APUSH MCQ

"The Reagan era unfolded amid major social and political transitions in the United States. . . . The trauma of President Kennedy's assassination in 1963, followed by the foreshortened presidencies of Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon, generated widespread public alienation from electoral politics and mainstream politicians. The disastrous war in Vietnam cracked open the bipartisan consensus over containment that had held during the cold war and badly divided Democrats against Democrats and Republicans against Republicans, as well as against the opposing party. ". . . Reagan and his supporters, unlike the battered Democrats and the disgraced Republican establishment, gave the voters a compelling way to comprehend the disorienting and often dispiriting trends of the 1970s—and to see those trends not as product of their own defects (as Reagan's Democratic predecessor, Jimmy Carter, came to imply) but as a consequence of bad leadership. With Reagan as its likeable, ever-optimistic standard-bearer and ultimate symbol, the Republican right delivered what sounded like straightforward, commonsense solutions to the nation's ills: cut taxes, shrink government domestic spending, encourage private investment, and keep the military strong while aiding those abroad who were fighting communist tyranny." Sean Wilentz, historian, The Age of Reagan: A History, 1974-2008, published in 2008 "Race and taxes, on their own, have changed the votes of millions of once-Democratic men and women. But it was the collision of race and taxes with two additional forces over the past twenty-five years that created a chain reaction, a reaction forcing a realignment of the presidential electorate. These two additional forces were, first, the rights revolution demanding statutory and constitutional protections for, among others, criminal defendants, women, the poor, non-European ethnic minorities, students, homosexuals, prisoners, the handicapped, and the mentally ill; and, second, the rights-related reform movement focusing on the right to guaranteed political representation that took root within the Democratic party in the late 1960s and throughout the 1970s. "This chain reaction . . . acted most powerfully on two key swing voter groups, the white, European ethnic, often Catholic, voters in the North, and the lower-income southern white populists. For as long as voters cast Democratic ballots, the liberal coalition thrived; when they did not, the liberal coalition collapsed. Throughout the 1970s and the 1980s, these key groups of voters, once the mainstay of the New Deal alliance, determined the viability of the conservative presidential majority. The collapse of the political left and the ascendance of a hybrid conservative populism dominated by the affluent have had enormous policy consequences. . . . "The shift in political power has, in turn, helped erode the belief among working-class whites that the condition of the poor and, more generally, of those in the bottom third of the income distribution is the result of an economic system that needed to be challenged through the Democratic party and through the union movement." Thomas B. and Mary D. Edsall, journalists, Chain Reaction: The Impact of Race, Rights, and Taxes on American Politics, published in 1991 Which of the following best describes a similarity between Wilentz's and the Edsalls's arguments about political change in the 1980s? A. Both interpretations emphasize the role of party leadership in prompting political realignments. B. Both interpretations identify a movement of White working-class voters away from the Democratic Party. C. Both interpretations suggest tax policies as a factor contributing to conservative victories. D. Both interpretations emphasize the role of the Vietnam War in alienating voters from the party establishments.

Both interpretations suggest tax policies as a factor contributing to conservative victories.

