The document discusses the effects of media on American politics. It examines the impact on political discourse, reputation, and participation. Regarding discourse, some argue media enriches it through fact-checking, while others say it polarizes through partisan filtering. On reputation, media can help politicians connect with voters but can also damage them through fake news. For participation, some research finds media stimulates it, while other work argues it displaces time for civic involvement. Overall, the literature suggests the potential harms of media on politics may outweigh the benefits.

1. Running head: EFFECT OF THE MEDIA ON POLITICS 1
EFFECT OF THE MEDIA ON POLITICS 6
Effects of the media on politics
Name:
Course:
Instructor’s Name:
Date:
Effects of the Media on Politics
The media, through its primary role in communication, has
always been at the heart of American society. Technological
advancements in the recent past have changed how people
consume information, increasing the accessibility to the media.
One of the aspects of American society that has been impacted
by the more accessible media is American politics. The media is
now more visible in the political scene. For instance, according
to a research by the Pew Research Center on the primary source
of political information in the 2016 American Presidential
elections, researchers found that 24% of the Americans that
learned about the elections did so from cable news, 14% from
local TV, 14% from social media, 13% from news websites/apps
and 10% from network nightly news (Mitchell et al., 2016). In
contrast, only 1% of the American voters relied on the
candidate’s or campaign website (Mitchell et al., 2016).
Therefore, the different streams of media are the primary source

2. of information in the American political scene.
The primacy of the media as a source of political information
comes with a range of both positive and negative impacts. This
study examines the role that the media plays in American
politics by asking the question; what is the utility of the media
in American politics? This research shows that the media has
significant positive and negative effects on the political
discourse, political reputation, and political participation, but
the opportunities for benefits seem to be outweighed by the
potential for harm. While the media enriches the political
discourse through fact-checking, builds a political reputation by
connecting the politicians to their constituents and energizes
democracy by stimulating political participation, it also has a
polarizing effect on the political discourse, can be used for
character assassination through fake news, and robs its users of
the time they would have used to participate in the political
process.
Literature Review
Effect of the media on political discourse
Scholars studying the role of the media in politics are divided
about the value that the media brings to the political discourse
in American politics. On one side, there are those that claim
that the media has the overall effect of enriching the political
discourse in American politics. One of the dominant views
among scholars that subscribe to this position is that the media
acts as a referee for the participants in the political discourse
(including other media outlets) and keeps them accountable. In
“The Effect of Fact-Checking on Elites: A Field Experiment on
U.S. State Legislators,” Brendan Nyhan and Jason Reifler
(2015) argue that the political discourse in a democratic society
is enriched by the fact-checking practice of the media outlets. In
a nutshell, fact-checking is the practice by media outlets to
evaluate the claims made by politicians and political elites in
different forums as part of the political discourse (Nyhan &
Reifler, 2015). Fact-checking dispenses public judgment about
the correctness of the assertions and political claims made in

3. the political discourse. According to Nyhan and Reifler (2015),
the utility of fact-checking by the media outlets is that the
politicians are very sensitive to the media scrutiny and they
avoid making factually misleading statements. Consequently,
fact-checking by the media enriches the political discourse
because it has “significant consequences for political
accountability and democratic discourse” (Nyhan & Reifler,
2015).
On the other side, some scholars feel that the overall effect of
the media on political discourse is a negative one. One
dominant view among such scholars is that the media is aligned
along partisan lines, such that the coverage of political issues is
highly polarizing to the audience. In “New Media and the
Polarization of American Political Discourse,” Matthew Baum
and Tim Groeling (2008) posit that the media has a polarizing
effect on the American political discourse. According to Baum
and Groeling (2008), media outlets play the gatekeeper role
when they decide on what information to disseminate to their
audience. The assumed gatekeeper role by the media outlets is
best demonstrated by the comments of the managing editor of
the Seattle Post-Intelligencer in 2017 who claimed “I
understand that people have a hard time with the concept that
we get to decide what is news and what isn’t, and what is fair
and what isn’t” (Baum & Groeling, 2008). In their execution of
the assumed gatekeeper role, the media outlets align themselves
along partisan lines resulting in what Baum and Groeling call
“partisan filtering” (2008). Baum and Groeling (2008) conclude
that liberal media outlets are more likely to feature stories
damaging to Republicans and helpful to Democrats. Similarly,
the conservative media outlets are aligned with the Republicans;
thus they will be more inclined to publish stories that are
injurious to the Democrats (Baum & Groeling, 2008). The effect
of this partisan filtering is that it polarizes the voters, thus
diluting the political discourse from an issue-based conversation
to pure partisan sycophancy. The voters are denied the change
to be exposed to a wide range of views; hence their grasp of the

