Split-Ticket Voting in the United States

In the United States of America elections for the Congress and the Presidency coincide every four years. Traditionally the party which was successful in the presidential elections would also be successful to some degree in the congressional elections. In recent decades however a phenomenon has taken hold called Split-Ticketing in which voters elect one party for the presidency and another party for the Congress. This is in contrast to straight ticketing where voters vote for the same party in both elections. Increase in split ticketing has led to a ‘Divided Government’ in which one party controls the Congress and another party controls the executive branch.

Political scientists have put forth various reasons for split ticket behavior by the electorate however there is no consensus on its exact reason. One can argue that it is due to non partisan voting basically meaning that voters are electing the candidates based on their personalities and their policies towards various issues rather than voting for a specific party. This is seen as a symptom of a decline in partisan attachment by the American public (Wattenberg 1998; King 1997). This theory holds especially well with regards to elections which are overshadowed by an important issue. Another reason which can be added is the fact that many voters expect different things from the legislative branch and the executive branch. For example while Americans might hold the president the primary person responsible for the security of the nation they might see the Congress as the primary source responsible for initiating laws in regards to abortion and gun control. This translates into different voting approaches in elections appointing state representatives to the congress compared to presidential elections which elects the national leader (Jacobson 1990).

Another major cause cited by scientists is an intentional act of ‘Balancing’. In this regard voters elect two different parties to the Congress and White House so that the two parties balance each other out and a more even and centrist approach is taken in the governing of the country (Erikson 1988; Fiorina 1996; Mebane 2000). According to this theory split ticket voters believe in a more even handed approach to issues concerning the country and believe that they can achieve this with a balanced government. This view however is challenged by other scientists like Jacobson who believes that even if split ticketing results in a balance government it was not achieved with the purposeful intention of the voters.

There are also voters that do not agree with a single party on major issues. Since there are only two main parties in the United States, many voters cannot identify their political, economical and social views with a single party. Dr Edward G. Carmines and Dr Michael J. Ensley of Indiana University after thorough research are the primary individuals behind this theory which explains split ticketing especially in the past decade. According to this claim voters with heterodox policy preferences are much more likely to split ticket. They claim that certain categories of society fit this definition, first are the populists who have liberal views with regards to political and economic issues which match with the policies of the Democratic Party but conservative views on social and cultural issues which match with the policies of the Republican Party. Second are the libertarians who have a liberal position on cultural issues while having a conservative position on economic and social welfare issues. Thus they are drawn to the Democratic Party on cultural issues and to the Republican Party on economic issues. The third group are individuals with a moderate and centrist position on issues. Thus they are drawn to one party on certain issues and to another on other issues. These categories of voters are the main bulk of the electorate with split tickets in the past decade. For example in the 2004 elections the probability that a libertarian would cast a split ticket is 32 percent and the probabilities for the populist and moderate voters are 25 percent and 31 percent, respectively. However, the comparable probabilities for the liberal and conservative are only 11 percent and 9 percent, respectively (Carmines and Ensley 2004).

In conclusion it can be stated that there are several main theories behind the causes of split ticket voting in the United States, the main of which were stated above. It should be noted however that there is no consensus among scientist as to which theory is more correct in describing the root cause of this behavior. It seems that split ticket voting is due in part to all of the stated factors in this article. Depending on the time period and background of a specific election the importance of each causal factor is different, thus where as ‘Intentional Balancing’ can be prescribed as the predominant reason behind split ticket voting in the 80s and early 90s, research has shown that ‘Heterodox Policy Preferences’ by voters which was coined by Carmines and Ensley of Indiana University has played a more substantial role in the 2000 and 2004 elections.

References:
Carmines, Edward G., Michael J. Ensley. 2004. “Policy Preferences, Party Ideologies and
Split- Ticket Voting in the United States”, American Political Science Association.

Erikson, Robert C. 1988. “The Puzzle of Midterm Loss.” Journal of Politics 50(4): 1011-1029.

