The United States is an empire. It was founded as such and continues to be one to this day. However, during the most prominent periods of imperial expansion, anti-imperialist organizations and politicians often rise up to oppose these further imperialist actions. This thesis paper examines the rhetoric used by these organizations and politicians, particularly through their speeches and platforms. The primary focus is on the role of American exceptionalism in this rhetoric, and what American anti-imperialism not rooted in this concept looks like. This analysis will be done by looking at a few key specific texts from these organizations and politicians, including (but not limited to) the platform of the Anti-Imperialist League and the speech Representative Barbara Lee gave to explain her lone no vote on the Authorization for Use of Military Force in Afghanistan in 2001.

This project offers an argument that isolates several major forces that it contends pose a critical threat to the endurance of modern American democracy. It evaluates modern and classic political philosophy to identify the prerequisites for a stable democracy, identifying and defining voter education and participation as necessary contributors to civic engagement. It provides a socio-legal framework for evaluating four phenomena that have shifted in their impact on politics over the past 20 years: the roles of money and media in politics, as well as disenfranchisement by gerrymandering and by felon voting restrictions. It demonstrates how each has a new and worsening impact on voter education and/or participation, thus threatening the continued existence of modern American democracy.

This project offers an argument that isolates several major forces that it contends pose a critical threat to the endurance of modern American democracy. It evaluates modern and classic political philosophy to identify the prerequisites for a stable democracy, identifying and defining voter education and participation as necessary contributors to civic engagement. It provides a socio-legal framework for evaluating four phenomena that have shifted in their impact on politics over the past 20 years: the roles of money and media in politics, as well as disenfranchisement by gerrymandering and by felon voting restrictions. It demonstrates how each has a new and worsening impact on voter education and/or participation, thus threatening the continued existence of modern American democracy.

The media often portrays and the public often percieves white women and women of color politicians experience feminist obstacles, such as the masculine-feminine double bind and being dehumanized in the same way. Many of these representations of women of color politicians in society do not incorporate the impact of intersectionality and confining gender schemas; therefore, women of color politician’s experiences are often lumped together with that of their white women counterparts. This phenomenon ultimately contributes to the persistence of color-blind racism in the United States, which negatively effects the life outcomes of women of color politicians and women of color in general. In effort to help lessen the effects of color-blind racism locally and in government, some tools on how to reflect on one’s own biases are provided and avenues for change are proposed.

In the end, an increase in repurchases of company stock will also influence the rate of dividends to increase. This means, an investor should not necessarily worry about the dividends they receive, but rather to see if the company is making profit at a consistent rate and reinvesting into value-added activities. Through the major pillars of finance, technology, legal, and human resources, the budget for reinvestment can be optimized by investing into these respective categories with percentages that are mindful of the specific companies needs and functions. Any firm that chooses to ensure proven methods of growth will enact a combination of these four verticals. A larger emphasis on finance will branch out efficiency in the entire organization, as finance control everything from the toilet paper to the acquisitions the company is making. The more technology is used to reduce redundancy and inefficient or costly operations, the more capability the organization will have. IT, however, comes with its technical challenges; having a team on-hand or even outsourced, to solve the critical problems to help the business continue operation. Over-reliance into technology can be detrimental to a business as well if clear processes are not set about straight to counteract problems the business will face like IT ticketing systems or recovery and continuity support. Therefore, technology will require a larger chunk of attention as well.

The upcoming legal and HR investments a company will make will depend upon its current position and thus the restructuring will differ for every firm. Each company has its own flavour and style of work. In that regard, the required legal counsel will vary; different problems will require different solutions for risk control and management, which are often professionally advised by intelligent corporate counsel. This ability to hire efficient legal counsel would not arise in the first place if a firm were to give out dividends; the leftover profit would have gone towards the shareholders and not back into growing the equity of the business. Lastly, nothing is possible without the contribution of people, and their efforts. A quality that long-lasting, successful businesses have, is they are investing in their people and development. Paying salaries, insurances, bonuses, all requires extra capital that is needed to be set aside in order to grow human capital. Good people, better people. There are qualities for each role that need to be defined and a process for attracting talent needs to be invested in. This process can also include outsourcing to an external firm who specializes in these strategies. By retaining profits internally, the company is able to stretch its legs to have further reach upon the market they work in. Financially and statistically, dividends are likely to grow as well with the increase in equity due to the increase in security an investor feels with more cash reserve and liquidity within the company.