4. political atmosphere is limited.
Closely related to partisan filtering is the phenomenon of echo
chambers. In agreement with Baum and Groeling (2008), Kiran
Garimella, Aristides Gionis, Gianmarco De Francisci Morales
and Michael Mathioudakis in “Discourse on Social Media: Echo
Chambers, Gatekeepers, and the Price of Bipartisanship” blame
the media for polarizing the voters through their political echo
chambers (2018). A political echo chamber is a state of affairs
where an individual is only exposed to ideas that agree with
their own. According to Garimella et al. (2018), the media
(including the social media) polarizes the public along political
lines because the political filtering denies the voters the chance
to hear arguments of the opposite side. While the social media
was seen by many as an antidote to the partisan filtering in the
conventional media outlets, algorithmic filtering and
personalization on social media have reinforced the
phenomenon of echo chamber through selective exposure of the
audience to the ideas that confirm their beliefs (Garimella et al.,
2018). The result of echo chambers on the political discourse is
that they “hamper the deliberative process in democracy”
(Garimella et al., 2018). Therefore, Garimella et al. (2018) and
(Baum & Groeling, 2008) agree that the media dilutes the
political discourse through partisan filtering or algorithmic
filtering which prevents the audience from being exposed to
ideas that are different from their own.
Effect of the media on political reputation
In the American political sphere, the media has always been
integral in shaping the perceptions about political parties and
politicians. As a result, it has always been one of the best tools
for building up the reputation of the politicians aspiring to join
public office. In political campaigns, it is not feasible for
politicians to physically reach out to every constituent. The
media satisfies the need for the politicians and the political
parties to establish contact with the voters by serving as the
platform where politicians, government and political parties can
advertise themselves. As Riezebos et al. (2011) point out, the

5. favorable perception that got popular candidates like John F.
Kennedy and Barack Obama elected was thanks to the
auspicious reputation that the media perpetuated about these
candidates. According to Shannon C. McGregor (2017),
building a reputation of a politician through the media is a great
way to get elected because the American political system is
highly personalized, with voters relying on what they see on the
media to form their opinions about politicians or politics in
general. McGregor (2017) argues that politicians that are more
visible in the media have higher evaluations of parasocial
interactions; thus the constituents feel like they can personally
relate to the politician. Therefore, this level of identification by
the constituents with their politicians or representatives would
not have been possible if the media did not have the agency of
polishing the reputation of these politicians.
As much as the media can be lauded for the increased visibility
of some political contestants and politicians, it has also served
as a potent weapon against the reputation of other politicians.
One of the most consequential media phenomena that affect the
reputation of politicians is “fake news.” In “Social Media and
Fake News in the 2016 Election,” Hunt Allcott and Matthew
Gentzkow (2017) describe fake news as “news articles that are
intentionally and verifiably false, and could mislead readers”
(p. 213). The political implications of fake news are far-
reaching. According to Allcott and Gentzkow (2017), the 2016
presidential elections were marred by misinformation and
character assassination through fake news. The target of most of
the fake news articles was the Democrat presidential candidate,
Hillary Clinton. According to Allcott and Gentzkow (2017), the
fake news articles shared in the 2016 US presidential elections
were predominantly anti-Clinton. The authors speculate that
Clinton’s loss in the 2016 US presidential elections can be
partly attributed to the damage that the misleading fake news
had on her reputation.
Just like Allcott and Gentzkow (2017), other scholars in recent
political literature have speculated that one of the reasons