Fiorina, Morris. 1996. Divided Government. (2nd Edition) Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Jacobson, Gary. 1990. The Electoral Origin of Divided Government. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

King, David C. 1997. “The Polarization of American Parties and the Mistrust of Government,” in Joseph S. Nye, Jr., Philip D. Zelikow, and David C. King (Eds.), Why People Don’t Trust Government. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Mebane, Walter R., Jr. 2000. “Coordination, Moderation, and Institutional Balancing in American Presidential and House Elections.” American Political Science Review 94(1): 37-57.

Wattenberg, Martin P. 1998. The Decline of American Political Parties, 1952-1996. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

An Analysis of the 2004 US Presidential Elections

On November 2nd 2004 the 55th US presidential elections took place in which George W. Bush was reelected as the US president over John Kerry the democratic candidate. Bush won 31 states resulting in 286 delegates over Kerry’s 19 states + Washington DC resulting in 251 delegates. The popular vote was very close however with Bush winning 50.7% over Kerry’s 48.3% making it the smallest wining margin by a victorious president in American History [1]. Turnout for the 2004 presidential election was placed at 60.7% placing it well above the average turnout for US presidential election which is placed at 55%. The contest was also fought hard by the two dominating parties in US politics with Bush’s camp spending an estimated $367 million dollars compared to Kerry’s $326 million [2].

Social scientists who have studied US presidential elections over the years come to two different conclusions when trying to explain voting behavior in the US. One camp argues that most voters decide who to vote for based on their allegiance to a specific party which has remained constant over the years. The second camp while still stressing party affiliations believes that in the past century there have been important elections in which specific issues and the particular appeal of a candidate have caused voters to deviate from their normal identification from a particular party. These voting events are called periods of realignment by political scientists.

The 2004 election was an election that specific issues namely the war in Iraq and America’s security played a significant role. While other issues like abortion, gun control, affirmative action, health care, etc played an important part in the election however these two issues were something new on the America’s political scene where as other the other issues have been around on the political scene for a very long time. In the US presidential elections where the competition is usually very close a new issue which can create realignments or higher turnout is crucial for the wining candidate.

The War in Iraq which started in March 2003 and caused a major upheaval for Bush’s approval rating (bringing it as high as 66% according to polls done by Gallup in May 2003 when the War was perceived to be going very well) by the time of elections in November 2004 had gone sour with no end in sight. During the presidential campaign the war in Iraq was a major issue in debates and advertisements with both candidates trying to present themselves as the better suited person to handle the war. In fact one of the major controversies in the campaign was allegations by the democrats that Bush had failed to fulfill his military service requirements at the Texas National Air Guard while at the same stressing Kerry’s distinguished service as a soldier in the Vietnam War.

With the memories of 9/11 still fresh among many Americans security also played largely in the 2004 presidential election with voters concerned in choosing a president that can ‘Protect’ America. Needless to say security was also a major source of debate and concern in the 2004 elections with Bush claiming that Kerry would be "uncertain in the face of danger" while Americans could trust him to be tough on terrorism.

While initial thoughts regarding the 2004 election might point to a realignment election since two new issues were introduced causing a change in the usual party affiliation of voters that is common in American politics however closer inspection shows otherwise. By inspecting the data of the 2004 US presidential elections one finds it similar to the preceding 2000 elections. Between the 2000 election and the 2004 one finds that only 3 states moved from one party to the other in the Electoral College [3]. From the first election to the second Bush’s popularity among conservatives had increased while it had decreased among moderates and liberals [4].

This data can be analyzed by the fact that Christian conservatives especially the large and influential Evangelical population was overwhelming in support of the Iraq war [5]. Polls conducted prior to the 2004 election showed that 3/4 of Bush supporters wrongly believed that Iraq was “providing substantial support to al-Qaeda” [6]. In effect the Iraq War strengthened Bush’s position among the conservative voters who are the central support base for the Republican Party.