"The Reagan era unfolded amid major social and political transitions in the United States. . . . The trauma of President Kennedy's assassination in 1963, followed by the foreshortened presidencies of Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon, generated widespread public alienation from electoral politics and mainstream politicians. The disastrous war in Vietnam cracked open the bipartisan consensus over containment that had held during the cold war and badly divided Democrats against Democrats and Republicans against Republicans, as well as against the opposing party. ". . . Reagan and his supporters, unlike the battered Democrats and the disgraced Republican establishment, gave the voters a compelling way to comprehend the disorienting and often dispiriting trends of the 1970s—and to see those trends not as product of their own defects (as Reagan's Democratic predecessor, Jimmy Carter, came to imply) but as a consequence of bad leadership. With Reagan as its likeable, ever-optimistic standard-bearer and ultimate symbol, the Republican right delivered what sounded like straightforward, commonsense solutions to the nation's ills: cut taxes, shrink government domestic spending, encourage private investment, and keep the military strong while aiding those abroad who were fighting communist tyranny." Sean Wilentz, historian, The Age of Reagan: A History, 1974-2008, published in 2008 "Race and taxes, on their own, have changed the votes of millions of once-Democratic men and women. But it was the collision of race and taxes with two additional forces over the past twenty-five years that created a chain reaction, a reaction forcing a realignment of the presidential electorate. These two additional forces were, first, the rights revolution demanding statutory and constitutional protections for, among others, criminal defendants, women, the poor, non-European ethnic minorities, students, homosexuals, prisoners, the handicapped, and the mentally ill; and, second, the rights-related reform movement focusing on the right to guaranteed political representation that took root within the Democratic party in the late 1960s and throughout the 1970s. "This chain reaction . . . acted most powerfully on two key swing voter groups, the white, European ethnic, often Catholic, voters in the North, and the lower-income southern white populists. For as long as voters cast Democratic ballots, the liberal coalition thrived; when they did not, the liberal coalition collapsed. Throughout the 1970s and the 1980s, these key groups of voters, once the mainstay of the New Deal alliance, determined the viability of the conservative presidential majority. The collapse of the political left and the ascendance of a hybrid conservative populism dominated by the affluent have had enormous policy consequences. . . . "The shift in political power has, in turn, helped erode the belief among working-class whites that the condition of the poor and, more generally, of those in the bottom third of the income distribution is the result of an economic system that needed to be challenged through the Democratic party and through the union movement." Thomas B. and Mary D. Edsall, journalists, Chain Reaction: The Impact of Race, Rights, and Taxes on American Politics, published in 1991 Which of the following claims about Ronald Reagan's victory in 1980 is supported by the arguments in the two excerpts? A It resulted from concerns about recent changes in gender and race relations. B It resulted in a redistribution of income benefiting the wealthy. C It reflected voter dissatisfaction with government regulation of industry. D It resulted from shifts in Democratic and Republican voter coalitions.

It resulted from shifts in Democratic and Republican voter coalitions.

"While the NAFTA [North American Free Trade Agreement] itself is silent on illegal immigration, this issue is very much on the minds of Americans. Over the long term, Mexican prosperity is the only practical answer to the problem of illegal immigration. . . . Over three or four decades, Mexican per capita income might reach half the US level, and this gain would substantially ease and perhaps even eliminate pressures within Mexico to emigrate. ". . . NAFTA may marginally increase the gross number of illegal immigrants. However, in the longer run, NAFTA should help create the level of Mexican prosperity that will substantially reduce the gross level of illegal immigration. "Over time, emigration pressures will be offset by faster economic growth in Mexico, assisted and reinforced by the long-run effect of NAFTA in boosting Mexican productivity. . . . "The US federal government already provides about $1 billion annually to state and local governments to cope with extra social costs associated with immigrants. About $600 million is spent annually on 13 programs for migrant and seasonal farm workers and their families. With the possibility of increased immigration in the short term, the federal government will probably have to augment these programs. "We do not believe that the United States should put large amounts of money into [border controls]. . . . Unless border controls were comprehensive and draconian [severe], they would not stem the [total] flow. . . . Whatever the effect on immigration flows, border fortification measures would be sure to sour US relations with Mexico for a very long time." "NAFTA: An Assessment," report produced by the Institute for International Economics, a nonprofit research institution, 1993 The argument in the excerpt overlooks which of the following broader historical contexts that best explains why some immigrants came to the United States during the late twentieth century? A Cold War tensions resulted in efforts to attract immigrant workers in defense industries. B The need for unskilled immigrant labor increased as agricultural production mechanized. C Businesses exerted continued demand for labor supplied by immigrants. D Immigrants were attracted by the lower taxes enacted by the Reagan administration.