6. Hillary Clinton lost the elections to Donald Trump, who most
commentators predicted would lose the elections, was because
of the negative image of Hillary Clinton that was disseminated
by the media at the time through fake news. Paul Mihailidis and
Samantha Viotty (2018), in “Spreadable Spectacle in Digital
Culture: Civic Expression, Fake News, and the Role of Media
Literacies in Post-Fact’ Society,” agrees with Alcott and
Gentzkow (2017) that the fake news phenomenon is damaging to
the reputation of the politicians. In essence, fake news articles
are malicious because they are designed to misinform. For
instance, Mihailidis and Viotty (2017) document a case where a
fake news article had accused Hillary Clinton of running a child
abuse ring from a Pizzeria in Washington DC. This fake news
scandal is known as Pizzagate, and it culminated in one voter,
Edgar Welch, arming himself with a handgun and a rifle to go to
the pizzeria to free the children that Clinton had allegedly held
captive at the establishment (Mihailidis & Viotty, 2017).
According to Mihailidis and Viotty (2017), this character
assassination mission was an elaborate media campaign to
spread misinformation, and by trying to debunk the fake news
spreading about Hillary Clinton in Pizzagate, the media
legitimized the fake narrative. Operatives within Trump’s
campaign also legitimized the Pizzagate fake news by sharing
misinformation on social media (Mihailidis & Viotty, 2017). At
the end of the Pizzagate campaign, the reputation of Hillary
Clinton within the political sphere was heavily compromised by
the negative coverage through different media streams of
information. Therefore, while social media can be a tool for
building a reputable image for the politicians, recent events
show that it can equally be applied for character assassination.
Effect of the media on political participation
Civic participation is one of the pillars that democracy is
founded on, and it is what distinguishes a democracy from a
dictatorship. The primacy of the different streams of media as a
source of political information is thus bound to have an impact
on how citizens participate in the democratic political system

7. like the American one. Scholars studying how the proliferation
of media, especially social media platforms, as the primary
source of political information interacts with the political
system have varied views on its impact. There is a group of
scholars that credit the media for increased and diversified
participation of the public in the civic affairs. Gil de Zúñiga,
Jung and Valenzuela (2012) are of the view that the way people
consume digital media is “a positive and significant predictor of
people’s social capital and civic and political participatory
behaviors, online and offline” (p. 319). One of the findings in
the study by Gil de Zúñiga, Jung, & Valenzuela (2012) was that
the use of digital media as a source of information had a
significant and positive impact on people’s actions directed at
civic and political participation.
The role of digital media as a source of political information is
fortified by the utility of social media in sharing political
information. In a study of how the social media influence
political participation, Halpern, Valenzuela, and Katz (2017)
concluded that the use of social media as a source of political
information was positively related to political participation.
According to Halpern, Valenzuela, and Katz, “political sharing
of content on social media activates users' sense of personal and
collective agency, which boosts their likelihood of political
participation” (2017). Therefore, social media energizes
democracy by stimulating the propensity of its users to
participate in the civic processes. At the same time, research
shows that the positive effect of the informational use of media
was not unique to digital media. An earlier study by Gil de
Zúñiga, Puig-i-Abril and Rojas (2009) established that the
traditional informational outlets had positive effects on political
engagement. The results of this study built support for the
position that the use of media (both digital and traditional) was
directly responsible for increased public participation in
politics.
The view that the use of the media is positively related to the
political participation of the citizens has not always been the