With regards to security, on October 29th 2004 just four days prior to the election the first video of Osama Bin Laden was aired in over two years. Many analysts believed that it sealed the presidential elections in Bush’s favor since after all Bush’s cornerstone in his campaign was his ability to defend America. One of the most widely distributed campaign advertisement for Bush was the “Ashley’s story” during which a teenage girl who had lost her mother in the 9/11 attacks was shown to be comforted by the president and an emotional girl who says that “he’s the most powerful man in the world and all he wants to do is make sure I’m safe, that I’m OK” [7].

In reality while the two issues of the War in Iraq and Security were dominating in the 2004 presidential elections not only did they not cause realignments but rather they strengthened the support base of each of the two candidates. Bush was strengthened with the help of the two issues among conservatives namely religious Christian voters who believed in the Iraq campaign and sought a heavy handed security strategy while Kerry’s support base was strengthened among democratic liberals who strongly opposed the war and opposed the impediments to freedom and privacy that Bush’s security strategy had brought.



References:
1- Official Federal Election Commission Report, Retrieved February 20th <http://www.fec.gov/>

2- FEC, Retrieved February 20th
<http://www.fec.gov/finance/disclosure/srssea.shtml>

3- Lanning, Kevin. “The Social Psychology of the 2004 U.S. Presidential Election”, Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy, Vol. 5, No. 1, 2005, pp. 145-152

4- Newport, F., & Moore, D. W. “Key insights from election: 2004 election shows similar patterns as last election”. Gallup News Service, November 8 2004. retrieved July 22, 2005.


5- Bacevich, Andrew J. The New American Militarism, 2005

6- Kull, S., Ramsay, C., Subias, S., Weber, S., & Lewis, E. (2004). “Poll: Americans and Iraq on the eve of the presidential election”. The PIPA/Knowledge networks. retrieved July 22, 2005.


7- Progress for AmericaVoter Fund. “Ashley’s story”. 2004. Retrieved July 22, 2005.

Middle East Peace Process

Maloclm X

"The price of freedom is death."

Malcolm X together with Martin Luther King were the leaders of the African-American movement in the 50s and 60s to reclaim their rightful rights after decades of struggles. Malcolm rose from his background of criminality to one of the most powerful and persuasive black leader in 20th century America. He fought hard for a race that had been marginalized and oppressed for hundreds of years by the white American majority. Malcolm believed that the black people should acquire their rights with “Any means necessary” stressing the importance of fighting for the oppressed in Islam’s teachings.

Roots
Malcolm Little was born in 1925 in Omaha, Nebraska, to Earl Little and Louise Helen He was the forth among seven children. His father, Earl, was a black activist that was under constant threat from white racist. Three of Malcolm’s uncles were killed by white racists. His father was also killed in 1931 and the killers were never brought to justice. This arguably left a permanent scar on Malcolm view towards the “white people” [1].

Although Malcolm was very bright and graduated at the top of his class from high school however all his hopes in becoming a lawyer in the future were dashed when his teacher gave him a dose of reality by telling him that this was “no realistic goal for a nigger”. After being sent to several foster homes he was eventually led to Boston’s underground criminal ring at the age of 17. In the following years Malcolm was arrested several times on charges of involvement in drug trafficking, burglary, gambling and prostitution rings. When he reached the age of 21 he was arrested for burglary and possession of fire arms and was sentenced to seven to ten years in prison.

In prison Malcolm used his extra time to study various texts. While in prison he had several visits from his brother Reginald who along with another brother of Malcolm named Philbert had joined the religious sect ‘Nation of Islam’. It is reported that initially Malcolm was not interested in joining but changed his mind latter on. After converting he feverishly studied in the prison’s library. During this period he was also in continual contact with Elijah Mohammad who was the leader of Nation of Islam. Mohammad would visit Malcolm in the prison and through these visits Malcolm claimed that he was saved from life of corruption and immoral acts [2].