Businesses exerted continued demand for labor supplied by immigrants.

"The Reagan era unfolded amid major social and political transitions in the United States. . . . The trauma of President Kennedy's assassination in 1963, followed by the foreshortened presidencies of Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon, generated widespread public alienation from electoral politics and mainstream politicians. The disastrous war in Vietnam cracked open the bipartisan consensus over containment that had held during the cold war and badly divided Democrats against Democrats and Republicans against Republicans, as well as against the opposing party. ". . . Reagan and his supporters, unlike the battered Democrats and the disgraced Republican establishment, gave the voters a compelling way to comprehend the disorienting and often dispiriting trends of the 1970s—and to see those trends not as product of their own defects (as Reagan's Democratic predecessor, Jimmy Carter, came to imply) but as a consequence of bad leadership. With Reagan as its likeable, ever-optimistic standard-bearer and ultimate symbol, the Republican right delivered what sounded like straightforward, commonsense solutions to the nation's ills: cut taxes, shrink government domestic spending, encourage private investment, and keep the military strong while aiding those abroad who were fighting communist tyranny." Sean Wilentz, historian, The Age of Reagan: A History, 1974-2008, published in 2008 "Race and taxes, on their own, have changed the votes of millions of once-Democratic men and women. But it was the collision of race and taxes with two additional forces over the past twenty-five years that created a chain reaction, a reaction forcing a realignment of the presidential electorate. These two additional forces were, first, the rights revolution demanding statutory and constitutional protections for, among others, criminal defendants, women, the poor, non-European ethnic minorities, students, homosexuals, prisoners, the handicapped, and the mentally ill; and, second, the rights-related reform movement focusing on the right to guaranteed political representation that took root within the Democratic party in the late 1960s and throughout the 1970s. "This chain reaction . . . acted most powerfully on two key swing voter groups, the white, European ethnic, often Catholic, voters in the North, and the lower-income southern white populists. For as long as voters cast Democratic ballots, the liberal coalition thrived; when they did not, the liberal coalition collapsed. Throughout the 1970s and the 1980s, these key groups of voters, once the mainstay of the New Deal alliance, determined the viability of the conservative presidential majority. The collapse of the political left and the ascendance of a hybrid conservative populism dominated by the affluent have had enormous policy consequences. . . . "The shift in political power has, in turn, helped erode the belief among working-class whites that the condition of the poor and, more generally, of those in the bottom third of the income distribution is the result of an economic system that needed to be challenged through the Democratic party and through the union movement." Thomas B. and Mary D. Edsall, journalists, Chain Reaction: The Impact of Race, Rights, and Taxes on American Politics, published in 1991 The political developments depicted in the excerpts were most directly situated within which of the following contexts? A Support for reducing the size of the United States military B Growth in union membership among industrial workers C Success in the passage of policies restricting immigration D Debate over limiting the size and scope of government programs

Debate over limiting the size and scope of government programs

"Has the Internet been overhyped? . . . There is still widespread agreement that the growth of the Internet, and the number of people using it, is exponential; it is seen doubling in size every year. . . . "Estimates that there are more than 20 million users of the Internet have excited the imagination of businesses, politicians, social scientists, investors and journalists. "The Internet has been described as a prototype of the [President Bill] Clinton Administration's proposed information superhighways. Companies seeking to tap a vast new customer base are spending millions to stake out storefronts in cyberspace, and Internet-related businesses are popping up in every city of significant size. An Internet electronic mail address is considered de rigueur for business cards today, and even the White House is 'on the Net.' " Peter H. Lewis, journalist, article in The New York Times, 1994 Which of the following best explains a key reason for the development described in the excerpt? A Easier access to technology allowed increased numbers of Internet users. B Internet sites replaced traditional retail outlets for shopping. C Wages for workers at Internet-based businesses increased as the economy improved. D Internet use contributed to debates about changing culture in the United States.