All in all, a company should not be pressured into giving out periodic payments in predetermined timeframes, in other words a dividend, to investors even when they are insisting. Rather, pitch and prove, a new method for reinvestment within the company that will raise the value of the company, through proven methods like the value chain model, to increase the equity in the company. By expanding the scope and capability, the company is allowing for a larger target market which will reap more benefits; none of it would be possible if it had continued to give out large percentages of capital to investors as dividends. Companies, and investors, should not be worried about dividends at all as a matter of fact; an increase in stock buyback, in other words reinvesting into the company, will increase the rate of dividends anyway, due to increased confidence and capital within the company.

Understanding elections now requires an understanding of how Mexican immigrants participate in politics. Mexican immigrants are a growing demographic in the United States. Latinos have started to sway elections. As the largest Latino bloc, Mexican Americans and Mexican immigrants have the power to evoke change. Mexican immigrants’ role in politics continues to grow in importance as the Latino voting bloc continues to grow. This study focuses on Mexican immigrants and their mobilization in the United States. It discusses the motivations of Mexican immigrants to organize and mobilize in the United States, regardless of their status. The researcher discusses Mexican immigrant mobilization in the United States, evaluates prior research on immigrant mobilization, and identifies the research's shortcomings. The literature review indicates that regardless of status in the United States, Mexican immigrants will organize and mobilize to defend, protect, and improve their livelihoods in America.

History is written by the winners. The losers’ narrative ends with the downfall of their civilization. Right now, the winners writing and teaching American history are setting up the next generation for failure. Instead of honing in on the structural landmarks that made the United States a shining city upon a hill, as most victors that would look to perpetuate prosperity would do, many institutions of higher education in charge of teaching our history imbue shame and skepticism of our past into our curriculum. By focusing on the atrocities of American history from an out-of-context modern perspective, we are teaching our young adults that monumental institutions deserve to be torn down, not venerated or improved for modern times. In my research for the Center for American Institutions, I have discovered that the winners that have captured academia and American history subscribe to corrosive tenets rooted in postmodernism and subjective victimhood. Postmodern American historians believe objective truth and knowledge collected over the centuries should be held in radical skepticism because of its origins in a society formed in oppressive systems of hierarchies. After discarding much of our history because progress did not happen fast enough, contemporary American historians believe in constructing a culture that emphasizes an equitable, multiracial democracy rooted in intersectionality, an ideology which has its proponents looking to align itself on vertices of identity—both real and perceived— in search for victimhood and offense. After examining syllabi that displayed this ideology in an empirical study, I examine evidence of this ideology worming itself into history, before spilling off college campuses and into our daily lives. Amplified by social media algorithms, extremist factions on both sides of the political spectrum have been empowered by our academic institutions to abandon the pursuit of truth and our history to construct the culture as they see fit. The casualties in this war over history and culture are too numerous to count, but perhaps the most the most costly one is the Generation Z. By teaching a history that shames instead of empowers, our newest generation enters the political fray unprepared for reasonable civil discourse, interprets such discussions as personal attacks, and feeds the polarized dichotomy destroying our political culture. Beyond our politics, the teaching of history—along with factors like the decline of freedom to play and a concerted focus to aim children towards higher education among others— has resulted in a generation of fragile, anxious, and unprepared individuals that stand ready to be hoodwinked by life, instead of embracing it. My thesis seeks to not only present these problems to you, but to present a model of a solution, a way to tell our history from a winning perspective. My model syllabus strengthens debate, encourages participation in our discourse, and strives to equip students with the tools they need to thrive in America’s vibrant civic culture. America is a winning country and idea, one which deserves to be perpetuated for as long as possible: we should teach our young people to embody this idea and succeed rather than confuse them with a pessimistic portrayal.