# data[].attributes.body
KQ# 26- On what criteria could we judge whether an action should be regarded as justifiable civil disobedience?

This was a difficult question for me to answer because it involves not only political beliefs but also morality. Morality is subjective, so no one is going to agree with everyone around them about what is justifiable civil disobedience. For example, January 6th was considered a war on democracy by the major public. In my opinion, while the people who participated wanted to see things go their way, they chose violence and used tactics like fear, hostages, and threats to get what they want, which is never what democracy was meant for. The majority of the public, including many right wing people saw this event as unacceptable civil disobedience. However, if you look at the protests talking about Israel and Palestine right now, they never start out violent and the majority of people do not encourage the violence that sometimes takes place. This is considered acceptable civil disobedience because of the fact that it is never meant to be violent or hurt people, it is simply a powerful way to express one's beliefs

# data[].attributes.body
KQ # 15-What impact has social media had on how we acquire and share political knowledge?

Social media is very effective at spreading political knowledge if and only if you follow politics and the algorithm decides to share that content with you. Even if you do follow the political sphere, the algorithm will only share with you the perspective you match well with, instead of giving you all perspectives. This creates a very black and white political spectrum. For example, I tend to be more liberal in general and youtube will only show me liberal perspectives, whereas my boyfriend is a bit more right leaning so he sees videos and posts about issues from a right wing perspective. As another example, places like North Korea, where the internet is monitored and controlled by the government only show the perspective of the people in power, which leads to the acquisition of only one perspective.

# data[].attributes.headline
Luke Le and Kevin Morris-Challenge Question

# data[].attributes.subject
Luke Le and Kevin Morris-Challenge Question

# data[].attributes.body
KQ #13-When exposed to numerous competing ideologies and explanations, what makes an individual settle on a particular framework? Is there ever a neutral position from which to write about politics or from which to judge political opinions?

Typically, a person would usually decide based on their political identity, because political identity and strong beliefs associated with their respective side can in a lot of cases overpower explanations from the other side. However, there are exceptions but it's mainly personal beliefs and experiences that overpower competing explanations and ideologies. Some people are neutral, however, and can take stances on politics that are unique. Luke's dad for example, who is neutral, bases his stances off of which argument makes the most sense and has the better reason. With that comes a somewhat neutral position for him to criticize certain fallacies or flaws in arguments on either side of the political spectrum. However, this doesn't necessarily mean there is an easy "right in the middle" stance for certain policies. For example, abortion, a relevant and current dilemma, is a hard political stance to be right in the middle of, and in lots of other cases, it's a choice between 2 things that can't exactly be mixed, like deciding between red or blue as a color. And as we read previously, most policies are made political, and sometimes aren't naturally political, and that is what shapes the one or the other standpoint. With abortion, there's not exactly a middle, with either allowing it or not allowing it. There could be an argument saying abortion should only be allowed in certain cases, but that rises problems in it's own, with potential cases where someone could lie, which then could spark a need for evidence, and it goes on. But there are some policies, such as immigration that do have more of a middle, because even though the 2 sides on the immigration dilemma are allowing it and not allowing it, the factor of illegal immigration could come into play where tightening security on illegal immigrants could be something to consider, but at the same time, making legal immigration easier. Of course, there are already problems within that, but that is one example of where policy can have more of a neutral position.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
A Dangerous “Neutral” Stance on Abortion Speech

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The AAUP spoke out against guidance released by the University of Idaho in September that urged “faculty or others in charge of classroom topics and discussion” to “remain neutral” in discussions surrounding abortion. Following the US Supreme Court’s decision overturning of Roe v. Wade last summer, trigger bans in Idaho and several other states immediately limited access to abortion, and the university’s insistence on so-called neutral speech reflected the translation of those bans into the academic sphere.

# data[].attributes.body
Question #16. What role do reason and emotion play in the formation of our political affinities or in our voting decisions?