Easier access to technology allowed increased numbers of Internet users.

"We are once again having one of those big troop debates: Do we send more forces to Afghanistan, and are we ready to do what it takes to 'win' there? This argument will be framed in many ways . . . : 'toughness,' 'grit,' 'fortitude,' 'willingness to do whatever it takes to realize big stakes.' . . . "But are we really that tough? If the metric is a willingness to send troops to Iraq and Afghanistan . . . , the answer is yes. . . . But in another way—when it comes to doing things that would actually weaken the people we are sending our boys and girls to fight—we are total wimps. "How so? . . . In 1973, Denmark got all its oil from the Middle East. Today? Zero. Why? Because Denmark got tough. It imposed on itself a carbon tax, a roughly $5-a-gallon gasoline tax, made massive investments in energy efficiency and in systems to generate energy from waste, along with a discovery of North Sea oil [near Europe]. . . . "According to [one] energy economist . . . , a $1 tax on gasoline and diesel fuel would raise about $140 billion a year. . . . "Such a tax would make our economy healthier by reducing the deficit, by stimulating the renewable energy industry. . . . Such a tax would make our population healthier by expanding health care and reducing [carbon] emissions. Such a tax would make our national-security healthier by shrinking our dependence on oil from [other] countries." Thomas Friedman, journalist, "Real Men Tax Gas," The New York Times, 2009.From The New York Times. © 2009 The New York Times. All rights reserved. Used under license. Which of the following explanations of the effects of United States involvement in the Middle East could Friedman's point of view best be used to support? A Spending money in the Middle East was strengthening the national economy. B Engaging in warfare in the Middle East contributed to debates about fossil fuel dependence. C Attempting to prevent terrorism from the Middle East threatened Americans' civil liberties. D Building oil refineries in the Middle East was causing extensive environmental changes.

Engaging in warfare in the Middle East contributed to debates about fossil fuel dependence.

Which of the following best explains the effect of Ronald Reagan's election to the presidency on United States foreign policy? A He asserted more direct diplomatic and military pressure on the Soviet Union than did his predecessors. B He sought to establish economic relationships with communist countries such as China. C He attempted to mediate the end of the Cold War through United Nations agreements. D He withdrew United States support from military defense pacts.

He asserted more direct diplomatic and military pressure on the Soviet Union than did his predecessors.

"While the NAFTA [North American Free Trade Agreement] itself is silent on illegal immigration, this issue is very much on the minds of Americans. Over the long term, Mexican prosperity is the only practical answer to the problem of illegal immigration. . . . Over three or four decades, Mexican per capita income might reach half the US level, and this gain would substantially ease and perhaps even eliminate pressures within Mexico to emigrate. ". . . NAFTA may marginally increase the gross number of illegal immigrants. However, in the longer run, NAFTA should help create the level of Mexican prosperity that will substantially reduce the gross level of illegal immigration. "Over time, emigration pressures will be offset by faster economic growth in Mexico, assisted and reinforced by the long-run effect of NAFTA in boosting Mexican productivity. . . . "The US federal government already provides about $1 billion annually to state and local governments to cope with extra social costs associated with immigrants. About $600 million is spent annually on 13 programs for migrant and seasonal farm workers and their families. With the possibility of increased immigration in the short term, the federal government will probably have to augment these programs. "We do not believe that the United States should put large amounts of money into [border controls]. . . . Unless border controls were comprehensive and draconian [severe], they would not stem the [total] flow. . . . Whatever the effect on immigration flows, border fortification measures would be sure to sour US relations with Mexico for a very long time." "NAFTA: An Assessment," report produced by the Institute for International Economics, a nonprofit research institution, 1993 Which of the following best explains a limitation in the argument about the short-term impact of the NAFTA agreement on immigration as presented in the excerpt? A Immigrants from Latin America were outnumbered by Canadian immigrants who sought opportunity in the United States. B Immigrants became a large portion of draftees in the United States military as a result of international conflict. C The size of immigrant communities declined following the passage of international trade agreements. D Immigrants from Latin America were attracted to areas populated by other immigrants with similar ethnic backgrounds.