8. dominant position within the scholarly community in political
science. In the 1990s and early 2000, several scholars took
positions blaming the use of media for the declining levels of
civic participation in the United States at the time. Robert D.
Putnam refers to the television as the “culprit” responsible for
the erosion of the social capital and civic disengagement
(1995). Based on Putnam’s (1995) theory of time displacement,
when people watch television, it is at the expense of
participating in any activity outside their home, including
political activities. Putnam (1995) suggests that television
privatizes people’s leisure time. Therefore, rather than spending
time in social gatherings such as community political activities,
people spend more time watching TV.
Similarly, the use of non-traditional media through online
platforms has been blamed for stealing away the time that
people would otherwise have utilized in political participation
activities. When the internet became popular as a way for
people to connect and share information, scholars started
applying Putnam’s (1995) time displacement to the use of the
internet and its effect on social life. Kraut et al. (1998) argued
that access to information through the internet would compete
with social contact as a way for people to spend their time. This
argument was a direct application of Putnam’s (1995) time
displacement theory. According to Kraut et al. (1998), the
internet “potentially reduces the importance of physical
proximity in creating and maintaining networks of strong social
ties” (p. 1019). Since strong personal ties are facilitated by
physical proximity, Kraut et al. (1998) were of the view that the
use of the internet would erode peoples participating in social
life, and by extension, reduce political participation.
Conclusion
The existing body of literature documents varied effects of the
media as a source of political information to the American
political system, specifically, the effect on the political
discourse, political reputation, and political participation.
Generally, the review of the existing literature suggests that the

9. potential for harm outweighs the opportunities for benefits of
the use of the media as a source of information. On the effect of
the media on the political discourse, Nyhan and Reifler (2015)
argue that media enriches the political discourse through fact-
checking. On the other side, Garimella et al. (2018) and (Baum
& Groeling, 2008) argue that the media dilutes the political
discourse through partisan filtering or algorithmic filtering
which prevents the audience from being exposed to ideas that
are different from their own. On the effect of the media on the
political reputation, Riezebos et al. (2011) and McGregor
(2017) laud the media for being instrumental in cultivating a
positive reputation for the politicians, a reputation that enables
them to connect with their constituents. On the other hand,
Allcott and Gentzkow (2017) and Mihailidis and Viotty (2017)
illustrate the dark side of the media when it is used for
character assassinations through fake news. Finally, on the
effect of the media on political participation, Gil de Zúñiga,
Jung and Valenzuela (2012), Halpern, Valenzuela and Katz
(2017) and Gil de Zúñiga, Puig-i-Abril and Rojas (2009) are of
the view that the use of media as a source of political
information energizes democracy by stimulating political
participation. On the other hand, Putnam’s (1995) and Kraut et
al. (1998) dismiss any prospect that the media could positively
contribute to political participation, arguing that it robs its
users of the time they would have used to participate in the
political process, hence eroding political participation.
.
References
Allcott, H., & Gentzkow, M. (2017). Social media and fake
news in the 2016 election. Journal of Economic Perspectives,
31(2), 211-36.
Baum, M. A., & Groeling, T. (2008). New media and the
polarization of American political discourse. Political
Communication, 25(4), 345-365.

10. Garimella, K., De Francisci Morales, G., Gionis, A., &
Mathioudakis, M. (2018, April). Political Discourse on Social
Media: Echo Chambers, Gatekeepers, and the Price of
Bipartisanship. In Proceedings of the 2018 World Wide Web
Conference on World Wide Web (pp. 913-922). International
World Wide Web Conferences Steering Committee.
Gil de Zúñiga, H., Jung, N., & Valenzuela, S. (2012). Social
media use for news and individuals' social capital, civic
engagement and political participation. Journal of Computer-
Mediated Communication, 17(3), 319-336.
Gil de Zúñiga, H., Puig-i-Abril, E., & Rojas, H. (2009).
Weblogs, traditional sources online and political participation:
An assessment of how the Internet is changing the political
environment. New media & society, 11(4), 553-574.
Halpern, D., Valenzuela, S., & Katz, J. E. (2017). We face, I
tweet: How different social media influence political
participation through collective and internal efficacy. Journal of
Computer-Mediated Communication, 22(6), 320-336.
Kraut, R., Patterson, M., Lundmark, V., Kiesler, S.,
Mukophadhyay, T., & Scherlis, W. (1998). Internet paradox: A
social technology that reduces social involvement and
psychological well-being?. American psychologist, 53(9), 1017.
McGregor, S. C. (2018). Personalization, social media, and
voting: Effects of candidate self-personalization on vote
intention. new media & society, 20(3), 1139-1160.
Mihailidis, P., & Viotty, S. (2017). Spreadable spectacle in
digital culture: Civic expression, fake news, and the role of
media literacies in “post-fact” society. American Behavioral
Scientist, 61(4), 441-454.
Mitchell, A., Gottfried, J., Shearer, E., & Barthel, M. (2016,
June 13). Where Americans Are Getting News About the 2016
Presidential Election. Retrieved February 12, 2019, from
http://www.journalism.org/2016/02/04/the-2016-presidential-
campaign-a-news-event-thats-hard-to-miss/.
Nyhan, B., & Reifler, J. (2015). The effect of fact‐checking on
elites: A field experiment on US state legislators. American