We believed this was difficult question because it takes into account the psychology of political decisions. We must be wary of our emotional state when making important decisions such as voting. In certain circumstances, strong emotion can override the factual information that causes us to vote a certain way. For example, if a politician was responsible for an event that someone disagrees with (such as Biden and the Willow project), people can vote with only the bed event in mind. Other personal events such as losing a loved one or other home life circumstances could theoretically cause someone to not prioritize actions that would affect others, and instead worry about their own lives. Though nether are necessarily a fault of the person in question, we must learn to approach political decisions with disinterest and in a way that is unbiased.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Mutual hate between the deepest enemies can be so much more helpful to both sides than expressions of sympathy among friends. Every atrocity of Islamic terrorists in a one country strengthens xenophobia in another, and every time right-wing extremists commit hate crimes against Muslim minorities, terrorists stand a greater chance of recruiting even more young people. It is a tragedy of our times: that during conflict democracy is increasingly turning into a suicide bomber against itself.

Participation in democracy requires a balance between reason and emotion. When there is too little emotion, politics becomes a dry game; but when emotions - and especially those of fear, rage and hate - rule without challenge from reason, political debate becomes a vacuum.

2016 saw the political victory of emotion over reason in that favourite word 'post-truth'. Emotional truth does not need evidence of a scientific kind; a feeling is true, if someone truly feels it. This explains why the lies and self-contradictions of Donald Trump do not disturb his followers, or why the advocates of Brexit in the UK could use 'expert' as a term of abuse.

Increasingly - across the world from Hungary to France, and from England to Russia and the US - almost all political commentary was organised negatively around xenophobia and positively around nationalism. Religion and class - once the powerful bearers for mass political participation, have increasingly lost their influence. People today, can barely relate the class conflicts of earlier decades and churches have ever fewer members. Virtually the only social identity remaining that can both have political meaning and carry powerful emotions is nationhood, and perhaps also race. And in a world characterized by globalization, European and other trans-national integration, immigration, refugees, and terrorism, many people have found their national identity becoming more salient and emotional. Marine Le Pen, leader of the French Front National, even quipped after the UK's referendum and Donald Trump's election that we are seeing 'the return of patriotism'.

With the triggering of Article 50 looming on the horizon, we are seeing an increasingly political rhetoric of many British politicians driving the UK out of much of the authority of the European Court of Human Rights at Strasbourg (of which the UK was a leading founder member), and to institute a British Bill of Rights instead. It is dangerous territory to imply that rights must be nationally specific, and not global. If rights are the products of reason, it is always possible to find similarities among different nations, and it is only if rights are seen as part of a national psyche - beyond the reach of rational discussion - that they become untranslatable across countries.

Seeing 'rights' in way, has strange connections to the German concept of Verfassungspatrotismus ('constitutional patriotism'). This concept gave an important answer to the urgent question facing Germans after World War II: How can people love their native land, when the idea of such a love being rooted in attachment to 'blood and soil' had become so dangerous? Can people truly treasure the humanistic values of institutions and customs that their country adopts, on rational grounds?

Many international institutions of the post-war period based the national quality of a constitution on the ability to seek connections among the constitutional values of different peoples, and build broader, transnational solidarities - an example of this is the European Court of Human Rights. Today these institutions face strong challenges from those who maintain that they and their underlying mentality were the antidemocratic constructions of 'liberal elites'. As the world becomes an ever-more connected place - the more the mutual dependence of different nations can be seen and felt. However, many people seem to want to avoid this reality, and seek a nostalgic return to a past of national isolation.

Most supporters of Brexit and Trump were prosperous, but with them were some far less prosperous people living in areas of economic decline. These disparate groups were united by not feeling at ease with a rapidly changing world. Political causes making strong use of national identity have offered them something responding to deeply felt emotions of belonging and stability. Against these groups stand a generally younger, more self-confident population, more likely to see open horizons and multiculturalism as opportunities rather than threats.

We seem to be entering a new Weltanschaungsstreit, a conflict of world views. For many, there has simply been too much change: globalisation, immigration, changed gender relationships, a new sexual tolerance, disobedient children, big cities, new economic sectors. Fear of Islamic terrorism has given a sharp thrust to this development. For example: the Alternative für Deutschland party - previously the anti-euro group has since rebranded as into an anti-Islamic party. The Movimento Cinque Stelle was originally a movement critical of corruption among Italian politicians, but in recent years has discovered the issue of refugees from Islamic countries - though it is careful not to attack refugees themselves. And, although the official question in the UK referendum was membership of the EU, the campaign for Brexit added fears of Islamic refugees and terrorists to it.

