political science question -- pick a topic, develop an argument

I had a political science class 2 semesters ago... and i did everything and i couldn't show up to the final exam because I had eye surgery and i showed him a letter and he told me to choose any of the following:

Judicial Review
Veto
How a bill becomes a law
Congressional leadership
New Deal coalition
Presidential Cabinet
White House staff
Newt Gingrich
November National 2008 election
Presidential economic powers
Original intent
judicial activism

And told me " You need to pick a topic you find interesting and develop an argument or thesis. Think of one thing from this list you found most interesting, and think about what you would like to do. "

I never had the text book and don't remember about that class because it was 2 semesters ago aswell he didn't know what he was talking about.. was always late to his own class...So can help me choose an decent topic and I'll do my best to discuss about it. I've been trying to keep get in touch with him and I couldn't and now I finally got him. Is anyone good with this subject can help me out please....would be appreciated


edit: how do i come about to even start up with?

1. Google each topic and see if theres a argument to write about?


I don't even know where to start I mean i can easily research them but i don't know and hes the only professor that will change my grade to a F to a high grade to get my GPA up and finally transfer schools.. can anyone please be specific about it and help me out and give me some pointers please?

Thanks alottt

I'd write about Newt Gingrich. There's plenty of material to work with there.

For starters, he's demonstrably an insufferable liar, adulterer, criminal, hypocrite, and quite arguably a racist, bigot, and the all around personification of the antithesis of good virtues and admirable qualities, yet he was still a successful politician for a time.

It could be a harbinger to a number of follow-through essays and also the flavor of essay most befitting this circumstance, based on your experience with this teacher.

How should I start it off relating with my professors input?

Like how should i start off with the intro? body and conclusion?

" ' You need to pick a topic you find interesting and develop an argument or thesis. Think of one thing from this list you found most interesting, and think about what you would like to do.' "

Listen pal, it's all here. He asked you to pick a topic that you found most interesting.

I gave you Newt Gingrich, because he's interesting. Interesting is he for the same reason you're drawn to glance at a nasty car wreck, or look in amusement/derision at someone who has broken a universal law or custom.

K. Now what do you want to do with that material?

You could argue whatever you want, but it has to be what YOU want. Look him up, read about him, and form a thesis.

Here are a few examples.

- Despite the fact that someone may be a grossly immoral person, they can still be a successful politican.

- Or: Being grossly immoral is an attribute well suited a politician. That is, the "grossly immoral" comes first, not the politician part. In other words, having immoral qualities actually helps you to be a good politician.

- A person's character and morals should not have anything to do with whether or not they are successful at politics.

K.

Seriously, this is not hard.

Pick any topic -- it doesn't have to be Gingrich.

Read up on it for maybe 20 minutes.

Think for < 10 minutes.

Devise an argument in 1 minute.

Write a paper based on the argument.

Submit the paper here for revision.

Voila. You are all done.

The longest part is in writing the paper. The amount of time you spend on the paper should correlate positively with the seriousness of it, or how well you want to do.

All in all, you should have a paper ready by tomorrow.

yalla shookran lol, i will do it tonight thanks dude

Hmmmm . . . I don't know that making your essay into a thinly veiled ad hominem attack on Newt Gingrich is the best approach here. If you do choose to write about him, you would be better off focusing on how he helped the Republican party gain strength in Congress, and to improve its electoral fortunes generally, by supplying a new party platform that united the party and provided a clear contrast to Democratic policy proposals. You can also look at his failings, of course, especially the way his strong personality and rather large ego led him to make missteps that his opponents used against him, but you should try for a balanced, objective tone that looks at him as an important political figure, rather than as a target for a series of smears.

well I'm doing the paper now, and he was plea'd guilty? for incorrect college courses $ with the IRS or something?

And cheated on his wife?


Whats so bad about the guy that most people hate him? I need a argument so i can expand on it in my paper...

If you were suppose to do the paper what argument would you develop upon him?

Edit: Is it me Or I cant SPECIFICALLY find a argument for the guy? like did he break the law did he lie about something?

Well, I don't know that it would be an ad hominem attack against him since we concede his revival of republican politics.

The intention is to mention his copious shortcomings, while at the same time balancing them by saying, look, he did a lot of good for his party (good here, doesn't mean good in the traditional sense. what it means is to further a cause. "The article did a lot of good for his chances of having the cased assigned to a new jurisdiction").

Hitler was an important political figure. He was very successful, and possibly the one of the most influential men in modern history.

So, there's my analogy.

Newt Gingrich is an important political figure. The point is, even and especially, repugnant people can make an impact in politics.

Great stuff here! I hope you have success with that. Mustafa, thanks for the great input. Moe, please don't use profanity here in this forum, only because we are trying to keep it "scholarly," haha.

Remember to make a strong, clear intro so that the prof can decide whether or not s/he thinks you achieved your purpose, etc. What is your thesis statement? Remembber that you can change the thesis statement as you go along.

Lol, you want coffee with that? and yeah thanks Mustafa! and Yeah i have my thesis statement I'll post the draft here for you guys to take a look when I am done!

Thanks everyone

My point being that saying he is "repugnant" isn't particularly appropriate for an academic essay. This is supposed to be for a political science class, so the essay should focus on his political life, what he contributed to politics, for good and for ill. It should consist of logical arguments and nuanced analysis, not statements of subjective personal opinion that reveal a pre-existing bias against the subject.

So, to answer your question, Moe, your arguments should answer the question of "how effective was Newt Gingrich in advancing the Republican agenda?" And/or, "what long term effect did he have on American politics."

As to why he became so unpopular, he was the victim of his own success. As a partisan Republican, he made a lot of enemies among Democrats, who launched several campaigns against him aimed at discrediting him. His personal life wasn't exactly the most morally defensible, as he was married three times. This left him open to charges of hypocrisy when he led the charge to impeach Bill Clinton for lying about his affairs. Eventually, his opponents were able to frame him (in the political, not the legal sense) as arrogant and hypocritical. He wouldn't bow out gracefully, however, and wait for his reputation to recover. He insisted on retaining his leadership of the House, even once it was obvious that the Democrats had turned him into a liability for the Republicans, so the Republicans turned on him.

Yes, in retrospect, I would focus on Gingrich's successes and not his personal failures.

It is a political science class, so the teacher probably doesn't want to hear you rip a politician.

If it was any general writing piece though, I think what I suggested would be appropriate.