Research paper(Hist 1301)

FormattingHCC.pptx

Home >History homework help >American history homework help >Research paper(Hist 1301)

Writing Guidelines

Professor J. Bennett

1. FONT: Use Times New Roman 12-point font

2. PAGE NUMBERS: Insert page numbers in the same font as your text at the bottom center of the page by using the “Insert” function of your word processing program.

3. HEADING: In the upper-right hand corner of the first page insert the following – make sure that you single-space your heading.

First Name Last Name

HIST 1301/1302.Section #

Assignment Name

4. TITLE: All papers (unless it’s book review or response/reaction paper) must have a title that suggests your theme in a creative way. Skip a pace after the header, and place your

title in the center of the page. DO NOT PUT YOUR TITLE IN BOLD FONT, DO NOT

DOUBLE-SPACE YOUR TITLE, DO NOT UNDERLINE IT, DO NOT ITALICIZE IT,

AND DO NOT PUT IT IN QUOTATION MARKS. Capitalize the first letter of all nouns

and verbs, and put all articles and propositions in lower case. Then skip a space and begin

your prose.

5. SPACING: Double space only your prose.

6. MARGINS: Set margins at 1” on all sides. Most word processors usually have this preset. Use only left-hand margin justification.

7. INDENT PARAGRAPHS: Indent to indicate a new paragraph. DO NOT SKIP A SPACE BETWEEN PARAGRAPHS

8. CITATIONS: If citing or quoting material there is no need to use endnotes or footnotes. Instead use parenthetical citations by placing relevant source information in parentheses

after a quote or a paraphrase. This means that the author's last name, the sources year of

publication, and the page number(s) from which the quotation or paraphrase is taken must

appear in the text, and a complete reference should appear on your Works

Cited/Bibliography page. The author's name may appear either in the sentence itself or in

parentheses following the quotation or paraphrase, but the page number(s) should always

appear in the parentheses, not in the text of your sentence, ex. (Bennett 2013, 13) or

(Buzzanco 2004, 67).

9. USE THE THIRD PERSON POINT OF VIEW: Never use “I,” “my,” or otherwise refer to yourself in formal academic writing. You should also avoid using the second person

point of view, such as by referring to the reader as “you.” Instead, write directly about

your subject matter in the third person.

• For example, replace “I think the most important part of your day is having a good breakfast,” with “The most important part of the day is having a good

breakfast,” or “A nutritious breakfast is an important part of a healthy diet.”

10. USE OBJECTIVE LANGUAGE INSTEAD OF INFORMAL EXPRESSIONS: Informal expressions include slang, colloquialisms, clichés, and contractions. They’re common in

speech and casual conversations, but they aren’t appropriate for academic writing.

• Slang words and colloquialisms are casual expressions shared by a region or social group, like “lit,” “basic,” “bae,” “extra,” “turnt,” “wanna,” “gonna,” “got

it,” “sank/sunk in.”

• Clichés are overused expressions that have become meaningless or boring, such as “only time will tell,” “actions speak louder than words,” “the grass is always

greener on the other side,” and “you can’t judge a book by its cover.”

• Examples of contractions include “don’t,” “wouldn’t,” “hasn’t,” and “it’s.” Instead of using them, spell out the words in full.

11. INTRODUCTIONS vs. CONCLUSIONS: These are actually different! However, you may have been taught that a conclusion is just a restatement of your introduction. Here is

the difference. Your introduction explains the question you’re going to address, including

who cares about it and why. And then your conclusion is about the answer: you explain

how all the stuff in the body of your paper fulfilled your promise and thoroughly

answered the question. So, the structure is question, evidence, answer.

• For example, replace “I think the most important part of your day is having a

good breakfast,” with “The most important part of the day is having a good

breakfast,” or “A nutritious breakfast is an important part of a healthy diet.”

2. USE OBJECTIVE LANGUAGE INSTEAD OF INFORMAL EXPRESSIONS: Informal

expressions include slang, colloquialisms, clichés, and contractions. They’re common in

speech and casual conversations, but they aren’t appropriate for academic writing.

• Slang words and colloquialisms are casual expressions shared by a region or social group, like “lit,” “basic,” “bae,” “extra,” “turnt,” “wanna,” “gonna,” “got

it,” “sank/sunk in.”

