed decisions. All three of these aspects are inherently at odds with each other, and as a result, news organizations profit from dividing voters and worsening the already rampart partisanship present in the political climate.  

People will seek out news organizations to stay informed on issues and developments nationwide no matter what, but what keeps viewers returning is hearing or reading their ideology defended and expressed. This is because of the confirmation bias, or the tendency to seek out platforms that share the same ideology as the viewer. Because people will generally seek out information that appeals to them, a moderate, bipartisan news organization will not be profitable, as politics is subjective and not black and white. A bipartisan news organization risks not having a base to appeal to, as critical stories about republicans and democrats alike will turn those groups off to the organization. If a bias news organization already has a consistent base, they then must ensure that people are digesting their content. In order to do this, news organizations are incentivized to create flashy headlines and exaggerate events, thus sometimes preventing them from providing high quality information to the public. Essentially, the best way for news organizations to make profits is to cater to a certain base, and doctor stories to make them more eye catching. This positive feedback loop of polarization and misinformation is crippling Americans’ trust in established news sources. 

So what can be done about this issue? Is there any real way to fix it because human beings are by nature, bias and subjective? I do not believe there is a surefire solution. One improvement I believe can help would be to set up a government news organization independent from the White House and Congress to explain issues to voters with pros and cons coming from both sides. To be clear, this is not to be like State TV in North Korea where the party controls the content. Instead, this would essentially be a bipartisan, government funded public broadcasting institution. I am aware that we already have PBS present, but just briefly browsing the PBS Politics webpage presented bias language and stories clearly meant to unfairly either praise or bash the President’s response on COVID-19. Seeing that the present state of PBS Politics was not the solution, I stand by my original proposal of creating a new organization meant solely to inform voters. I think that instead of having producers and news anchors writing and presenting scripts, legislators from both sides could come on air and hold mini debates on topics requested by citizens. I think this would be a good way to have people’s questions answered, and take as much bias out of the equation as possible. Members from the right and left would debate and allow the viewer to decide for him or herself who’s opinion they agree with the most. 

Brenan, Megan. “Americans’ Trust in Mass Media Edges Down to 41%.” Gallup.com, Gallup, 30 Mar. 2020, news.gallup.com/poll/267047/americans-trust-mass-media-edges-down.aspx.

Rosentiel, Tom. “Partisanship and Cable News Audiences.” Pew Research Center, Pew Research Center, 30 Dec. 2019, www.pewresearch.org/2009/10/30/partisanship-and-cable-news-audiences/.

Associated Press. “Poll Shows a Majority of Americans Don’t Trust News on Social Media Platforms.” MarketWatch, MarketWatch, 26 Nov. 2019, www.marketwatch.com/story/poll-shows-a-majority-of-americans-dont-trust-news-on-social-media-platforms-2019-11-26.

Voting in elections is a hallmark of any democracy, yet the “Land of the Free” is taking its freedoms for granted year after year. We fail to realize how much of a privilege it is to have free voting combined with the freedom of the press. This combination allows voters to receive the information they need to make a well educated vote on a multitude of issues. The problem arises when people choose not to take advantage of these freedoms, either voting without being well informed or simply not voting at all. So how do we fix the lack of informed voting and lack or voting period? I think there is three things we can do. Firstly, establish some arbitrary guidelines for what constitutes an informed voter. Secondly, candidly explain to people why voting is important and what your vote entails. Thirdly, explore the implementation of a compulsory voting system and make election day a national holiday.

To explain my first point, I want to answer a question posed in the podcast “Demons of Democracy”, which reads, “It’s true that most voters don’t know basic knowledge about US Politics (indeed, most could not pass a citizenship test). What kind of knowledge should a person know to be a responsible voter?” I would respond with in order to be a responsible voter, I think there are two things people need to know. Firstly, if you are a registered Democrat or Republican, know the very basic ideology of your party. If you are registered as a Republican, know that they are in favor of lower taxes, a stronger military and are typically anti-abortion. If you are registered as a Democrat, know that they prefer higher taxes, less military spending and are primarily pro-abortion. If you are registered as an Independent, try to learn the basics of both parties. The reason I think knowing the basics of your party constitutes a responsible voter is because knowing basic party agendas can help voters gauge what the consequences and outcomes of voting for that party entail. Knowing goals of parties should help prevent people voting for a candidate frivolously and make them aware of what type of legislation will be passed with that party in power. Secondly, I think voters should have a decent grasp on the three branches of government, so they are aware of what they are voting for. Voters should know what their representatives’ job is, how much power the President has and what the role of the Supreme Court is. I believe knowing agendas of the parties and the roles of the branches constitutes an educated voter, as this knowledge lets them know what things they are voting for, and what the people they vote for are tasked to do.  