So has the balance between reason and emotion been lost, or will we see a return in 2017? It is true that feelings of fear, rage and hate - in some circles are not being challenged by reason, which has resulted in a political debate that is dangerously close to becoming a vacuum. And by no means all people fall neatly on one side or other of the reason/emotion side of the debate. Supporters of Brexit do not have to be homophobes; not all would-be 'citizens of the world' believe in a deregulated global economy. But there are tendencies in that general direction, creating a new kind of social and political division in many societies.

As it develops, this division seems also to pit emotion against reason. This can be viewed in various ways: from one perspective, warm feelings of national solidarity against the cold reason of calculating self-interest; from another, emotions that can incite to hatred against reasonableness. The reaction against that has now arrived, with nationalism and xenophobia filling the emotional void for many people.

It seems that the biggest problem is that, in a struggle of emotions, those of fear, rage and hate, once aroused, can be so much stronger than those of welcoming openheartedness. These latter stand a chance only in an environment where both emotion and reason are at work together.
Colin Crouch is a Fellow of The British Academy, Professor Emeritus of the University of Warwick, and external scientific member of the Max Planck Institute for the Study of Societies at Cologne. This essay is based on a shorter piece written for a volume of essays to relaunch the Frankfurter Schauspielhaus in 2017, with the title 'Vernunft, emotion und demokratie.'

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Balancing reason and emotion in democracy

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Mutual hate between the deepest enemies can be so much more helpful to both sides than expressions of sympathy among friends. Every atrocity of Islamic terrorists in a one country strengthens xenophobia in another, and every time right-wing extremists commit hate crimes against Muslim minorities, terrorists stand a greater chance of recruiting even more young people.

# data[].attributes.body
KQ #26: On what criteria could we judge whether an action should be regarded as justifiable civil disobedience?

The criteria to judge actions differs based on the person and the situation. Depending on who has power, the conclusion of whether the action is condemned or accepted changes. Rosa Parks demonstrates this, her "civil disobedience" on a bus in Alabama was at the time condemned and regarded as out of the ordinary. However, her arrest launched the Montgomery bus boycott and was widely seen as an encouraging moment for Civil Rights. Now, society views the event as definitely justifiable civil disobedience - so time and perspective can influence whether an action is accepted or condemned. Additionally, laws and policies govern what is deemed soically exceptable. The moral and legal criteria we hold makes it so that civil disobedience that harms others, such as terrorism, is not justifiable. Criterion is a principle by which something is judged, and our principles as human beings means we know that this type of civil disobedience is unethical.

# data[].attributes.body
KQ #26 On what criteria could we judge whether an action should be regarded as justifiable civil disobedience? The criteria that is put in place for regarding civil disobedience is laws put in by the government. These laws are enforced by police officers and then further regulated justified by judges and in court. We believe that these laws are a good way of regarding civil disobedience. Everyone has a right to a trial so they are allowed further consideration and justification to their civil obedience or disobedience. Marconi thought of the quote, "When the tyranny is law, the rebellion is a right." This relates the question because rebelling against the law can be justified civil disobedience. Laws are put in place to control the people and not allow certain actions, but there are circumstances where civil disobedience is justifiable. When the laws or government are something that the people and society do not agree with, it is justified to stand up for themselves and make sure their governing system is in agreeance with societies needs. The criteria is when something is not in the best interest of the whole society, so rebelling is a right and is justifiable civil disobedience. Our example is the French Revolution. There was lots of inequality in society due to fault of the government, so the people revolted against the government for themselves. This was justified as it led to a better system for France.

# data[].attributes.body
KQ #22 Are political judgements a type of moral judgement? Political judgements definitely involve moral judgements, but should be more divorced from them. Politicians often enforce policies that don't necessarily reflect the will of the general population, but rather their own morals. Many political campaigns pride themselves on morals, and convince audiences to vote for them even if they lack factual evidence for their claims. In America in particular, politics are driven by emotional and moral factors. This in practice was the supreme court case that overturned Roe v. Wade, as it was overturned on the basis that abortion is a moral issue and babies (fetuses) shouldn't be killed. This decision affected half of the American population, but was based on the morals of nine people in the supreme court.