Malcolm the Minister
By 1952 Malcolm had been released from prison and had formally joined the Nation of Islam, changing his family name to X like many other members of the sect. In fact Malcolm welcomed the change claiming that this was a rejection of the slave names that were given to them by white masters. By 1954 Malcolm had been appointed the minister of Nation of Islam’s temple number seven which was located in Harlem, New York. From the start he started to attract people from all walks of life through his fiery speeches. Malcolm rank quickly rose in the Nation of Islam becoming second only to Elijah Mohammad. By 1963 the sect claimed more than 30 thousand members mostly thanks to Malcolm. Malcolm was also credited with inspiring famous boxer Cassius Clay (who later changed his name to Muhammad Ali) to join the Nation of Islam.


Transformation
By 1963 however there were rising tensions between Malcolm and his idol Elijah Mohammad. Initially Mohammad was dismayed by the huge popularity and fame that Malcolm had gained which even surpassed his popularity as the Nations leader. Malcolm was also deeply troubled by the alleged rumors that Mohammad had been having extramarital affairs with several female staff of the movement. After doing some secret research Malcolm came to the conclusion that these allegations were true and that Mohammad had even had children with these women. Malcolm was deeply upset with these revelations and thus formally left the Nation of Islam in March 1964. Later on he converted to main stream Islam, realizing that some of the teachings of the Nation were not at all rooted in Islamic teachings. The following month Malcolm made a pilgrimage to Mecca which he later claimed as life transforming.

Malcolm’s beliefs and consequently his speeches became totally different after his trip to Mecca. Prior to the pilgrimage Malcolm was in fact racist towards the white race. Having seen all the ill the white man had caused on African Americans he came to view them as evil. He publicly claimed the black race to be superior and that one day black people would regain their place as the superior race. In fact Malcolm rejected many calls by white activists who wanted to join his movement for black salvation. These beliefs were also in part due to the teachings of the Nation of Islam which had saved Malcolm from his troubled past. After leaving the Nation and going on the Hajj pilgrimage Malcolm’s view became utterly different. He later professed that during the pilgrimage he came to see Muslims of many different races as equals. He said that during his trip he had met "blonde-haired, blued-eyed men I could call my brothers." This was a serious break from the past. When he returned from Hajj he decided to address people from all races and classes of American society. He had exchanged many ideas with people of different cultures during his trip to Mecca and had found the message of Islam as transcending all races [3].

Assassination:
After Malcolm’s departure from the Nation of Islam, his relation with the movement became much worse. Malcolm claimed that he and his family were constantly threatened by Nation of Islam members. These threats came to reality when Malcolm’s home was burned to the ground on February 14th 1965. Fortunately Malcolm and his family were able to escape the assassination attempt without any injury. A week later while delivering a speech at Manhattan's Audubon Ballroom Malcolm was shot 16 times and killed by assassins. Three people were arrested as Malcolm’s killer with two of them being Nation of Islam members. These two individuals however maintained that they were innocent even after they were released years later. Thus a lot of controversy came to surround the murder. Some people alleged the CIA and the FBI for masterminding the killing. Although these allegations were never proven however it later became fact that the FBI had been closely monitoring Malcolm’s every move even eavesdropping all his telephone conversations. Even if the FBI did not carry out the killing, it was indirectly responsible by “letting it slip” meaning that even though they knew that Malcolm’s life was going to be threatened they did absolutely nothing to prevent it. It was also later reveled that one of Malcolm’s principle enemies in the Nation of Islam, John Ali who was the national minister of the movement was in fact an FBI agent. There are allegations that Ali had Malcolm’s assassins the night before the attack [4] [5].

References:

1- The Autobiography of Malcolm X, p. 2.

2- Malcolm X: A Research Site, Chronology of the Life and Activities of Malcolm X.

3- Frederick D. Harper, "The Influence of Malcolm X on Black Militancy", Journal of Black Studies, Vol. 1, No. 4. (Jun., 1971), pp. 387-402.

4- BBC News Malcolm X killer heads mosque, March 31 1998.

5-New York The Man Who Didn’t Shoot Malcolm X, October 1 2007.