• Clichés are overused expressions that have become meaningless or boring, such

as “only time will tell,” “actions speak louder than words,” “the grass is always

greener on the other side,” and “you can’t judge a book by its cover.”

• Examples of contractions include “don’t,” “wouldn’t,” “hasn’t,” and “it’s.”

Instead of using them, spell out the words in full.

3. INTRODUCTIONS vs. CONCLUSIONS: These are actually different! However, you

may have been taught that a conclusion is just a restatement of your introduction. Here is

the difference. Your introduction explains the question you’re going to address, including

who cares about it and why. And then your conclusion is about the answer: you explain

how all the stuff in the body of your paper fulfilled your promise and thoroughly

answered the question. So, the structure is question, evidence, answer.

Max Holocher

HIST 1302.362

Term Paper

A Vile Democracy

United States politics is where many of the world’s most important and impactful

decisions are made, and since a country’s politics is inextricably tied to its political system, the

quality of the United States’ political system should be of utmost importance to not only the

citizens of the United States, but to the citizens of the world. This begs the question though: what

is a good political system to have? While there is not a complete consensus on this question,

popular thought regards democracy to be the most just and equitable political system. The

reasoning is that government by the people, or majority rule, brings about the maximum amount

of satisfaction possible among a population. Many citizens of the United States take pride in their

country’s seemingly fair democracy, but if one looks more critically though, it is clear that the

U.S. is and has been an extremely limited democracy since its founding, and that it was created

this way intentionally. The suppression of the will of the people can be seen all the way from the

country’s founding to the current dissonance between public opinion and enacted policy.

Democracy can take on many forms. One possibility is a direct democracy where

constituents vote on each and every issue (Dallas). Another possibility is a representative

democracy where constituents vote for politicians to represent them and their interests (Dallas).

Whatever form a political system takes, in order for it to be considered democratic, the

government must express the will of the people. This is the true test of a democracy’s quality and

is precisely where America fails.

In the book Who Rules the World? , Noam Chomsky writes about the vast differences

between the general public’s views and recent political trends, and explains that the sizable

divide is due to the substantial increase of corporate power in U.S. politics. In his eyes, powerful

interest groups have shifted both Republicans and Democrats far to the right of the U.S. populace

on many of the country’s most important issues (Chomsky 2017, 62). In defense of this claim, he

points out that even though the most important issue to the public is the unemployment crisis, the

discussion taking place in Washington is disproportionately about the deficit (Chomsky 2017,

62). He writes that U.S. financial institutions simply have enough money and power to buy

politicians and control the conversation (Chomsky 2017, 64). To further illustrate his point, he

cites another national opinion poll regarding taxing the wealthy. While the media and congress

may depict it as a divisive and partisan issue, the poll Chomsky reproduces has 72% of the public

in favor of reducing the deficit by taxing the rich (Chomsky 2017, 62). This is an overwhelming

majority, but its effect remains largely unseen in U.S. politics. With the will of the people as

ineffectual as it is, the U.S. should not be considered a true democracy.

As iconoclastic as it may be to say, the people’s lack of influence in the U.S. political

system is inarguably by design. While many in the U.S. revere the founding fathers as beacons of

democratic values, the truth is much more complicated. Though they rebelled against England

due to a lack of representation, many of the founders fought purely for their own interests, and

not for principles of justice and fairness like many people think. The founders were the elite of

the time, and many just wanted to insulate themselves and their power. This attitude can be

clearly seen with the expressed views of James Madison. In the essay “Federalist No. 10”,

Madison writes "democracy is the most vile form of government. Democracies have ever been

spectacles of turbulence and contention incompatible with personal security or the rights of

property" (Madison 1975). In his eyes, democracy is synonymous to mob rule, and he feared if

the U.S. became a democracy, the citizens of the country would enact substantial property/wealth

redistribution. This obviously conflicted with the interests of the wealthy founders, and the fear

of this scenario informed their views of democracy and the drafting of the Constitution as well.

Within the United States’ founding document, there are a variety of purposeful buffers

against democracy. For example, before the 17th amendment, the Constitution gave state

legislatures the power to appoint senators instead of having them be directly elected by the

people (The Constitution 1986). This was not a matter of practicality though, since the

founders had the members of the house be elected by state citizens (The Constitution 1986).