11. Journal of Political Science, 59(3), 628-640.
Putnam, R. (1995). Tuning In, Tuning Out: The Strange
Disappearance of Social Capital in America. PS: Political
Science and Politics,28(4), 664-683.
Riezebos, P., de Vries, S. A., de Vries, P. W., & de Zeeuw, E.
(2011, July). The effects of social media on political party
perception and voting behavior. In Proceedings of the IADIS
International Conferences ICT, Society and Human Beings
2011, e-Democracy, Equity and Social Justice 2011. IADIS
Publishing.
NURS 6051N
1. In this Discussion, you will consider a scenario that would
benefit from access to data and how such access could facilitate
both problem-solving and knowledge formation.
To Prepare:
Reflect on the concepts of informatics and knowledge work as
presented in the Resources.
Consider a hypothetical scenario based on your own healthcare
practice or organization that would require or benefit from the
access/collection and application of data. Your scenario may
involve a patient, staff, or management problem or gap.
Part 2:
Assignment: The Nurse Leader as Knowledge Worker
The term “knowledge worker” was first coined by management
consultant and author Peter Drucker in his book, The Landmarks
of Tomorrow (1959). Drucker defined knowledge workers as
high-level workers who apply theoretical and analytical
knowledge, acquired through formal training, to develop

12. products and services. Does this sound familiar?
Nurses are very much knowledge workers. What has changed
since Drucker’s time are the ways that knowledge can be
acquired. The volume of data that can now be generated and the
tools used to access this data have evolved significantly in
recent years and helped healthcare professionals (among many
others) to assume the role of knowledge worker in new and
powerful ways.
In this Assignment, you will consider the evolving role of the
nurse leader and how this evolution has led nurse leaders to
assume the role of knowledge worker. You will prepare a
presentation with an info graphic to educate others on the role
of nurse as knowledge worker.
Reference: Drucker, P. (1959). The landmarks of tomorrow.
New York, NY: HarperCollins Publishers.
To Prepare:
Review the concepts of informatics as presented in the
Resources.
Reflect on the role of a nurse leader as a knowledge worker.
Consider how knowledge may be informed by data that is
collected/accessed.
The Assignment:
Explain the concept of a knowledge worker.
Define and explain nursing informatics and highlight the role of
a nurse leader as a knowledge worker.
Develop a simple infographic to help explain these concepts.
NOTE: For guidance on infographics, including how to create
one in PowerPoint, see “How to Make an Infographic in
PowerPoint” as presented in the Resources.
Present the hypothetical scenario you originally shared in the

13. Discussion Forum. Include your examination of the data that
you could use, how the data might be accessed/collected, and
what knowledge might be derived from that data. Be sure to
incorporate feedback received from your colleagues’ replies.
Running head: RESEARCH PROSPECTUS
1
RESEARCH PROSPECTUS
8
Research Prospectus
(Student’s name)
(Professor’s name)
(Course title)
(Date of submission)
Topic: Trump decision to pull US troops from Syria lowers risks
and costs.
The decision for President Donald Trump to remove U.S forces
from Syria come as a sudden announcement and a shock to
many. Nonetheless, the move is based on consistent key aspects
of Trump’s military and foreign policy. The president had
initially promised to bring back 2,000 U.S Special Forces from
Syria. The announcement brought a lot of opposition from the
Pentagon and from other key allies. This decision will bring

