Torah History Research Paper Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1000 words

Torah History - Research Paper Example This paper discusses the probable history of Torah, a holy book of the Jews. In Hebrew, Torah means to demonstrate belief or decree. In general, terms â€Å"Torah† means Judaism written law and oral law. Torah first originated with Moses when God first spoke to him from the mount of Sinai, 50 days after their escape from Egyptian slavery. Jewish tradition believed that the book was dedicated to Moses except the last eight verses of Deuteronomy that talks of Moses death. According to Telushkin (2008), Torah shows how God wants Jews to live, and it contains 613 commandments that guide Jews way of life. Torah is written in Jewish language, which is the oldest Jewish language. It consists of the first five books of the Jewish bible also called the Pentateuch. However, some scholars believe that Torah has multiple authors, and it is a blend of four separate sources. It is believed that it was written in the 450 BCE and its sources include the Jahwist, Elohist, the Deutronomist and the priestly source. There is no deduction for this since many other authors have come up with their hypothesis of the evolution of Torah with no one consensus reached for it (Telushkin, 2008). ... Between fourth and second BC unknown authors came up and wrote about some prophets who had preceded them in many centuries. For instance, the book of Psalms, Jonah and Proverbs could not connect to the prophets they ascribed. Thus, the oldest part of Manual dates back 916 AD. In the second century Ad, some Jewish leaders incorporated all the materials they could find and prepared a Jewish bible. The Jewish oral laws remained unwritten until the third century Ad when Yahudah committed them into writing with a title â€Å"Mishnah.† Jews believed that together with the Torah Moses received from God as written law, he received some unwritten law that Jews needed to move from generation to generation. They called it Torah She bal Pei or Torah from the mouth. In Hebrew language, Pei numerically stands for 80 years, which is the age that Moses was when he led the Jews out of slavery. Torah from the mouth helped Jews to understand the method to observe the written law. According to Rh odes Jewish Museum, the oldest written Torah is about 800 years old. A comparison of the oldest Torah in the world with the current Torah reveals the following differences. First, the 800 year-old Torah has 45 lines per column while the present Torah has 42 lines per column. Secondly, the 800 year-old Torah consists of elongated letters while in the present Torah only certain letters are elongated. Thirdly, the 800 year-old Torah was written using an clear style that was last used about 400 years ago called â€Å"Petuhot.† Current Torahs use closed system between words called â€Å"stumot.† Fourthly, the primordial Torah has the word â€Å"yud† with an extra point or protrusion, which is absent in the current Torah, (Rhodes Jewish Museum, 2012). To establish a Torah, one needed to

Disc Assessment Essay Example for Free

Disc Assessment Essay DISC Assessment Paper Organizational behavior studies have become more significant in today’s present years than hey were before in past years, this is due to companies realizing that in order to acclimatize to the constantly changing business cultures that have stemmed from a competitive and rapidly moving market, they must put more emphasis on the correlation between human behavior and the organization. Understanding this concept has led many several companies to put investment into behavior assessments and seminars and use them as a training tool to educate their employees and learn the reasons for each person’s behavior and attitudes and how to handle and approach these various types of behaviors and attitudes. In this paper we will be discussing the study of various behaviors via taking the DISC platinum Rule Behavioral Style Assessment to identify both me and my learning team member’s predominant behavior styles. We will then analyze our behavior styles, our strengths and weaknesses identified within our styles and whether or not we agree or disagree with the assessment. The DISC Assessment categorized both of our behavioral types as being the interactive style and our sub styles were lc. The Interactive Style also called I Style is friendly, enthusiastic, a â€Å"party animal† that love to be where all the action is. They thrive on the acknowledgment, admiration and compliments that follow being in the spot light. They are more relationship-oriented than they are task-oriented. An Interactive style’s strengths are charm, persuasiveness, warmth and enthusiasm. They are gifted in skills and communication between individuals as well as groups. They are optimists with a large amount of charisma. They are also dreamers and idea-people who excel in getting others excited about their vision. All of these qualities assist them in influencing people and building alliances. The interactive style’s weaknesses are pinpointed as poor follow-through, carelessness, exaggeration and disorganization. They have a habit of getting to involved in too many activities and lose interest quickly. Furthermore, they can at times be seen as being impetuous, manipulative, and excitable when displaying behavior that is inappropriate to a situation. When analyzing the results of the DISC Assessment and the summary of my behavior. We were able to comprehend why we function and act the way that we do while interacting with our co workers, family and people. We both started to think about our adolescent years until now and realized that everyone wanted to be our friends and we were also chosen to be the leader most of the time. I would sometimes avoid being the leader and Gina would always be the leader but we were also both content with just being apart of the activities and tasks needing to be accomplished but our ability to drive others and complete task with enthusiasm would always show because of this we were thereby always moved to the front of the crowd. We also noticed that this same thing applies when were in the workplace; we were both again selected to be a leader after just a short time of displaying our abilities to charm and motivate. Gina noticed that she is always the person to excite employees and get them to produce at a faster pace when completing departmental tasks and goals. Gina saw that her managers are always pleased with her people skills and that they often use her as an example to her peers when adjusting or presenting new changes to the department. I identified that I was good at innovation at work and creating new ideas. Gina and I both welcome and look forward to change because it keeps and sparks our interest. We both despise boredom. DISC offered us so much information about our interactive style’s typical business characteristics such as wanting to be included by others in significant events such as research and brainstorming, resisting control and desiring freedom. In our personal lives we both also realized how our behavior style applied because we both don’t like when someone doesn’t give us their undivided attention and when were not given an opportunity to express ourselves or opinions.