# data[].attributes.body
KQ #12 - Given access to the same facts, how is it possible that there can be disagreement between experts on a political issue?

This question assumes that everyone given access uses that to find the facts, when it seems like most people just selectively seek out certain facts, even if they have the opportunity to find the whole picture. There is disagreement, because while everyone has access to the same facts, people choose which ones to listen to and therefore disagree. It is also possible everyone has the same information, but has different opinions on whether it's a problem or how to solve it.

# data[].attributes.body
#11 - To what extent do museums package past knowledge to serve the needs of contemporary political systems and authorities?

For example, in Los Alamos there are many museums on the Manhattan Project because it was a big part of history. These museums can inform are use of nuclear weapons now by showing the destruction they cause and past debates about them.

Museums showcase culture, a groups shared beliefs and practices. Our culture influences our politics because our beliefs govern how we view the government.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Museums as Political Influencers — GURL Museum Day® / #gurlmuseumday

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Do museums have a political responsibility? I would argue that museums as culture-makers are inherently engaged in politics and should embrace, if not at the very least acknowledge, their role in politics.

# data[].attributes.headline
Luuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuke and Kevin - Low Hanging Fruit

# data[].attributes.subject
Luuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuke and Kevin - Low Hanging Fruit

# data[].attributes.body
KQ #10 Why do facts sometimes not change our minds? The values and personal experiences that we hold close to our identity can be more powerful and influential rather than the facts that float by. There are always times when we do not accept a "fact" as true and always resort to what we believe and know of on a personal level. Ex1: People believed that the 2020 elections were rigged even though 36 trials said otherwise. Ex2: Although there are facts that climate change is real (with reputable research from NASA such as oceans are getting warmer), some people (mainly conservatives) still do not believe that climate change is a thing. Both of these examples demonstrate that although these facts are coming from a reputable source, which we assume to be true and trustworthy, are still not sufficient enough to overpower the personal opinions of people who think otherwise.

# data[].attributes.body
KQ #9 To what extent are our political views shaped by society, family backgrounds, education, or social class? We think that our political views are shaped by these factors to a large extent. Family and society have a large impact and influence on our opinions, beliefs and perspectives. Growing up in a society or family with particular views most likely influences you from a young age and instills political views into you that you grow up with and develop as you age. It is difficult to defy the people around you and it is difficult to develop differing opinions because there is a lack of other perspectives which would allow you to build different beliefs. We are told by the society and family and education system around us specific facts and opinions that in most cases pertain to one political group. It is difficult not to be influenced by these opinions because these are people that we trust and believe and side with them. An example of this is Marconi growing up in a socialist country. Because he experienced this and his family negatively viewed the political system, he was instilled negative views of the left wing ideologies and now leans more to the right because of the influence from his family, education, and society. Another example is Obama because he grew up with family of color. In many cases POC are left leaning and agree more with liberal ideologies. This is reflected in Obamas term's as president and it shows the influence there was on Obama before he even became a democratic president.

# data[].attributes.body
KQ #6 - Why have political leaders sometimes tried to control or eradicate specific bodies of knowledge?

If voters don't have sufficient knowledge of an issue, their opinion can be more easily swayed and they may be more open to misinformation. Also, political leaders' opinions or policies may be based on the lack of certain knowledge, so they want voters not to have that knowledge. For example, people who aren't educated on climate change or don't believe in it are more likely to vote for anti-climate policies, which is why it may be helpful for leaders wanting to pass these policies to control the narrative about climate change so people don't see it as a problem.

Others examples of this include conspiracy theories. Politicians such as Trump may use the theory that the election was rigged to create a certain narrative, and that idea can be used to get people on his side and make them want to reelect him as 'redemption,' even if they don't have the correct information.

# data[].attributes.body
KQ #10 Why do facts sometimes not change our minds?

It can be very difficult for a fact to change someone's mind, and this is largely caused by cognitive dissonance. When an individual has believed something to be true their whole lives, it is improbable that they will do a full 360 and change their mind to a completely opposite belief. They could believe in something because it benefits them: for example, someone who has invested in a business believes that it will profit them, with no actual fact that the business will succeed. Additionally, the lack of numerous different beliefs when growing up can lead people to solely accept the views they are surrounded by. For example, a child growing up in a family that has strong Republican values and supports Trump as a president would have a hard time accepting that he is not president or that the accusations against him might be true.