The Gilded Age and the changing face of America

The Civil War in which the Northern States came out victorious is crucial in understanding the shift in America. Northern States were more industrial and urban oriented were as the south was more rural and agrarian. The victory of the North and as a result the major shift of power from South to North in effect decided the future path of America to economic development based on industrial capitalism.

A comic showing John D. Rockefeller's excessive
influence and power in Washington.

During the second half of the 19th century especially the period after the civil period of 18650 to 1900 the American economy witnessed dramatic change. The driving force behind this change was the advancement of transportation in the US, specifically the rise of the railroad which helped transform the American economy from an agrarian, regional market economy to an industrial, national market economy. By the 1900 America had over 193 thousand miles of railroad track which was more than the railroad of Europe and Russia combined. During this period America witnessed the emergence of ‘Big Business’ namely large corporations. In fact the railroad was America’s first big business.

In this new economic environment the government no longer took center stage to the economy, rather it was motivated and highly smart businessman like John D. Rockefeller, Andrew Carnegie and J. P. Morgan who created the gigantic Oil, Steel and Banking business of America. The enormous wealth they accumulated brought them great power which helped them influence decision making policy in Washington. This power was so great that several Senators were on the official pay role of Standard Oil which oddly enough was not illegal at the time. Although there was some pressure on these tycoons to prevent them from monopolizing the American industry in effect the tycoons were in large successful in having their way and expanding their businesses.

This period also known as the ‘Gilded Age’ from Mark Twain’s bestselling novel in 1873 with the same name also changed the culture and mentality of Americans in an irreversible way. The life of agricultural work in small villages was long gone for many Americans. Due to the rising economy, urbanism and industrialism which in turn lead to work positions at factories and also the rise of the Corporation which lead to many ‘White Collar’ jobs brought about a new class of American people known as the ‘Middle Class’.


Carnegie Steel in 1910
Due to the advancement in technology and machinery many goods that were affordable only by the elite just a decade ago were now available to the middle class which had also seen a rise in its income, giving them more money to spend. The mass consumer society we see today started during the Gilded Age. The mass spending on goods mainly by the middle class during this period boasted the economy even further. If this culture of spending did not shape at this period then America’s economy would definitely be much worse off. Mass consumerism during the Gilded Age shaped the economy in a way that even though production levels were all time high, most of the goods manufactured in the US were consumed by the American population. This remains true to this day and has helped America become the main player in global economy.

The social change which took place during the Gilded Age should also be noted. During this time many people especially young people moved from rural America to the cities. The cities became much larger and with the advancement of technology the new city lifestyle became a source of wonder and of awe for many people. The enormous number visitors to awe inspiring fairs like the 1876 ‘Centennial Exposition’ of Philadelphia and the 1893 ‘World’s Columbian Exposition’ of Chicago bears witness to this fact. Manu people during this period were obsessed with get-rich-quick schemes. Interestingly enough Mark Twain who called the Gilded Age an “era of incredible rottenness” himself fell prey to these schemes and faced bankruptcy.

In conclusion it should be noted that during this period the American economy flourished and gradually took the place of Britain as the leading nation in industrial output. According to Morris the US accounted for 7 percent of world industrial output and Great Britain accounted for 20 percent; by 1913 the US had a share of 32 percent while Great Britain’s had dropped to 14 percent. America’s rising economy which gave it an upper hand among other nations at the beginning of the twentieth century is a key point in understanding the rise of America as a major power during this time and eventually as a super power by the end of the Second World War.

The American Constitution and its critics

The American constitution ratified in 1789 in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, is one of the most successful constitutions in the world since it has remained almost unchanged to this day while at the same time remaining a major source of authority in the United States . However there has been some serious criticism of it over the years. This article will outline and address the main criticisms made to the American constitution by its critics [1].