Secondly, not only do we need more educated voters, we need more voters period. Personally, I think it would be great if every eligible voter made their opinions known in elections. We saw after the 2016 election that many people were outraged that Trump was elected, yet less than half of eligible voters actually participated in the election process. I believe that mandatory civics or government classes in middle school and high school could potentially be a solution to uneducated voters and lack of voters, which are issues worth investing in because the more people that make educated votes, the better tailored the government is to the citizens. I also think the government should be spending more on resources to let voters know where their polling station is, when election day is and what issues voters should consider. I believe an effective TV and print campaign could provide a solution to low turnout.  

Thirdly, the government should be incentivizing voting to citizens. I think we should explore the potential of implementing a compulsory voting system. Australia has compulsory voting in place since the 1920s and their voting turnout has been consistently above 90%. Citizens over 18 are required to vote in elections, and those who do not are fined around $20. Dr. Chapman, a political scientist at Stanford says on the matter, “The idea of compulsory voting is that it conveys the idea that each person’s voice is expected and valued.” (Stanford News). This idea may be met with backlash, but I think it is actually a great idea to improve voter turnout. Secondly, Elections should be considered a holiday. It is worth the economic loss of giving workers a day off to ensure they can make it to a polling station, as the voices of the people should take priority over any potential profits. I think the measures in the post, if taken, would drastically improve our democracy and should be considered. 

The Demons of Democracy. 2019. Hi-Phi Nation Podcast. Season 3, Episode 5

Garcia Bedolla. 2006. “Rethinking Citizenship: Noncitizen Voting and Immigrant Political Engagement.”

Stanford University. “The Case for Mandatory Voting.” Stanford News, 29 Nov. 2018, news.stanford.edu/2018/11/30/case-mandatory-voting/.

Bureaucrats tend to have a poor reputation in America, being branded by many as shadow government officials. However, the connotation of being a shadow government or faceless stems from few people being aware of what a bureaucrat is and what their job is. Essentially, a bureaucrat is someone employed by the government and tasked with serving the public. There are 2 types of bureaucrats, and both of them have a different amount and kind of power. The two types are street level bureaucrats and federal bureaucrats. Street level bureaucrats exercise de facto power through influence, while federal bureaucrats are granted de jure power. Both kinds of bureaucrats are important but very few people know what they are and what they do.

Street level bureaucrats are much more common than federal bureaucrats, and many citizens interact with them on a daily basis. A street bureaucrat is anyone who works a job that is publicly funded and interacts with citizens. Teachers, police officers and social workers are all examples of street level bureaucrats. While it may be difficult to initially grasp how police officers and teachers can have political power through their profession, it becomes more clear the more once you realize that their power is not expressed, rather, it comes from how they implement federal policies. In the Sage Handbook of Public Administration, Steven Smith states,“…the power of street level bureaucrats to influence public policy implementation derives substantially from their discretion and their relative autonomy from organizational authority.” (Steven Rathgeb Smith). As articulated in this quote, street level bureaucrats are responsible for how the public perceives  policies they are tasked with implementing. For example, let’s say a public school teacher is hypothetically instructed by Common Core to give out 30 minutes of math homework a night. If the teacher gives out what he/she thinks is 30 minutes, but in actuality takes students 1.5 to 2 hours, parents are going to think of Common Core in a negative light because it was not implemented correctly. However, if the teacher assigns 15 minutes of homework because he/she deems that the students do not need 30 minutes, and the student’s GPA goes up as a result of the extra time to work on other classes’ assignments, parents will think favorably of Common Core. I believe that street level bureaucrats being able to influence public policy is a good thing, as they are often more in touch with their community and demographic than the people instructing them to implement a certain policy. With the current system in place, a street level bureaucrat is subtly able to receive feedback and pass it along to a superior or even slightly alter policies to better tailor it to the people they work for. Obviously, human error will occur and implementation will be executed poorly in some situations, but I think this is a necessary risk compared to the potential good they can do. Street level bureaucrats should not be mindless drones implementing and enforcing policy even if is detrimental to the people they serve, and it is good that there is room for them to make minor adjustments. 