14. negative consequences and at the same time, it will also have
positive consequences. Although, time is the only thing that can
be able to tell if the positive implications for the decisions will
outweigh the negative ones. Hence it is important to set out
both in consideration of wisdom of that decision made by the
president. The national security officials have raised concerns
that withdrawal of the U.S forces from Syria can cost the
American credibility in that specific region. It also causes
significant escalation to an already devastating conflict in that
region.
Looking at the negative side of the decision is that it will cause
casualties. These are the Kurdish-dominated People’s Protection
Units militia. Through the years, YPG has been America’s
partner and the ground force is based on U.S.-led campaign
against IS in Syria. The YPG force is the only force on the
ground in Syria which is loyal to America. On the other hand,
the partnership between America and YPG has raised the
prospect of war between the U.S and Turkey. Recip Erdogan,
the Turkish dictator, threatened to launch an offensive on YPG
forces. This was followed by the American President
announcing to withdraw U.S Forces from Syria (Black, 2018).
Through the announcement by the president, it essentially meant
Kurds were on their own. America agrees to arm and supplies
the YPG forces or it means to deter Erdogan from attacking
them, Syria’s Kurds will be facing unenviable choice which is
between the Turks alone as well as throwing their hats in with
Russia and Iran while hoping to receive some sort of protection
from Turkey.
Although the U.S forces have relatively small numbers in Syria,
they have a large strategic impact between the power balance in
the country. The forces are deployed along the border which
joins Syria, Iraq, and Jordan, the forces are able to block Iran
from taking over Iraqi-Syria border which forges a land bridge
which links Iran to the Mediterranean through Iraq, Syria, and
Lebanon. At the same time, the American forces have also been
able to prevent Iran forces from attacking Jordan. Trump’s

15. decision of removing increase the likelihood of war just as
Iran’s pending seizure of the Syrian-Iraqi border increase the
likelihood of war. This means that Israel will be able to find
itself under attack and at war with Iran and its own proxies in
Syria and Lebanon (Barnes & Barron, 2018).
The forces had been stationed in Syria to assist the Syrian
Forces in fighting rebel enclaves in the desert east of the River
Euphrates. Despite the claims which have been made by the
president, the American forces and their allies were in a
successful process of wiping out the enemy, until now. This
means that the American presence in Syria is very essential,
even though they are small in numbers. The US forces with
Kurdish allies, hold all territories to the east of River
Euphrates, which about a quarter of the entire of the entire
territory of Syria. When the forces return home, America will
lose an important asset which would grain its influence over
whatever surface in Syria after the civil war is over. Another
important asset in the region is a Special Forces base in Al-
Tanf, which is near the triangle border. From this base, US air
and the intelligence forces are able to operate against IS
enclaves in Deir Ez-Zour area. Therefore the American
departure from Syria does not bode well, from an Israeli as well
as Jordanian perspective. It is the American presence which is
able to block the establishments of the Quds Forces of the
Iranian Revolutionary Guards and the Shiite militias which are
brought into Syria near its own borders with Jordan and Israel.
One of the major benefits of withdrawing American troops is
that the country will be able to stop chasing tails of a region in
which there is no particular interest. Most regions can
apparently be blamed for what is happening in Syria. Recently,
Bush’s illegitimate war in Iraq made contributions in a major
way to de-stabilize more a region which never knew stability.
What followed after this was disastrous. This followed president
Obama inheriting a situation which was very horrible and that
which was handled poorly.
Most of the American people do not have an interest in seeing