Differences of Liberal and Conservative Views on Social and Economic Issues

Differences of Liberal and Conservative Views on Social and Economic Issues Political intolerance: Liberals and conservatives on social and economic issues. Abstract: In recent studies liberals and conservatives have been shown to express equal amounts of intolerance towards groups with dissimilar ideologies (Brandt et al., 2014; Crawford et al., 2017). This goes against decades of studies that show that conservatives express higher levels of intolerance compared to liberals (Sibley and Duckitt, 2008). This study explores reasons why recent studies have adopted a better methodology and issues with the vast sum of previous studies. We test participant’s intolerance towards groups that have political ideologies both similar and dissimilar to their own. The results show mixed evidence both supporting and not supporting the intolerance equality claim. We look at reasons why this could be the case and present an improvement for future studies. Introduction: Conservative political ideologies has for decades been linked to higher levels of intolerance and prejudice compared to opposing liberal political ideologies (Sibley & Duckitt, 2008). This has created the idea that liberals are also therefore more tolerant and express less prejudice. This has resulted in what looks like a ‘prejudice gap’ between the two ideologies (Farwell & Weiner, 2000). Recently these finding have been brought into question. New studies support that both conservative and liberal ideologies are equal in intolerance and prejudice, thus disproving the prejudice gap, towards views that don’t match their own.   This study explores the relationship between an individual’s political ideology and their intolerance towards an out-group. Intolerance and prejudice are closely related. Intolerance is the unwillingness to accept views, beliefs, or behaviour that differ from ones own. Prejudice is a preconceived opinion that is not based on reason or actual experience. One issue with previous studies is that they focused around minority groups such as African Americans, homosexuals and immigrants (Sears & Henry, 2003; (Terrizzi, Shook, & Ventis, 2010; Meertens & Pettigrew, 1997). These minority groups tend to have a bias towards liberal political ideologies. This is crucial in recognising as it shows that these types of studies focus on tolerance demonstrated by liberals and conservatives towards mostly liberal groups. The current research that has demonstrated that liberals and conservatives show equal amounts of intolerance have done so by exploring the tolerance of conservatives and liberals towards both liberal and conservative groups. It was found that liberals and conservatives express negative prejudices towards groups whose values are different from their own (Morgan, Mullen, & Skitka, 2010). In addition people who had conservative or liberal views even tended to prefer to distance themselves from others who did not share similar views (Skitka, Bauman, & Sargis, 2005). One study that explored this concept developed the ideological conflict hypothesis (ICH) (Brandt et al., 2014). The ICH proposes that people of different political views are willing to express intolerance and prejudice towards political ideologies that are not similar to their own.   The ICH proposes that conservatives and liberals engage in tactics such as motivated information processing and defence against worldview-violating groups to defend their ideologies. Motivated information processing is when an individual is selective about information they process. Individuals will take in information that supports their worldview while filtering out and ignoring information that conflict with their worldviews, (Kunda, 1990). Research has shown that both liberals and conservatives engage in motivated information processing when presented with an opposing political ideology (Bartels, 2002; Crawford, Jussim, Cain, & Cohen, 2013). Defence against worldview-violating groups is the need to maintain a constant worldview. This wanting of a constant worldview leads to increased intolerance towards groups whose ideologies are dissimilar to the individuals (Chambers & Melnyk, 2006). Studies have shown that both conservatives and liberals share the same level of intensity in regards to their ideologies (Skitka & Bauman, 2008). Building on from ICH one study proposed a theory of multi-dimensional ideological conflict (Crawford et al., 2017). Previous research in this area tends to treat political ideologies as a single dimension; a subject is either liberal or conservative (Jost et al., 2003) meaning the concept of ideological conflict only had one dimension to it. However this not the case, as there is growing evidence to support that there is more then one dimension to an individuals political ideologies (Crawford et al., 2017); that is a person may have a conservative view in one area and a liberal view in another, each view is a dimension. Collectively these dimensions create the persons worldview and ideology, however they are not longer belonging to just one group, conservative or liberal. This study looked at social and economic ideologies. Social ideology tends to refer to issues regarding personal freedoms (abortion, same-sex marriage etc) with conservatives tending to favour greater restriction and liberals favouring fewer restrictions in these areas. Economic ideology tends to refer to matters evolving the economy, with conservatives favouring less government regulations