Federal bureaucrats are people tasked with running and working in a government agency, an example being the current State Department head Mike Pompeo and his staff members. The role of federal bureaucrats is rather simple, they carry out the assigned mission of their agency, make internal policy changes if required, and enforce policy on a federal level. It is often federal bureaucrats who are accused of overstepping their authority and infringing on personal freedoms. A rather notorious example of this was reported in USA Today, the article states,“…so began a years-long back and forth between Johnson and the EPA… The EPA, however, claimed that the rocks, sand and concrete Johnson used to create the dam and spillway were pollutants.” (Rachel Bovard). The context behind this quote is a man wanted to build a pond on his property but the EPA stepped in and deemed it violated the Clean Water Act. At a preliminary glance, it is easy to label the EPA as overzealous federal bureaucrats and that is initially exactly what I did. However, after thinking more in-depth, I realized that the EPA is an agency that protects more citizens than they hinder. It is too simple to label federal bureaucrats as overstepping when this project could potentially have an environmental impact on shared resources. While Johnson (the man wanting to build the pond), may see the blocking of his pond and the subsequent fine as excessive, people living around him could support the EPA and be satisfied with their work to reduce pollutants. The EPA’s job is to protect the environment, and while they may need a more transparent and clear way of doing so, they are still a regulatory agency who is tasked with protecting the environment even at the expense of a lost citizen’s pond.

In conclusion, street level and federal bureaucrats have a bad reputation because few people know who they are or what they are tasked to do. However, some light reading on the subject will yield an appreciation for them and their duties. Sure, all of their practices and actions may not be perfect, and there is certainly room for improvement, but the mindless bashing of a “shadow government” leads to no results. Bureaucrats are only a shadow government and faceless because people do not pay attention to or focus on them. Despite this, street level and federal bureaucrats are still serving the public the way they are tasked to, and will continue to do so even if no one is watching.

Works Cited and Consulted :

Susan Milligan. 2019 “The Bureaucracy Strikes Back” U.S. News

Smith, Steven Rathgeb. 2012. “Street-Level Bureaucracy and Public Policy.” Sage Handbook of Public Administration, eds. Guy Peters and Jon Pierre. London: Sage Publications Ltd. (431-447)

Bovard, Rachel. “The Trump Administration’s Successful War against Bureaucratic Bullies.” USA Today, Gannett Satellite Information Network, 16 Oct. 2019, www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2019/10/16/bureaucratic-bullies-trump-administration-successful-war-against-column/3974449002/.

 

]

With a 54% approval rate, the Judicial branch is looked upon most favorably by the American people compared to the Executive, with 49%, and the Legislative with 23% (Gallup.com). Despite having the highest approval rating of the 3 branches of government, the Judiciary is often an afterthought when it comes to being covered in the media or being on the minds of American people. This could be for a variety of reasons, ranging from hearings not being televised, the court only being in session for 9 months or Justices rarely making public appearances or giving speeches. However, I believe that the primary reason that the people and media seldomly pay attention to the Supreme Court is because the court is not elected, and the court rarely changes. The only time in which the Supreme Court receives national news coverage is when a Justice is about to be appointed, and the way in which they are appointed has become an issue due to the current climate of bipartisanship.

The independence of the Judicial branch from party politics was intentionally written into the Constitution to uphold the integrity of the highest court in the land. Hamilton addressed this when he writes in The Federalist  78, “The complete independence of the courts of justice is peculiarly essential in a limited Constitution. By a limited Constitution, I understand one which contains certain specified exceptions to the legislative authority; such, for instance, as that it shall pass no bills of attainder, no ex-post-facto laws, and the like.”(Hamilton). Unfortunately, the nomination of Supreme Court Justices have become purely political, as Presidents select nominees based on their views, purely for the sake of having a Justice on the court who supports their agenda. While it is not   surprising that Executive branch would want support from the Judicial branch, it is a problem because it contradicts the Founding Fathers’ wishes and leads to gridlock. The Founders wanted the most qualified people to be nominated for the Supreme Court, not for it to become politicized.

The most clear example of party lines deciding Supreme Court Justices can be seen in 2016, when a Republican controlled Senate refused to confirm Democratic nominee Merrick Garland. Majority leader Mitch McConnell rationalized the decision by stating, “The American people may well elect a president who decides to nominate Judge Garland for Senate consideration. The next president may also nominate someone very different. Either way, our view is this: Give the people a voice.” (USA Today). While it’s easy to see the root of McConnell argument, the Supreme Court is not a form of representation. This is made clear by the fact that Judges are nominated, not elected. Judges are suppose to be nominated on merit alone, but Republicans and Democrats alike see the importance of having the Supreme Court in their favor, and are aware that a Democratic President would mean a liberal leaning justice and vise versa. Democratic Presidential candidate  Pete Buttigieg said as much in a CNN town hall when he stated,“What we need to do is stop the Supreme Court from sliding toward being viewed as a nakedly political institution.”(The New Republic). Another way we can see the increased polarization of the court is the number of 5-4 decision, split down party lines. So, instead of an independent court where the most qualified and objective people possible are interpreting the Constitution like the Fathers intended, we are left in a system where Presidents are incentivized to nominate the youngest, and most partisan judge possible.

