Relationship between Faith, Self-Discipline, and Political Integrity

This article explores the interrelation between faith, self-discipline, and political integrity. It also discusses how the progressive and New Deal movements transformed constitutional interpretation. Additionally, it explains how government regulations and subsidies distort markets.

Running Head: GOVERNMENT
Government
Name
Institution

GOVERNMENT 2
Government
The relationship between faith, personal discipline, and political integrity
The relationship between faith, self-discipline and political integrity can be said to be
interrelated in many ways. Self-discipline is related to faith in the everyday lives of people since
self-discipline is a virtue most intimately connected to maturity that includes the commitment to
reality and truth where an individual should have faith. Self-discipline has been seen as
enabling people to maintain faith and is important to revival and spiritual success. For instance,
within Christianity faith is emphasized through self-discipline people should have hope (Volf &
McAnnally-Linz, 2017). Also, faith and self-discipline are the pillars of political integrity.
Without self-discipline, political integrity will not be attained and political leaders should
develop faith as a conviction to be able to develop political integrity. Importantly, political
integrity calls for a higher sense of self-discipline among the political class. Hence, cultivating
political integrity, political leaders should demonstrate a high level of self-discipline by serving
faithfully and these leaders should convince people to have faith in their leadership. This
evidence in the Republican Party in the US where political integrity is founded on self-discipline
and winning the faith of the people in the society t believe in the political leadership and have
hope (De & Hall, 2009).
How the Progressive movement and the New Deal movement transformed constitutional
interpretation?
The progressive era, as well as the New Deal provided a momentum of constitutional
transformation in America. The New Deal order transformed the function of government,

GOVERNMENT 3
persuading the mainstream of the US citizens that the state not only would; however, must
intervene in the matters of economy and at the same time safeguard and offer direct assistance
and support to the great people of the US. The New Deal order had the goal of alleviating
poverty, unemployment, offer higher opportunities, as well as reinstate success to the people of
the US. Additionally, the New Deal movement changed the manner the justice system and the
courts in the US were viewed where the rights of people were expanded. On the other side, the
Progressive movement had a great impact on offering constitutional changes in matters of
economic. The Progressive Era witnessed between the 1890s and 1920s targeted at improving
both the society, as well as political activity via technological developments attained by
modernizers in the Second Industrial Revolution. During this era, the US attained the greatest
economic development. This resulted in a better interpretation of the constitution to eliminate all
the social and economic ills in society (Milkis, 2009).
Illustrations of how government regulations and/or subsidies (legal plunder, perhaps?)
channels behavior and/or distorts markets
Subsidies by the government are a problem rather than a solution to since it kills global
competition. The subsidies by the government will undermine competition, taint triumphs and
will cheat clean competitors; hence, distorting the market. Government regulation, on the other
hand, will distort the market when the policies are poorly designed by stifling innovation, job
creation and undermine sustainable developing by impeding on free-market principle. One
illustration is that when the government provides regulations in the market, the political class
will take advantage of these regulations. For instance, politicians will tend to look for “short-
term fixes” when it comes to challenging times in the economy. For example, a decision to build
more roads to ease congestion can bring problems by encouraging more cars in the roads

GOVERNMENT 4
distorting the market. Another illustration is that government subsidies to specific industries will
likely distort the appropriate working of marketplaces and result in inefficiencies in the market.
For example, a short-run monetary support to coal producers to minimize emissions may confirm
waste of scarce resources if the sector has little opportunity of attaining viable rate of return in
the long-term based on the potency of global competition (Fred, 2012).

GOVERNMENT 5
References
De, L. W., & Hall, A. (2009). Intelligent control: Developments in public order policing in
Canada. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
Fred L. S. (2012). Countering the Assault on Capitalism. Institute of Economic Affairs,
Blackwell Publishing, Oxford.
Milkis, S. M. (2009). Theodore Roosevelt, the Progressive Party, and the transformation of
American democracy. Lawrence, Kan: University Press of Kansas.
Volf, M., & McAnnally-Linz, R. (2017). Public Faith in Action: How to Engage with
Commitment, Conviction, and Courage. Grand Rapids: Baker Publishing Group.