# data[].attributes.body
KQ #6. Why have political leaders sometimes tried to control or eradicate specific bodies of knowledge? We think that political leaders cover up knowledge for their own success in the voting booths and and therefore their own power/personal gain. They also cover up bodies of knowledge in an attempt to avoid getting caught after committing crimes.

Examples: Trump (Georgia election, Sexual Assault, Tax Fraud, Real Estate Fraud), Putin (killing those who opposed his views).

# data[].attributes.body
KQ #1 In what ways is factual evidence sometimes used, abused, dismissed, and ignored in politics? Often, politicians are accused (and found guilty of) spreading disinformation which infuses real facts with untrue information. Factual evidence is commonly overlooked by politicians when it doesn't concern the people in power directly and the factual evidence that is used is not explored in depth and taken at face value. Our examples include FOX News claiming Biden celebrated Transgender Day of Visibility instead of Easter this year, when they happened to fall on the same day (as Easter changes dates and Transgender Day of Visibility never does) and Transgender Day of Visibility started before Biden's term in 2009. Another example is the overlooking of climate change in order to ensure protection of the economy and the rights to luxuries.

# data[].attributes.body
We thought that #9 was an easy question because Gabe and I come from middle class families. We live in the same area surrounded by other democrats and our parents are liberal. For example, Marconi is from a communist country so he leans more republican because that's what he was surrounded by growing up. The south leans right because of their belief history. The majority of people in the south go to church and practice Christianity etc. so that plays into their beliefs. People with a lower education level are more likely to believe everything that hear because they don't fact check things.

# data[].attributes.headline
Ms. Anderson, Pablo and Owen. Low Hanging Fruit

# data[].attributes.subject
Ms. Anderson, Pablo and Owen. Low Hanging Fruit

# data[].attributes.body
KQ #2 Is being knowledgeable an important quality in a political leader? We think it is important, but this knowledge can come from many different experiences, from representing your local city council, to becoming a mayor to being a state representative who understands the needs of their constituents and isn't afraid to write legislation that supports those interests. Examples: Joe Neguse, Barack Obama. Other examples might include someone who has been a school board member or an attorney for the city's interests.

# data[].attributes.headline
Ms. Anderson, Pablo and Owen.  Challenge Question

# data[].attributes.subject
Ms. Anderson, Pablo and Owen.  Challenge Question

# data[].attributes.body
KQ #29. How can we know whether we have sufficient knowledge before voting in an election? We can know this if we study our ballot when it comes in the mail. I need to look up all the candidates on the internet to see what they stand for, if I don't already know. If I don't have the internet, I can use the blue booklet that comes in the mail with ballot to inform my decision. If I know what the candidates stand for, then I can make an informed decision when I vote. If I don't have access to the internet or the booklet before I vote in person, I can read the literature at the voting site. Knowing whether or not you have enough information to make an informed decision is subjective, so we don't think you can ever really know if you have the right or complete knowledge (objectively have sufficient knowledge), but you have a duty to vote, so you need what you think is sufficient knowledge.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Voter guides provide background information on the candidates and ballot measures. They list who you can vote for and offer details on each candidate's experience and goals. They also explain ballot measures, which are specific questions or issues that you can approve or reject.

Sample ballots

Sample ballots simply show you the elections and candidates and any ballot measures that will be on your real ballot. They will not provide information about the candidates like voter guides do. Your state may mail you a sample ballot or let you download one from its election site. The sample ballot may look exactly like the real one will.

Some non-profit organizations produce unofficial sample ballots. These ballots may not look the same as what you will see when you vote, but will provide the same information.

Can you bring sample ballots and voter guides into the voting booth?

You can bring your notes, a voter's guide, or a sample ballot into the voting booth. This frees you from having to memorize your choices for candidates and ballot initiatives. Some polling places do restrict cell phone use, so bring paper copies instead of using your phone. Check the rules with your local election office before you go.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Use voter guides and sample ballots to learn about candidates | USAGov

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Before going to the polls, review voter guides and sample ballots. They can help you decide which candidates and state or local issues to vote for.