and liberals favouring greater government regulation. This study found two interesting patterns; the first is that it found support for ICH. That is both conservatives and liberals showed equal levels of intolerance towards views that were dissimilar to their own. The second finding was that liberals and conservatives, while still showing equal levels of intolerance, reported to have higher levels of conflict towards social ideologies compared to economic ideologies. Evidence supporting this notion suggest that a persons position on social issues more strongly labels them as a liberal or conservat ive compared to their views of economic issues (Feldman & Johnston, 2013), allowing for a greater intensity of conflict to arise when presented with dissimilar social ideologies compared to economic ideologies. Recent studies are pointing towards two new developments in the understanding of political ideological conflict. The first is that individuals that are conservative or liberal will express equal levels of intolerance towards groups or ideas dissimilar to their own (Brandt et al., 2014). The second is that individuals can have both conservative and liberal views at the same time, but belonging to different dimensions (Crawford et al., 2017), such as social or economic. In addition to this the level of intolerance/conflict expressed is higher for social issues compared to economic.   Ã‚   This leads to this studies hypothesis, it is expected that the results will support ICH, that being that both liberal and conservative participants will show equal levels of intolerance towards groups with dissimilar political ideologies. Additionally it is expected to see higher levels of intolerance/conflict in the social dimension then the economic dimension. Discussion: In this study we explored the intolerance levels of participants who held conservative/liberal views towards groups of both similar and dissimilar views on social and economic issues. The results both supported and did not support our hypotheses. In the social domain test we found evidence in favour of our hypothesis, however in the economic domain we found evidence that contradicted our initial hypotheses. In the social domain, our findings supported our first hypothesis; participants were found to show equal levels of intolerance towards social ideologies that were dissimilar to them. This supports the ideological conflict hypothesis (Brandt et al., 2014). As the ICH states, the possible reasons for the results found in this study is due to motivated information processing (Kunda, 1990) and defence against worldview-violating groups (Chambers & Melnyk, 2006; Skitka & Bauman, 2008).   This states that when liberals or conservative form ideas on a group with political ideologies not similar to their own, they are likely to form ideas that confirm their current ideology, this typically leads to the individual forming negative views towards groups of dissimilar ideologies. This is appropriate as this study presented randomly assigned participants to an out-group with randomly assigned political ideologies, meaning that participants would either be paired to an out-group that had similar or dissimilar political views. Additionally to this finding, it was noted participants showed higher levels of tolerance towards groups who shared similar political ideology. This provides additional evidence in favour of the ICH, as it is expected that when a participant is presented with a similar view to their own, they should express less intolerance. The question this brings up however is why our findings matched ICH and not the vastly large collection of studies that found conservatives to be more intolerant (Sibley & Duckitt, 2008). This is explained through the methodology of this experiment. Unlike the majority of studies conducted in the meta-analysis (Sibley & Duckitt, 2008), this studied looked at the intolerance towards groups that held both liberal and conservative views. Previous studies tended to only look at the intolerance towards groups who are easily associated with liberal views (Sears & Henry, 2003; (Terrizzi, Shook, & Ventis, 2010; Meertens & Pettigrew, 1997). This experiments methodology closely matched (Brandt et al., 2014) which provides reasoning behind why the results ended up supporting ICH over the vast majority of studies conducted. However due to the large volume of studies against our hypothesis, it’s important to properly address this. A large proportion of social and political psychologists id entify as a liberal with mostly liberal values (Inbar & Lammers, 2012). As ICH would predict, these liberal researchers could be experiencing motivated information processing and defence against worldview-violating groups. One study found that liberal psychologists tended to investigate topics that are of greater importance to liberal ideology (Mullen, Bauman, & Skitka, 2003). So while not discrediting these previous studies, there is evidence supporting a bias within them. This provides further evidence to why our study did not reproduce their results as well as why it is okay that it didn’t. In the economic domain, our findings did not support our first hypothesis, and gave weak evidence towards our second hypothesis. The first hypothesis that this goes against is that both liberals and conservatives will express equal levels of intolerance. Our findings show that conservatives have a much greater intolerance towards groups with dissimilar economic ideologies. The second hypothesis was that social domains