Immigrants from Latin America were attracted to areas populated by other immigrants with similar ethnic backgrounds.

"We are once again having one of those big troop debates: Do we send more forces to Afghanistan, and are we ready to do what it takes to 'win' there? This argument will be framed in many ways . . . : 'toughness,' 'grit,' 'fortitude,' 'willingness to do whatever it takes to realize big stakes.' . . . "But are we really that tough? If the metric is a willingness to send troops to Iraq and Afghanistan . . . , the answer is yes. . . . But in another way—when it comes to doing things that would actually weaken the people we are sending our boys and girls to fight—we are total wimps. "How so? . . . In 1973, Denmark got all its oil from the Middle East. Today? Zero. Why? Because Denmark got tough. It imposed on itself a carbon tax, a roughly $5-a-gallon gasoline tax, made massive investments in energy efficiency and in systems to generate energy from waste, along with a discovery of North Sea oil [near Europe]. . . . "According to [one] energy economist . . . , a $1 tax on gasoline and diesel fuel would raise about $140 billion a year. . . . "Such a tax would make our economy healthier by reducing the deficit, by stimulating the renewable energy industry. . . . Such a tax would make our population healthier by expanding health care and reducing [carbon] emissions. Such a tax would make our national-security healthier by shrinking our dependence on oil from [other] countries." Thomas Friedman, journalist, "Real Men Tax Gas," The New York Times, 2009.From The New York Times. © 2009 The New York Times. All rights reserved. Used under license. Friedman's point of view on United States troops being sent to the Middle East can best be used to support which of the following explanations for United States foreign policy in the twenty-first century? A The United States faced intense competition for global power from the Soviet Union. B Politicians increasingly supported a return to an isolationist foreign policy. C Military efforts in Afghanistan and Iraq were the direct result of terrorist attacks. D Military goals in Afghanistan and Iraq were controversial and difficult to achieve.

Military goals in Afghanistan and Iraq were controversial and difficult to achieve.

"Has the Internet been overhyped? . . . There is still widespread agreement that the growth of the Internet, and the number of people using it, is exponential; it is seen doubling in size every year. . . . "Estimates that there are more than 20 million users of the Internet have excited the imagination of businesses, politicians, social scientists, investors and journalists. "The Internet has been described as a prototype of the [President Bill] Clinton Administration's proposed information superhighways. Companies seeking to tap a vast new customer base are spending millions to stake out storefronts in cyberspace, and Internet-related businesses are popping up in every city of significant size. An Internet electronic mail address is considered de rigueur for business cards today, and even the White House is 'on the Net.' " Peter H. Lewis, journalist, article in The New York Times, 1994 Which of the following best explains a result of the development described in the excerpt? A Political support for free-trade policies grew. B The economic gap between wealthy and poor people decreased. C New technologies allowed for greater global communication. D Efforts were made to reform government social programs.

New technologies allowed for greater global communication.