16. their country in danger and in a war that they do not understand
or even care about. In this sense, Trump is doing what I believe
most of the American would want. Surprisingly far more
liberals than conservatives are agreeing to the troops leaving
Syria. One of the main reason why Trump wants American
troops out of Syria is due to economic reasons. It is the same
reason he declared victory over the IS. The US departure does
not signal America is leaving the coalition which is against IS
but rather, know that the IS has lost its strongholds, the country
is transitioning to the next phase of the campaign.
The announcement implies that America is letting Russia and
Iran shape their own interest and a new type of order which will
form in Syria at the end of the civil war. As a result of these,
Iran will be able to ground its foothold in Syria through an easy
way and Russia will be able to influence the Middle East which
includes Iraq, and it will grow. The Kurds losing the support of
a protector and adviser will have to try and seek shelter in
Assad's arms while the American forces leave the areas, the
turkey will start to free to attack them whenever they want.
Topic: Religion and Politics.
The relation between religion and politics has continued to be
of importance in political science despite the rise of consensus
on the rights to freedom of conscience and on the need on the
need for some sort of separation between church and the state.
One of the main significance of this topic is the fact that
religion often makes strong claims on people’s allegiance, and
universal religion, on the other hand, makes claims on all
people rather than just a particular community of people. For
example, Islam region has traditionally maintained that all
people owe obedience to the will of Allah. This the main reason
that region commitments will come into conflict through the
demands of politics. The region beliefs and practices potentially
support politics in many different ways. The form of this is very
essential to politics due to the fact that it can be a possibility of
a conflict. Besides, there has been an increasing interest in
minority groups and more political rights are due. Due to this

17. result of interest, there can arise a big interest in the attention
that is given to a particular group who are distinguished by their
religion as it is opposed to ethnicity or even gender (Gentile,
2006).
There may arise political problems as a result if the way in
which region and politics intersect. Religion is able to exert its
political influence in many different ways. It can directly be
involved in partisan activity. This is considering whether it may
be supporting one side of partisan’s political race or even
lobbying for a reform that is legitimate based on religious
values. Many of the candidates in politics run for office through
religious platforms while looking for religious groups support.
For example, the Republican Party in most case follows this
type of strategy. In the year 2004 presidential race, George W.
Bush lost to John Kerry in what was based a religious victory.
Although there is a costly and very controversial war happening
overseas, the main focus of the election seems to be on religious
and moral values for example on abortion and gay rights. The
war happening in Iraq can be seen as a security issue instead of
a moral value issue. The moral issues can be significant in
mobilizing the evangelism and conservative rights of voting.
In the past, religion has been involved in policy debates and
other not partisan issues, for example, racial equality and
protests against the war in Vietnam and Iraq. The fact remains
that religion is more likely to set forth a common value which is
held by a certain group of people, this implies that it has a large
influence through everyday decision and interactions. It is a
socially identifying identity entity which explains the nature of
the order of the world, why some of the things happen, and how
people are associated with the protection of human rights and
environment.
The separation of the state with the church plays a very
significant role in domestic politics regarding science and

18. education. The separation is also a major advance in human
history and political theory. Religious leaders should not be
given political power due to the fact they are a part of the
religious hierarchy. Iran is a country which provides a good
example of this on the latest of how theocracy corrupts religion
and politics.
Rationality of politics
It is very essential to question the assumption, practical
universal in works based on politics, that political theory, as
well as politics, are rational. The rational choice theory of
politics is based on the assumption that people choose a course
of action which is in line with their personal preference. The
rational choice theory in politics is used to model human
decisions making, essentially in the context of economics where
it helps the economist in understanding the main behavior of the
society based on individual actions which are explained through
their rationality. This choice, and especially in politics are
made consistently due to the fact they fit personal preferences.
This theory heavily applies to political science (Chong, 2013).
The rational choice theory is an essential element of game
theory that provides a framework of analyzing individuals’
mutually interdependent interaction. Politics can, therefore, be
defined as a preference over an outcome and it is a set of
possible actions which are available to each person. The game
theory represents a formal study of social institutions with set
rules that relate the agent’s actions to the outcomes. This theory
assumes that agents are a like-minded rational opponent who is
very aware of each other’s preferences and strategies. In this
case, politics can be considered as being rational.
References
Barnes, J., & Barron, R. (2018). Trump Policy in the Middle
East: ISIS. Issue Brief, 1.
Black, I. (2018). Donald Trump and the Middle East. Political
Insight, 9(1), 22-25.
Chong, D. (2013). Degrees of rationality in politics. In The

19. Oxford handbook of political psychology.
Gentile, E. (2006). Politics as religion. Princeton University
Press.