This week’s reading discussed the aftermath of Watergate, President Ford’s decisions, particularly in relation to Nixon, and the beginning of Reagan’s political career. Ronald Reagan started off as a sportscaster on the radio. After the Watergate scandal, Reagan continued to Nixon, who was claiming some of the reports were taken out of context. Reagan’s love for being a news caster helped prepare him for his political career by allowing him to be a socialite and using his love for public speaking. Reagan worked hard to get to the sports casting job he wanted, but Nixon was not having the same luck with his career. After Nixon’s impeachment, his past illegal transgressions were continuing to surface. The recordings and transcripts from the
…show more content…
Perlstein identifies the backlash faced as parents rejected the idea of their white children going to the same school as colored children. Suri discusses how the federal order to bus children and integrate schools defeated on of the purposes of people moving to the suburbs: self-segregation. Both Suri and Perlstein also discuss how the suburbs changed American society and American politics. People could not separate themselves from the city life and violence, which was also a way to protect their children. Although individuals were moving away from segregation, they did not want the effects of integration to infiltrate their own lives and communities. The emergence of suburbs, roads, and interstate highways provided citizens with a way to escape the city and the problems that came with it. Since these problems threatened the lives of their children, families separated themselves from the danger by moving to the suburbs. Perlstein and Suri also both discuss the Watergate Scandal. Perlstein mainly focuses on the impeachment and resignation of Nixon and the aftermath of the scandal. Combined with Suri’s summary of the scandal and the proceedings, the scandal is sufficiently covered. Suri discussion of the background evidence of the scandal also helps make some of Perlstein’s arguments stronger, particularly the argument that Americans began to lose faith in their political …show more content…
This made Perlstein’s argument that Reagan was a people person with many supports stronger. People view movie stars at a higher level than other citizens. It also provided the masses with someone to look at that was not a political leader corrupted by greed and past political ties. Overall, Perlstein’s use of background information helped provide reasons for why certain political figures acted the way they did, and provided examples on the economic structure of the country and the thoughts different politicians had to change it. The least persuasive argument in this week’s reading was the classification of events and how they simultaneously affected different citizens in the United States. It was hard to keep up with what Perlstein was talking about and how some of the events discussed were connected to the people being discussed, which weakened Perlstein’s argument. This also took away from the main focus of Perlstein’s argument and shifted the focus off of Nixon and Reagan. Perlstein also fails to illustrate how the Watergate scandal and its aftermath affected the United States’ foreign policy. This limited the reader’s ability to see how outside influences played a role in dealings of American’s at
Perlstein identifies the backlash faced as parents rejected the idea of their white children going to the same school as colored children. Suri discusses how the federal order to bus children and integrate schools defeated on of the purposes of people moving to the suburbs: self-segregation. Both Suri and Perlstein also discuss how the suburbs changed American society and American politics. People could not separate themselves from the city life and violence, which was also a way to protect their children. Although individuals were moving away from segregation, they did not want the effects of integration to infiltrate their own lives and communities. The emergence of suburbs, roads, and interstate highways provided citizens with a way to escape the city and the problems that came with it. Since these problems threatened the lives of their children, families separated themselves from the danger by moving to the suburbs. Perlstein and Suri also both discuss the Watergate Scandal. Perlstein mainly focuses on the impeachment and resignation of Nixon and the aftermath of the scandal. Combined with Suri’s summary of the scandal and the proceedings, the scandal is sufficiently covered. Suri discussion of the background evidence of the scandal also helps make some of Perlstein’s arguments stronger, particularly the argument that Americans began to lose faith in their political …show more content…
This made Perlstein’s argument that Reagan was a people person with many supports stronger. People view movie stars at a higher level than other citizens. It also provided the masses with someone to look at that was not a political leader corrupted by greed and past political ties. Overall, Perlstein’s use of background information helped provide reasons for why certain political figures acted the way they did, and provided examples on the economic structure of the country and the thoughts different politicians had to change it. The least persuasive argument in this week’s reading was the classification of events and how they simultaneously affected different citizens in the United States. It was hard to keep up with what Perlstein was talking about and how some of the events discussed were connected to the people being discussed, which weakened Perlstein’s argument. This also took away from the main focus of Perlstein’s argument and shifted the focus off of Nixon and Reagan. Perlstein also fails to illustrate how the Watergate scandal and its aftermath affected the United States’ foreign policy. This limited the reader’s ability to see how outside influences played a role in dealings of American’s at