"While the NAFTA [North American Free Trade Agreement] itself is silent on illegal immigration, this issue is very much on the minds of Americans. Over the long term, Mexican prosperity is the only practical answer to the problem of illegal immigration. . . . Over three or four decades, Mexican per capita income might reach half the US level, and this gain would substantially ease and perhaps even eliminate pressures within Mexico to emigrate. ". . . NAFTA may marginally increase the gross number of illegal immigrants. However, in the longer run, NAFTA should help create the level of Mexican prosperity that will substantially reduce the gross level of illegal immigration. "Over time, emigration pressures will be offset by faster economic growth in Mexico, assisted and reinforced by the long-run effect of NAFTA in boosting Mexican productivity. . . . "The US federal government already provides about $1 billion annually to state and local governments to cope with extra social costs associated with immigrants. About $600 million is spent annually on 13 programs for migrant and seasonal farm workers and their families. With the possibility of increased immigration in the short term, the federal government will probably have to augment these programs. "We do not believe that the United States should put large amounts of money into [border controls]. . . . Unless border controls were comprehensive and draconian [severe], they would not stem the [total] flow. . . . Whatever the effect on immigration flows, border fortification measures would be sure to sour US relations with Mexico for a very long time." "NAFTA: An Assessment," report produced by the Institute for International Economics, a nonprofit research institution, 1993 The ideas in the excerpt are best explained in the context of which of the following historical developments? A Political responses to demographic changes B Economic reactions to technological development C Military responses to national security concerns D Social reactions to changing family structures

Political responses to demographic changes

"We are once again having one of those big troop debates: Do we send more forces to Afghanistan, and are we ready to do what it takes to 'win' there? This argument will be framed in many ways . . . : 'toughness,' 'grit,' 'fortitude,' 'willingness to do whatever it takes to realize big stakes.' . . . "But are we really that tough? If the metric is a willingness to send troops to Iraq and Afghanistan . . . , the answer is yes. . . . But in another way—when it comes to doing things that would actually weaken the people we are sending our boys and girls to fight—we are total wimps. "How so? . . . In 1973, Denmark got all its oil from the Middle East. Today? Zero. Why? Because Denmark got tough. It imposed on itself a carbon tax, a roughly $5-a-gallon gasoline tax, made massive investments in energy efficiency and in systems to generate energy from waste, along with a discovery of North Sea oil [near Europe]. . . . "According to [one] energy economist . . . , a $1 tax on gasoline and diesel fuel would raise about $140 billion a year. . . . "Such a tax would make our economy healthier by reducing the deficit, by stimulating the renewable energy industry. . . . Such a tax would make our population healthier by expanding health care and reducing [carbon] emissions. Such a tax would make our national-security healthier by shrinking our dependence on oil from [other] countries." Thomas Friedman, journalist, "Real Men Tax Gas," The New York Times, 2009.From The New York Times. © 2009 The New York Times. All rights reserved. Used under license. Friedman's point of view about a potential gasoline tax can best be used to support which of the following explanations of American public opinion in the early twenty-first century? A Some Americans viewed reducing dependence on fossil fuels as a way to improve the economy. B Many Americans viewed new taxes as necessary to pay for military efforts in the Middle East. C Many Americans were concerned about the impact of fossil fuel consumption on personal health. D Some Americans viewed war in the Middle East as a way to stimulate the economy.

Some Americans viewed reducing dependence on fossil fuels as a way to improve the economy.

Which of the following factors is most typically used to explain why the Cold War ended? A Covert wars in Afghanistan and Latin America ended in communist victories. B Nuclear rearmament by the Reagan administration intimidated the Soviet Union's leaders. C Strong United States diplomacy along with Soviet economic problems contributed to political changes in the Soviet Union. D Soviet leaders' reassertion of control over Eastern Europe resulted in revolutionary protests and uprisings.

Strong United States diplomacy along with Soviet economic problems contributed to political changes in the Soviet Union.

"Has the Internet been overhyped? . . . There is still widespread agreement that the growth of the Internet, and the number of people using it, is exponential; it is seen doubling in size every year. . . . "Estimates that there are more than 20 million users of the Internet have excited the imagination of businesses, politicians, social scientists, investors and journalists. "The Internet has been described as a prototype of the [President Bill] Clinton Administration's proposed information superhighways. Companies seeking to tap a vast new customer base are spending millions to stake out storefronts in cyberspace, and Internet-related businesses are popping up in every city of significant size. An Internet electronic mail address is considered de rigueur for business cards today, and even the White House is 'on the Net.' " Peter H. Lewis, journalist, article in The New York Times, 1994 Which of the following best explains the cause of the development described in the excerpt? A National priorities shifted following the end of the Cold War. B Technological advancement spurred economic transformations. C Declines in manufacturing led many people to seek new employment opportunities. D New industries took advantage of changing national demographics.