The strongest criticism made to the American Constitution is that it is an undemocratic constitution. Critics point to the fact that the Federalist movement was explicitly anti-democratic at the time of the drafting and ratification of the American constitution. The Federalists were initially not an official party in the early days of the republic but later on became one of the main two parties in the initial years of American independence. The Federalists believed that absolute democracy leads to the abuse of power and tyranny. Critics argue the constitution places a lot of limits on democracy like the indirect election of the president, undemocratic election of senators (later fixed by the 17th amendment) and many checks and balances on the powers of the different branches of government. They point out that the founding fathers of the constitution believed in the principles of a “Republican Government” which in reality is a sort of elite democracy. Although the critics are correct with regards to the worries of the founding fathers in establishing absolute democracy they tend to confuse the actual text of the constitution which should be the main area of concentration with the interpretations of it in the early days of the republic. Incorrect interpretations of the constitution are a completely separate matter and should be addressed in a different context. The actual text of the constitution places no major limit on elections and democracy [2].

The founding fathers like many other scholars in the world at the time believed that giving absolute democracy to the people will lead into chaos and eventually to tyranny. However their concern did not result in an undemocratic constitution. The fact that they placed many checks and balances on different branches of the government like how the president can veto legislation from congress does not necessarily mean that it is undemocratic. In fact proponents argue that this approach is in tune with the real spirit of democracy in which a portion of the population cannot force its will on the entire population. Also with regards to the indirect election of the president it should be pointed out that at the early days of the republic, States enjoyed a lot of independence and power. This was natural since they had just been united and looked with suspicion and rivalry at other states. The indirect election of the president was a way to keep the power in the states and at the same time make sure that no single state took control of the country.

Another major criticism made to the American Constitution is that it places too many restrictions on the government. Critics point out that compared to the constitution of other countries, ‘technically’ much more restrictions are place on the American government by the constitution especially with regards to the executive branch. As an example critics point to the fact that the president needs permission for major decisions like declaring war and the signing of major treaties. As pointed earlier state rights were a main point of concern at the time and these restrictions were mainly placed by the founding fathers in order to preserve the power and rights of the states and thus prevent the Federal government by overrunning the power of the states. Also looking from another perspective this can be seen as an advantage rather than a disadvantage in the sense that the president cannot act alone and even though elected he or she still needs the approval of the people through their representative in congress for major decisions.

Critics also point to the fact that the constitution does not have clear boundaries between the power and authority of the main institutions and also regarding the power of the state and federal government. They argue that this has led to many confusions and also confrontation regarding the authority of institutions like the congress and the executive branch and also with regards to the power of the states and the federal government. Some scholars and analysts however see this as a one of the key reasons the constitution has been successful over the years. They believe that the very survival of the constitution has been due to the substantial room it has left for interpretation. These scholars believe that being vague on controversial issues was the reason the constitution was ratified in the first place at a time when difference of opinion was very strong among the founding fathers. They point out that the reason a document drafted over two hundred years ago is still in use today is the fact that it has been drafted in a way that can be interpreted differently based on the time period and the circumstances otherwise it would have become gradually obsolete. To prevent misinterpretation and drastic changes in the path of the country the Supreme Court was given the exclusive task of interpreting the constitution.

In conclusion the US constitution remains one of the most progressive constitutions in the world. At the time of its ratification it was truly revolutionary in terms of providing equality and liberty for all its citizens. Even though there are has been some criticism to it in the past century most scholars agree that the US constitution with all its strengths and weaknesses is one of the most successful constitutions when compared to the constitution of other countries. The fact that it has remained almost unchanged to when it was ratified bears witness to its success.

References:

1- Kelly, Alfred and Herman Belz, ‘The American Constitution: Its Origins and Development’, Volume II, 1991

2- Dahl, Robert A., ‘How Democratic is the American Constitution?’, Second Edition, 2003

Film Review: Dead Man

Director and Writer: Jim Jarmusch
Country: USA
Genre: Western/Drama
Starring: Johnny Depp, Gary Farmer, Lance Henriksen, Michael Wincott, Eugene Byrd, Mili Avital, Iggy Pop, Crispin Glover, Billy Bob Thornton, Gabrial Byrne, John Hurt
Music: Neil Young
MPAA Rating: R
Running Time: 121 minutes
U.S. Box Office: $1,053,518

The film ‘Dead Man’ written and directed by Jim Jarmusch and staring Johnny Depp, Gary Farmer and Crispin Glover was released in May 1996 and distributed by ‘Miramax Films’ in the United States. The film is in the western genre and is about an accountant called William Blake who travels America’s western frontiers during the mid 19th century. Even though the film has some interesting observations about the American way of life in the west during the ninetieth century, it was not well received by audiences and grossed a disappointing $1.05 million which is well below what Hollywood studios are used to.