This system is clearly broken, but there are solutions being suggested to fix this. One comes from current Democratic Presidential candidate Andrew Yang, who states on his website, “Current Justices can expect to serve for 40 or more years. For historical context, the average Justice has served for 15 years…This isn’t the way it was envisioned at the founding of our country, when life expectancy was shorter and Justices would often retire or resign well ahead of their deaths…The answer to this is to impose term limits on Justices, and set their terms at regular intervals.” (Yang2020.com). Yang suggests imposing term limits on Supreme Justices, as this would make nominating younger and more partisan Judges less attractive to Presidents than the current life appointments Justices enjoy now. While Democrats may be biased in their crusade to reform the Supreme Court due to a Republican currently heading the Executive Branch, the Supreme Court becoming more and more like a political institution is a serious problem, and against the intentions of the Founders who established the Judicial Branch.

 

“18 Year Term Limit for Supreme Court Justices – Yang2020 – Andrew Yang for President.” Yang2020, www.yang2020.com/policies/scotustermlimits/.

Ford, Matt. “A Better Way to Fix the Supreme Court.” The New Republic, 4 June 2019, newrepublic.com/article/154047/better-way-fix-supreme-court.

Gallup. “Supreme Court.” Gallup.com, Gallup, 28 Nov. 2019, news.gallup.com/poll/4732/supreme-court.aspx.

King, Ledyard. “’We’d Fill It:’ Mitch McConnell Blocked Obama Supreme Court Pick but Says He’d Help Trump Fill a Vacancy.” USA Today, Gannett Satellite Information Network, 29 May 2019, www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2019/05/29/mcconnell-blocked-obama-supreme-court-choice-wouldnt-stop-trump/1268883001/.

The Avalon Project : Federalist No 78, avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed78.asp.

 

Being a political science major, I was excited to see that politics were included as one of the four broad topics I could write about for my CI blog. I think it would be good practice for me to have to talk about and explain topics that I’ve learned in my PLSC classes to other people who do not major in it. Specifically, after looking at some of the politics examples I think it would be interesting to focus on US foreign policy and write about America’s relation with a different country each time a CI blog it due. For example, one week it could be America’s relationship with the UK, and I would explain the history between the two all the up to the current state. Next week I would write about America’s relationship with Iran, and talk about the Iran Nuclear Deal and the assassination of one of their generals via drone strike and how this has tensed the relationship ect. I think focusing on a different country each week would be a good way to really narrow in on the relationship between the US and another country as opposed to talking about a broader topic. An example being me writing about the US and Iran instead of “The US Middle Eastern Foreign Policy”. In conclusion, I’m excited to write about topics relative to my major and think this blog topic will be a good way to keep up on current events and various countries in the world today.

My group’s HOPC project is about why people at or below the poverty line are disproportionally obese and have poorer diets overall. Our project poses 5 framing questions, and we believe the answers to these questions explain how the problem manifested in the first place. I am primarily in charge of creating and editing the video, but I am also tasked with answering our third framing question, which is : Are food stamps enough to incorporate healthier food plans for those in the lower class? I have been using articles from the Washington Post and pulling graphs from the USDA website to see if the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP, is adequately providing families on food stamps enough money to purchase fresh, quality nutritional foods. The short answer is no, they are not. After viewing a graph on the USDA’s thrifty food plan, which states that each individual should be spending no more than $40 on food per week, and comparing that to the average amount that SNAP pays to individuals per month, which is $131, it is clear that the average benefits do not meet even the USDA’s lowest estimate on what people need to spend on food per week. Because of this, people on SNAP are often forced to buy cheap, high calorie food. Challenges I anticipate with this project are editing the video, as this process is tedious and time consuming. I’ve actually been watching youtube tutorials in order to polish up on my video making skills. (I took intro to filmmaking in high school) Overall, I think this topic is very interesting and very broad. One aspect I think we might have to cut out is how this disproportionally affects minorities, due to grocery stores usually being outside of cities, while convenience stores, which rarely have vegetables or fresh meat, are prevalent in lower income portions of cities.  