Technological advancement spurred economic transformations.

"The Reagan era unfolded amid major social and political transitions in the United States. . . . The trauma of President Kennedy's assassination in 1963, followed by the foreshortened presidencies of Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon, generated widespread public alienation from electoral politics and mainstream politicians. The disastrous war in Vietnam cracked open the bipartisan consensus over containment that had held during the cold war and badly divided Democrats against Democrats and Republicans against Republicans, as well as against the opposing party. ". . . Reagan and his supporters, unlike the battered Democrats and the disgraced Republican establishment, gave the voters a compelling way to comprehend the disorienting and often dispiriting trends of the 1970s—and to see those trends not as product of their own defects (as Reagan's Democratic predecessor, Jimmy Carter, came to imply) but as a consequence of bad leadership. With Reagan as its likeable, ever-optimistic standard-bearer and ultimate symbol, the Republican right delivered what sounded like straightforward, commonsense solutions to the nation's ills: cut taxes, shrink government domestic spending, encourage private investment, and keep the military strong while aiding those abroad who were fighting communist tyranny." Sean Wilentz, historian, The Age of Reagan: A History, 1974-2008, published in 2008 "Race and taxes, on their own, have changed the votes of millions of once-Democratic men and women. But it was the collision of race and taxes with two additional forces over the past twenty-five years that created a chain reaction, a reaction forcing a realignment of the presidential electorate. These two additional forces were, first, the rights revolution demanding statutory and constitutional protections for, among others, criminal defendants, women, the poor, non-European ethnic minorities, students, homosexuals, prisoners, the handicapped, and the mentally ill; and, second, the rights-related reform movement focusing on the right to guaranteed political representation that took root within the Democratic party in the late 1960s and throughout the 1970s. "This chain reaction . . . acted most powerfully on two key swing voter groups, the white, European ethnic, often Catholic, voters in the North, and the lower-income southern white populists. For as long as voters cast Democratic ballots, the liberal coalition thrived; when they did not, the liberal coalition collapsed. Throughout the 1970s and the 1980s, these key groups of voters, once the mainstay of the New Deal alliance, determined the viability of the conservative presidential majority. The collapse of the political left and the ascendance of a hybrid conservative populism dominated by the affluent have had enormous policy consequences. . . . "The shift in political power has, in turn, helped erode the belief among working-class whites that the condition of the poor and, more generally, of those in the bottom third of the income distribution is the result of an economic system that needed to be challenged through the Democratic party and through the union movement." Thomas B. and Mary D. Edsall, journalists, Chain Reaction: The Impact of Race, Rights, and Taxes on American Politics, published in 1991 Which of the following best describes a difference between the arguments made by Wilentz and by the Edsalls in the excerpts? A The Edsalls emphasize the role of domestic policies, while Wilentz focuses on the role of foreign policy in drawing voters to the conservative faction of the Republican Party. B The Edsalls argue that the protection of minority rights alienated groups of White voters from the Democratic Party, while Wilentz argues that Reagan's emphasis on leadership drew voters to the Republican right. C The Edsalls argue that Reagan's victory was solely the result of Democratic failures, while Wilentz argues that it was solely the result of successful Republican strategies. D The Edsalls argue that the conservative movement was dominated by the White working class, while Wilentz argues that it was dominated by anticommunist Republicans frustrated with the failures of the Vietnam War.

The Edsalls argue that the protection of minority rights alienated groups of White voters from the Democratic Party, while Wilentz argues that Reagan's emphasis on leadership drew voters to the Republican right.