The film starts with Johnny Depp playing William Blake traveling in a train from Cleveland to the Wild West in order to fill out an accountant position at a firm which offered him the position. When he arrives he finds out that the position has already been filled and before he knows it he finds himself in a heap of trouble when he kills the son of the wealthy businessman who sought to hire him. He hastily runs away to the wilderness where he is helped by an Indian who calls himself ‘Nobody’. During the remainder of the film Blake and his new Indian friend go through the wilderness of the Wild West hunted by the three ruthless hired assassins.
During the course of the journey Blake transforms into the villain everyone perceives him to be by killing ‘white people’ along his route. Killing for him keeps getting easier so as near the end of the movie he is totally unmoved by the value of human life. This behavior is encouraged by his Indian friend who bizarrely believes that he is the spirit of the famous poet ‘William Blake’ who has come back to kill the ‘white people’.

The film which is shot in black and white has some of the same dreamlike like qualities as ‘Apocalypse Now’ which was made by Francis Ford Capolla about the Vietnam conflict. Jarmusch’s film however has a humorous and even sarcastic look at the Wild West to a point where the audience feels the movie is a fantasized story used only to deliver the directors critical opinion on the American way of like in the Wild West. The downside to this is that half way through the film the audience does not care about the characters anymore, knowing the thin humorous story is only an attempt to convey some other important and serious facts.

Jarmusch points to the savagery and moral bankruptcy of the Wild West in the ‘Dead Man’. In one of the opening scenes the main character walks through the filthy streets of a western city where he sees coffins being made (an indication to the sheer number of people who get killed) and animal skulls being sold for decoration in a dark and depressing environment. People are so pre-occupied with violence and killing that even the main character which did not know how to shoot just a couple of days ago turns into a killer. The only thing people seem to care about in Jarmusch’s illustration of the Wild West is tobacco so much that the phrase “Do you have any tobacco?” gets repeated countless of times in the movie.

As the movie progresses and William Blake the main character gets closer and closer to death, he gets more lost in his search for his identity and his goals to the extent where near the end of the movie he does not seem to care about anything even dying anymore. One might point that this the directors way of illustrating the emptiness of the American society at the time and also the uncertainty of human existence. The director also takes subtle shots at organized religion throughout the film especially more so in a scene where a very religious salesperson is presented as a zealot and racist.

A criticism which can be made to Jarmusch’s film is the rather slow pace of the movie. With a runtime of 2 hours, some scenes are slow and even boring to some extent. This could have been fixed with better editing. The music of the film by Neil Young's is a blend of acoustic and electric guitar. It suits the atmosphere of the film pretty well however after a while it gets a bit repetitive and even irritating at times. Credit can be given to the cast for an inspiring performance especially to Johnny Depp who masterfully plays the transformation of the main character in a convincing manner and to Gary Farmer who portrays the mysterious Indian called ‘Nobody’.

In conclusion the ‘Dead Man’ written and directed by Jim Jarmusch and staring Johnny Depp is a rather quirky black and white film with some interesting observations about life in 19th century Wild West America. Even though the film is a bit puzzling and slow paced at times it will definitely be worth while for people interested in the history and culture of America. However if you are looking for a movie to watch with your family on a Saturday night with your take out food then this movie is not for you. What this movie is sure to accomplish is thought and discussion and hopefully new insights on the nature and tendencies of 19th century Americans living in the west and even to some extent on the contemporary American culture.