If you're not first you're last

Rockhurst students usually don't enroll in PS1100, American Government,  so they can learn about the nation's founding.  More typically they are interested in current events and controversy.  They are more prone to enter the class with opinions about current politicians rather than the thoughts and views of the framers.  Some tend to like President Obama rather than Republicans. 

While other might think he is a bit out of touch.

So it might be difficult to engage students in a discussion about the founder's motivations and principles when their attention is understandably drawn to current events, such as those in Syria.  The glory that makes the connection easy is that present day political actions are guided by the structures of government established all those years ago by men such as Jefferson, Madison, and Washington. 



Concepts such as the separation of powers and checks and balances play out on the modern political stage. 

Public conversation today is hinging on if the President of the United States should have sent a powerful foreign policy message by acting quickly without the consent of Congress.  If he would have attacked Syria with no Congressional resolution he is, according to those eager to let loose a missile salvo, teaching the world that the US remains the dominant power in the middle east.




However, on this one I come down on the side of the President.  While communication from the White House has been bewildering, sending a message to the world that democratic processes will have their say rather than quick unilateral action is a wonderful thing.  To use a sports analogy: this is an "audible from the line of scrimmage" being cast by the White House as well thought out set play.  I think all of that inside the D.C. Beltway analysis is far less important though when compared to getting the right result: the correct handling of a foreign policy and humanitarian crisis.