"We are once again having one of those big troop debates: Do we send more forces to Afghanistan, and are we ready to do what it takes to 'win' there? This argument will be framed in many ways . . . : 'toughness,' 'grit,' 'fortitude,' 'willingness to do whatever it takes to realize big stakes.' . . . "But are we really that tough? If the metric is a willingness to send troops to Iraq and Afghanistan . . . , the answer is yes. . . . But in another way—when it comes to doing things that would actually weaken the people we are sending our boys and girls to fight—we are total wimps. "How so? . . . In 1973, Denmark got all its oil from the Middle East. Today? Zero. Why? Because Denmark got tough. It imposed on itself a carbon tax, a roughly $5-a-gallon gasoline tax, made massive investments in energy efficiency and in systems to generate energy from waste, along with a discovery of North Sea oil [near Europe]. . . . "According to [one] energy economist . . . , a $1 tax on gasoline and diesel fuel would raise about $140 billion a year. . . . "Such a tax would make our economy healthier by reducing the deficit, by stimulating the renewable energy industry. . . . Such a tax would make our population healthier by expanding health care and reducing [carbon] emissions. Such a tax would make our national-security healthier by shrinking our dependence on oil from [other] countries." Thomas Friedman, journalist, "Real Men Tax Gas," The New York Times, 2009.From The New York Times. © 2009 The New York Times. All rights reserved. Used under license. Which of the following historical contexts best reflects the issues in the debate depicted in the excerpt? A The economic shifts that occurred as a result of the decline of manufacturing B The continuation of interventionist foreign policies following the Cold War C The passage of free-trade agreements with diplomatic allies in North America D The demographic shifts that occurred as a result of changing immigration patterns

The continuation of interventionist foreign policies following the Cold War

Which of the following best explains a result of the Cold War? A The status of the United States as the world's main superpower fostered international debates over the appropriate use of American power and influence. B Conservative politicians increasingly emphasized the need for traditional social values and a reduced role for government. C The rapid adoption of digital communication technologies led to new business innovations. D Economic shifts resulted in fewer manufacturing jobs, declining union membership, and stagnating real wages for workers.

The status of the United States as the world's main superpower fostered international debates over the appropriate use of American power and influence.

"While the NAFTA [North American Free Trade Agreement] itself is silent on illegal immigration, this issue is very much on the minds of Americans. Over the long term, Mexican prosperity is the only practical answer to the problem of illegal immigration. . . . Over three or four decades, Mexican per capita income might reach half the US level, and this gain would substantially ease and perhaps even eliminate pressures within Mexico to emigrate. ". . . NAFTA may marginally increase the gross number of illegal immigrants. However, in the longer run, NAFTA should help create the level of Mexican prosperity that will substantially reduce the gross level of illegal immigration. "Over time, emigration pressures will be offset by faster economic growth in Mexico, assisted and reinforced by the long-run effect of NAFTA in boosting Mexican productivity. . . . "The US federal government already provides about $1 billion annually to state and local governments to cope with extra social costs associated with immigrants. About $600 million is spent annually on 13 programs for migrant and seasonal farm workers and their families. With the possibility of increased immigration in the short term, the federal government will probably have to augment these programs. "We do not believe that the United States should put large amounts of money into [border controls]. . . . Unless border controls were comprehensive and draconian [severe], they would not stem the [total] flow. . . . Whatever the effect on immigration flows, border fortification measures would be sure to sour US relations with Mexico for a very long time." "NAFTA: An Assessment," report produced by the Institute for International Economics, a nonprofit research institution, 1993 The argument in the excerpt does not account for which of the following historical factors that most directly explain population changes in the southern and western United States? A The discovery of new mineral resources spurred the growth of boom towns. B The weather in the Sun Belt coupled with an improving economic base encouraged people to relocate. C The revival of industrial manufacturing in the Midwest resulted in people relocating there. D The passage of civil rights legislation gave people the ability to live where they wanted.

The weather in the Sun Belt coupled with an improving economic base encouraged people to relocate.