would show a higher level of conflict compared to the economic domain. While this remains true for liberal participants and conservatives presented with a conservative out-group. Conservatives presented with an economically liberal out-group demonstrated a much higher level of intolerance, which goes against our second hypothesis. This could be explained if there was a skew in our sample size, this being more liberals then conservatives or vice versa. This leads to one possible error in this study, a sample bias. The target group in this experiment was university studen ts with an average age of around 21-22. One Australian poll found that for the ages of 18-24 and 25-34, political groups with liberal ideologies (e.g. labour party and the greens) dominated over the conservative Australian liberal party (Roy Morgan, 2017). This brings up one issue with the experiment conducted, that is that we did not take into account the number of liberals compared to conservatives and thus over-looked the possibility for a sample skew. If there was a skew in the political identities of participants (favouring liberals) one reason for higher intolerance could be explained according to political conformity (Cohen, 2003). In an age group with a majority of liberal minded individuals, an individual needs to have strong belief in their ideologies to not conform politicly to the majority. So if there was a skew and the people who identified as conservative had strong conservative ideologies, this would example why results showed conservatives more intolerant in economi c domains. Further research is needed where the sample size is correctly identified and taken into account. In conclusion this study found evidence that both supported and did not support our hypotheses. Over the social domain we see evidence of ICH however this is not seen in the economic domain. This could be due to a sample bias that was not taken into account by researchers. Future studies, which control and take into account any sample biases, are needed. References Bartels L. M. (2002). Beyond the running tally: Partisan bias in political  Ã‚   perceptions. Political Behavior, 24, pp.117–150. Brandt, M., Reyna, C., Chambers, J., Crawford, J. and Wetherell, G. (2014). The Ideological-Conflict Hypothesis.  Current Directions in Psychological Science, 23(1), pp.27-34. Chambers, J. and Melnyk, D. (2006). Why Do I Hate Thee? Conflict Misperceptions and Intergroup Mistrust.  Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 32(10), pp.1295-1311. Cohen, G. (2003). Party Over Policy: The Dominating Impact of Group Influence on Political Beliefs.  Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85(5), pp.808-822. Crawford, J., Brandt, M., Inbar, Y., Chambers, J. and Motyl, M. (2017). Social and economic ideologies differentially predict prejudice across the political spectrum, but social issues are most divisive.  Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 112(3), pp.383-412. Crawford, J., Jussim, L., Cain, T. and Cohen, F. (2013). Right-wing authoritarianism and social dominance orientation differentially predict biased evaluations of media reports.  Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 43(1), pp.163-174. Farwell, L. and Weiner, B. (2000). Bleeding Hearts and the Heartless: Popular Perceptions of Liberal and Conservative Ideologies.  Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26(7), pp.845-852. Feldman, S. and Johnston, C. (2013). Understanding the Determinants of Political Ideology: Implications of Structural Complexity.  Political Psychology, 35(3), pp.337-358. Inbar, Y. and Lammers, J. (2012). Political Diversity in Social and Personality Psychology.  SSRN Electronic Journal. Jost, J., Glaser, J., Kruglanski, A. and Sulloway, F. (2003). Political conservatism as motivated social cognition.  Psychological Bulletin, 129(3), pp.339-375. Kunda, Z. (1990). The case for motivated reasoning.  Psychological Bulletin, 108(3), pp.480-498. Meertens, R. and Pettigrew, T. (1997). Is Subtle Prejudice Really Prejudice?.  Public Opinion Quarterly, 61(1, Special Issue on Race), p.54. Morgan, G., Mullen, E. and Skitka, L. (2010). When Values and Attributions Collide: Liberals’ and Conservatives’ Values Motivate Attributions for Alleged Misdeeds.  Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 36(9), pp.1241-1254. Mullen, E., Bauman, C. and Skitka, L. (2003). Avoiding the Pitfalls of Politicized Psychology.  Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy, 3(1), pp.171-176. Roy Morgan. (2017).  L-NP (51%) takes the lead over ALP (49%) with only 3 weeks to go. [online] Available at: http://roymorgan.com.au/findings/51115-morgan-poll-august-19-2013-201308181432 [Accessed 1 Oct. 2017]. Sears, D. and Henry, P. (2003). The origins of symbolic racism.  Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85(2), pp.259-275. Sibley, C. and Duckitt, J. (2008). Personality and Prejudice: A Meta-Analysis and Theoretical Review.  Personality and Social Psychology Review, 12(3), pp.248-279. Skitka, L. and Bauman, C. (2008). Moral Conviction and Political Engagement.  Political Psychology, 29(1), pp.29-54. Skitka, L., Bauman, C. and Sargis, E. (2005). Moral Conviction: Another Contributor to Attitude Strength or Something More?.  Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88(6), pp.895-917. Terrizzi, J., Shook, N. and Ventis, W. (2010). Disgust: A predictor of social conservatism and prejudicial attitudes toward homosexuals.  Personality and Individual Differences, 49(6), pp.587-592.