At the start of my Ted Talk, I want to capture the attention of the audience and get they involved. In order to do this, I plan are starting my talk with a quick audience poll and then including an anecdote. I am planning on displaying a picture of Andrew Luck, asking the crowd if they know who this is, and then explain how I decided to write about my topic because Andrew Luck was on my fantasy football team but retired before the season started. My main points are that on average, NFL players have been retiring at an earlier age every year and then presenting the reasons why, the average career is surprisingly short and the cause of this revolving door of players, and how this paradigm shift is good for players, but bad for teams, fans and college athletes. I plan to talk about how higher salaries give players fiscal security, and thus allow them to retire earlier and pursue other interests. I also will address the role injuries play in a players decision to walk away from the game. Included in this will be the rising concern over CTE from medical professionals and players alike. To conclude my talk, I will show examples of what players do after they retire at a young age. Examples being sports analysts and investors. People should care about this shift because the NFL is an economic juggernaut, directly or indirectly providing jobs for thousands of professions. On a more practical note, millions of Americans are football fans and actively support their team and favorite players. No one wants to see their favorite player retire and their team become worse because of it. This is seen by the negative response players have received from fans over their decision to retire early, which I will visually show during my presentation.

 

My paradigm shift topic will be on how NFL athletes are retiring at younger ages than they once used to. Previously, playing until someone had to tear the jersey off your back and consecutive game “iron man” streaks were praised, but now, data shows that players are retiring earlier to either decrease the risk or injury or pursue other interests. Because of this, it is unlikely these iron man streaks will ever be broken as players are more conscious than ever of their health. These days, players are able to retire earlier due to higher salaries and players being smart with their money. More and more players are choosing to invest their earnings, ensuring they have a continued income long after they have stopped playing. Because of the higher salaries, the players have more money they are able to invest, players see their peers earning more money and demand more during contract negotiations, thus creating a positive feedback loop in which more players are earning more money and more are investing, negating the need to play football for a longer period of time. Another reason for this shift is the increasing demand for former players to serve as NFL analysts and commentators on sports networks. Brining in players to dissect their own game for the public is far more common than it used to be and because of this, players have a way to earn an income while also staying actively involved in the NFL. As with most paradigm shifts, there was some backlash to players retiring earlier as fans now get to see their favorite players taking the field for a shorter period of time. In some cases, these early retirements  are done by superstar players whose decision to do so directly makes the team worse, which makes that franchises’ fans upset. The impact of this shift is players are taking their physical and fiscal futures more seriously, as deciding to retire early is usually what is best for aging players prone to injury.

A paradigm shift I would be interested in researching is how professional athletes are starting to retire at earlier ages relative to their predecessors. A prime example being Andrew Luck, who I spent a 3rd round draft pick on in my fantasy football team, retiring at the age of 30. Athletes used to play their sport until they were forced out of it due to injury or age. Today, more and more athletes are voluntarily retiring at much younger ages. This is due to athletes making a much higher income than previously used to. Wether it be because of more lucrative contracts, the prevalence of endorsement deals due to higher expose or more and more athletes diversifying their portfolios, athletes do not have to play for long to make enough money to live off of the rest of their lives. This makes fiscal, as well as practical sense as the older they become and play, the more susceptible their bodies become to injury. Should athletes still want to be involved in their sport, there is a rise in the demand for former athletes to work as analysts and broadcasters, examples of these being Jalen Rose on ESPN or Tony Romo on NBC. I think this would be a good topic to research as I could compare retirement rates from the past to today, and give specific cases of players retiring early to pursue other interests.

Another paradigm shift I would be interested in is examining countries increasing shift from isolationism  towards globalization. This shift originated after WWII, and was put in motion with the creation of the United Nations, and was then expanded upon years later with the founding the European Union. The United Nations was founded as a result of countries’ desire for worldwide economic stability and peace. WWI, The Great Depression, and WWII had devastated populations and stunted economic growth in many parts of the world. The United Nations was meant to prevent this, as economies became more  intertwined, forcing diplomatic cooperation between countries. Conflict was also meant to be prevented, as the United Nations would serve as a collective body to solve disputes civilly and prevent cooperation. This proved to be successful, as we are currently living in the most peaceful time in human history. I think it would be interesting to specifically compare and contrast the differences and outcomes of isolationism and globalization and go more in depth what caused this shift and who were the leading parties behind it.