The only reason why they’d organize the government this way is to suppress the will of the

people. It’s much easier to bribe a few state officials than the population of a state. The most

egregious example of democratic suppression found within the Constitution is the organization of

presidential elections. Firstly, the president is not chosen by the people, but is voted on by the

Electoral College (The Constitution 1986). While one could argue that this is an example of

indirect democracy since members of the Electoral College are voted on by the people, this

process is ultimately unnecessary as electors only vote on one issue. The introduction of middle

men does not save voters any time or thought and serves no purpose other than to be a buffer

against the will of the people. Secondly, the electoral college prescribes different values to

different voters based on their residential state (The Constitution 1986). This mechanic is a

simple and obvious violation of the democratic value of fairness and often works against the

majority. In fact, the current president of the U.S. lost the popular vote by 2.8 million votes

(Kentish 2016). While one could argue that this system prevents bigger states from dominating

smaller states, it is inarguable that it is undemocratic.

When one studies the country’s history, it becomes clear that the U.S. is and has been an

extremely limited democracy for the entirety of its existence, and that it was all by design. This

can be seen with the founders’ outspoken views on democracy, the organization of the

government in the Constitution, and the current divide between the public and its government.

The will of the people has been and still is purposely suppressed for the benefit of the elite, and

the push to fix the country’s democracy in spite of these powerful interests is the most important

issue facing U.S. citizens today. If the U.S. can organize its political system in a way to express

the will of the people, the citizens of the country could finally take the destiny of their country

into their own hands. There’s a reason why elites, now and then, so greatly fear the

empowerment of everyday citizens, and it is because it would undoubtedly bring about real and

substantial change. The true challenge is changing a system that refuses to listen. While there are

many ways to attack this problem, the idea of passing one revolutionary bill is the most plausible,

and that bill would be Andrew Yang’s Democracy Dollars. This initiative would give every

eligible U.S. voter $100 to donate to the political candidates of their liking, which would

effectively flood the market and incentivize politicians to listen to the general population (Yang).

Instead of having to get all of their campaign funds from powerful interest groups, politicians

could build powerful grassroots campaigns and garner real support from everyday citizens

(Yang). This is one way to fix the country’s democracy; other options might not be so

diplomatic.

Bibliography

Chomsky, Noam. Who Rules the World? New York, NY: Picador, 2017.

Dallas Learning Solutions. “The Meaning of Democracy.” Roots of American Government.

https://dlc.dcccd.edu/usgov1-1/the-meaning-of-democracy (accessed December 1, 2019).

Kentish, Benjamin. “Donald Trump has lost popular vote by greater margin than any US

President.” independent.co.uk. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-

elections/donald-trump-lost-pop ular-vote-hillary-clinton-us-election-president-history-

a7470116.html (accessed December 1, 2019).

Madison, James. The Federalist: No. 10. Milwaukee: Council on Urban Life, 1975.

The Constitution of the United States. Washington, D.C.: Commission on the Bicentennial of the

U.S. Constitution, 1986.

Yang, Andrew. “Democracy Dollars.” Yang2020.com.

https://www.yang2020.com/policies/democracydollars/ (accessed December 1, 2019).

divide is due to the substantial increase of corporate power in U.S. politics. In his eyes,

powerful interest groups have shifted both Republicans and Democrats far to the right of the U.S.

populace on many of the country’s most important issues (Chomsky 2017, 62). In defense of this

claim, he points out that even though the most important issue to the public is the unemployment

crisis, the discussion taking place in Washington is disproportionately about the deficit

(Chomsky 2017, 62). He writes that U.S. financial institutions simply have enough money and

power to buy politicians and control the conversation (Chomsky 2017, 64). To further illustrate

his point, he cites another national opinion poll regarding taxing the wealthy. While the media

and congress may depict it as a divisive and partisan issue, the poll Chomsky reproduces has

72% of the public in favor of reducing the deficit by taxing the rich (Chomsky 2017, 62). This is

an overwhelming majority, but its effect remains largely unseen in U.S. politics. With the will of

the people as ineffectual as it is, the U.S. should not be considered a true democracy.