What The United States Can Learn From Japan :: essays research papers

What The United States Can Learn From Japan Japan and the Four Little Dragons in order to achieve their industrialization goals have a diverse set of policies ranging from limited entitlement programs to a education and government bureaucracy that stresses achievement and meritocracy. But one of the most significant innovations of Japan and the Four Little Dragons is there industrial policy which targets improving specific sectors of the economy by focusing R&D, subsidies, and tax incentives to specific industries that the government wants to promote. The United States could adopt some of these industrial policies to help foster emerging high tech businesses and help existing U.S. business remain competitive with East Asia. In Japan the government both during the Meiji period and the post World War II period followed a policy of active, sector selective industrial targeting. Japan used basically the same model during both historical periods. The Japanese government would focus its tax incentive programs, subsidies, and R&D on what it saw as emerging industries. During the Meiji period Japan focused it's attention on emulating western technology such as trains, steel production, and textiles. The Meiji leaders took taxes levied on agriculture to fund the development of these new industries. Following World War II Japanese industries used this same strategic industrial policy to develop the high-tech, steel, and car industries that Japan is known for today. Some American industries are currently heavily supported by the government through subsidies and tax breaks to farmers, steel producers, and other industries that have been hurt by foreign competition because they are predominantly low-tech industries. But this economic policy of the U.S. is almost a complete reversal of the economic policies of Japan and the Four Little Tigers; instead of fostering new businesses and high tech industry it supports out of date and low tech firms who have political clout. The existing economic policy of the United States fails to help high tech businesses develop a competitive advantage on the world market instead it stagnates innovation by providing incentives primarily to existing business. The structure of U.S. industrial policy like the structure of an advance welfare state has emphasized rewarding powerful lobbying groups and has not targeted emerging sectors of the economy. The current U.S. industrial policy is a distribution strategy and not a development strategy. Instead of this ad-hoc industrial policy the United States should follow Japan's model of strategic targeting of emerging technology. The U.S. instead of pouring its money into subsidies and tax breaks for failing low-tech industries should provide loans, subsidies and R&D money for firms that are producing high technology products. Unfortunately, there are several impediments to copying

Extracurricular activities Essay

People may say that extracurricular activities are a waste of time for everyone but that’s not the case, since extracurricular activities help with getting fit, working on focus, and management. I think it’s in everyone’s best interest to let students do extracurricular activities since it will help their students tremendously. Although sports or clubs might not be for everyone it doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be there because it could be beneficial for others. One of the main struggles with not just students but people in general is fitness. Practice is; key if you ever want to get better at sports and it’s the same with school. For students practice gets them in a stronger and fit condition. Without practice you can’t be your best and get fit. Sports also include lifting weights, since sports want students to get as fit as possible and set up lifting days. Coaches are some of the most enthusiastic people. Coaches not only encourage train ing and working hard but they will also help without hesitation if you are struggling and need help. Every student has at least a little problem with focus. Focus is gained with hard work and practice, which is easy to obtain in sports because it is used so frequently. If you don’t focus in sports you will miss the catch or a play. Sports have so many plays and techniques that without focus you will ever learn them. Focus is in sports just like it is in school. Students are more likely to learn focus in something fun like sports than something more boring like school. Sports also teach students to focus on the details which are important in things like tests and projects. One of the other problems with kids these days is they can’t manage their lives. Many students can’t manage their time properly but with clubs and sports they can learn to set times to do homework, study, and etc. students also have to manage their time so they can make it to practice and club meetings. Students also have a rough time managing homework. Without the discipline of sports or some clubs, students will just slack off. Clubs also teach students school before all else, plus without good grades you will be kicked off the team. Most students have short attention spans and bad work ethics since students have an attention span of around 8 seconds. Sports teams and clubs want you to stay on the team so they are willing to help.

Conservatism in American politics Essay

Conservatism commonly emanates from the domestic policies of republican administrations (Maisel 84). This ideology finds reflection in fiscal policies that support the major role of state and local governments in domestic affairs with the federal government focusing on foreign relations, national defense, and federal legislative enactments. Conservatism also means economic policies espousing minimal government intervention in business and economic growth via supply side economics by boosting production through capital access and tax breaks. Strong nationalist and religious values dominate conservative policies (84). However, there are also democratic administrations with conservative policies. Ronald Reagan was a republican when he became president and considered a conservative. His fiscal policies included the largest tax cuts to boost production, reduction in government spending on domestic areas, and concentration of expenditures on national defense (Light 243). The stress on federalism and the role of the state government became stronger through community level solutions and private sector initiatives on social issues such as the drug problem (252). Economic policies included loose or minimal regulation of the business sector such as removing price controls on domestically sourced oil and limiting the entry of imported automobiles from Japan to protect the local car industry (251). His administration also sought to control monetary supply to reduce inflation (250). Religious beliefs came into play in his handling of the AIDS issue by excluding those with AIDS from mainstream society based on the premise that AIDS is a manifestation of immoral acts. George H. W. Bush was also a republican president and a conservative. As the Cold War ended, his administration faced a huge budget deficit (Light 256). With limited funds and the burgeoning domestic issues, his fiscal policy focused on basic issues by increasing federal spending on education, health care for mothers and children, and technological research. Bush signed into law a number of bills that supported civil rights with the disabilities act and environmental protection via the clean air act (285). His administration also supported federal expenditures on the country’s highway system and law enforcement initiatives (285). He campaigned against new taxes but failed to achieve this because of strong pressure from the democrat majority in the legislature (277, 283). Bush implemented laissez faire. His administration was a key player in creating the North Atlantic Free Trade Agreement that removes tariffs for goods traded by America, Canada and Mexico (285). This agreement controlled intellectual property and eased cross-country investments (285). Bill Clinton was a democrat but considered by some as a conservative because of some controversial policies. The conservative aspects of his fiscal policy included tax cuts through the earned income tax credit that operated as a way of reducing the tax exaction for workers with below a floor amount (Light 277). The signing of the budget reconciliation law decreased the taxes paid by those with low income and small businesses (285). He also signed NAFTA, initially negotiated by Bush (288). The non-conservative aspects of his fiscal policy included increasing taxes for wealthy citizens, budget allocation for healthcare reform and health insurance program for children, and extension of copyright regulation (285). Clinton’s economic policies had a tinge of conservatism with deregulation of trade (288). However, he was able to achieve economic growth by focusing on controlling inflation, reducing unemployment, and securing social welfare and other services (285). Conservatism emerged in his ‘don’t ask don’t tell’ policy that allowed entry of homosexuals into the military as long as they do not disclose their sexual orientation (279). This received lesser criticism from conservatives and strong criticism from the gay and civil rights movements. In contemporary administrations, the trend is towards renewed conservatism given emerging conditions. The divide between the conservative republicans and non-conservative democrats is slowly diminishing (Maisel 86), with flexible administrative policies considered on an issue-to-issue basis.