By the late 1970s, many Americans had grown tired of the conflicts of the previous decade. Many were uncomfortable with the growing cynicism toward political leaders. Jimmy Carter hit a raw nerve—and disturbed many Americans—when he complained in a speech that the people were letting themselves be overtaken by a “crisis of confidence.” This came to be known as “the malaise speech,” though Carter never used the word “malaise” in it.
Ronald Reagan saw that the nation was ready for a major change. In the 1980 presidential campaign, Reagan, a former actor and governor of California, presented himself as Carter’s opposite and a Washington “outsider,” not tainted by events of the previous two decades, much as Carter had portrayed himself as an outsider in 1976. While Carter blamed American self-indulgence and consumerism for the country’s problems, Reagan stressed the positive aspects of America. Furthermore, many Americans who disagreed with Reagan’s conservative politics nonetheless voted for him because they liked him and his “can-do” attitude. Further damaging Carter’s chances was the third-party candidacy of liberal Republican John Anderson, who attracted a sizable “protest vote” from those who might otherwise have supported Carter. In the end, Reagan won the 1980 election by a landslide.
Ronald Reagan tried to revive the economy by applying the theory of supply-side economics. Reagan believed that if corporate taxes were reduced, those corporations would earn greater profits. They would then use those profits, he believed, to buy new equipment and hire more employees. As a result, wealth would trickle down by creating more jobs and reinvigorating the economy. (George H. W. Bush would refer to this policy as “voodoo economics.”) Reagan coupled this with large-scale deregulation, particularly in the areas of banking, industry, and the environment. He also successfully lobbied Congress for an across-the-board tax cut for all Americans. This policy increased his popularity with most Americans, although many complained that tax cuts hurt the poor, who pay little in income tax but depend on federal enfranchisement programs (such as welfare, food stamps, and Medicaid) to survive.
At first, Reagan’s economic policies had little effect. The country continued in a recession for almost two years before the economy revived. Even then, results were mixed. Although inflation subsided, there was continued criticism that, under Reagan, the rich were getting richer while the poor were getting poorer. Rather than reinvesting in the economy, as supply-side economics suggested, the rich used the money saved on taxes to buy luxury items.
Ronald Reagan frequently claimed that he sought to decrease the size of the federal government. He called his plan the New Federalism, but it was quite the opposite of federalism—its goal was to shift power from the national government to the states. Reagan suggested that the states take complete responsibility for welfare, food stamps, and other social welfare programs currently funded at the national level; in return, the national government would assume the entire cost of Medicaid. Reagan’s goal was never accomplished, however. The states feared that the shift would greatly increase the cost of state government, which would require unpopular tax increases at the state level.
At the same time, Reagan convinced Congress to greatly increase military spending. He funded research into a space-based missile shield system called the Strategic Defense Initiative, or SDI (the program was dubbed “Star Wars” by both supporters and detractors). Arguing that America needed to more quickly develop superior arms, Reagan also escalated the arms race with the USSR. Some historians have argued that the arms race bankrupted the Soviet Union and helped bring about an end to the Cold War, while others mainly credit Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev for the Cold War’s end.
Tax cuts, increased military spending, and the failure of Reagan’s New Federalism plan combined to escalate the federal budget deficit. Government spending increased while government revenues shrank, forcing the government to borrow money. Congress blamed the deficit on Reagan’s tax cuts and called for a tax increase. Reagan, on the other hand, argued that the fault was with Congress, which refused to decrease funding for social welfare programs at the rate the president requested. Neither side budged, and as a result, the federal deficit reached record heights during the Reagan administration.
In foreign policy, Reagan sought to end the Cold War by winning it on every front he could in any way he could. He supported repressive regimes and right-wing insurgents in El Salvador, Panama, the Philippines, and Mozambique, all because they opposed communism. During the Reagan administration, the U.S. military led an international invasion of Grenada to topple a new Communist government there.
One of Reagan’s top foreign policy priorities was support for a group of Nicaraguan insurgents called the “Contras.” Reports that the Contras were torturing and murdering civilians led Congress to cut off aid to the group, but the Reagan administration was so fully committed to them and opposed to the Sandinistas, who were communists, that it devised a plan to fund them through other channels. The government secretly sold weapons to Iran and then used the income to buy guns for the Contras. The entire process was eventually discovered; it came to be known as the Iran-Contra affair. Critics argued that Iran-Contra represented a constitutional crisis, pointing out that the plan had denied Congress the “power of the purse” central to the system of checks and balances. Supporters claimed that the president had broken no laws and that his goals were good ones. Reagan himself claimed that he had no knowledge of the plan; Oliver North, a member of the Security Council, took full credit.
Another foreign policy setback came when the Reagan administration sent marines to Lebanon as part of a United Nations peacekeeping force. A suicide bomb killed 240 servicemen and led to an eventual pullout of troops.
Reagan’s greatest successes in foreign policy came in U.S.-Soviet relations. At first, Reagan’s hard-line anti-communism led to deterioration in relations. The rhetorical war between the two enemies was fierce, Reagan calling the Soviet Union “the evil empire,” and hitting an all-time low when he jokingly declared that he had outlawed the USSR, and added “we begin bombing in five minutes.” Although not meant to be heard by the public, the joke was picked up by a microphone and later broadcast repeatedly. The escalated arms race further destabilized relations by constantly altering the military balance of power. Ultimately, however, the arms race helped bring the adversaries to the bargaining table, as neither side could afford the high cost.
American-Soviet relations were further helped when reformer Mikhail Gorbachev rose to power in the Soviet Union. Gorbachev is best known for his economic policy of perestroika, or restructuring, and his social reforms collectively referred to as glasnost, or openness. Gorbachev loosened Soviet control of Eastern Europe, increased personal liberties in the Soviet Union, and eventually allowed some forms of free-market commerce in the Communist country. Reagan and Gorbachev met frequently and ultimately negotiated a withdrawal of nuclear warheads from Europe.
The election of 1988 convinced many Americans that progressive liberalism was finally destroyed, as George Bush easily defeated the Democratic candidate, Michael Dukakis, who was then governor of Massachusetts. In accepting his party’s nomination, George Bush called for “a kinder, gentler nation,” and he is most remembered for declaring, “Read my lips: No new taxes.” “Liberalism” had become the “L word,” and feminism had become the new “F word.” The conventional wisdom held that Americans had settled back into traditional American lifestyles that celebrated values such as family and abstinence from sex and drugs (Nancy Reagan had urged kids your age to “Just say NO!”). It appeared as if the moral majority had spoken.
The most significant events of the Bush presidency were the ending of the Cold War (symbolized by the dismantling of the Berlin Wall and breakup of the Soviet Union) and the Persian Gulf War. If containment had been the guiding policy during the Cold War, but the Soviet Union no longer posed a threat to the world order, it would be left to George Bush to set the course for U.S. foreign policy into the twenty-first century. The test came in August 1990, when Saddam Hussein, the leader of Iraq, invaded Iraq’s tiny but oil-rich neighbor Kuwait. When Saddam seized Kuwait’s oil fields and threatened the world’s access to Middle East oil, Washington reacted immediately. Having learned from Vietnam, Bush built a consensus in Congress and assembled an international coalition against Iraq in the UN.
Operation Desert Storm consisted mostly of massive air strikes against strategic Iraqi targets, and most Americans watched the war from the safety of their homes on television as if it were a video game. The war ended quickly with few American casualties. Although Iraq was required to submit to UN inspectors to insure that there were no weapons of mass destruction or chemical warfare production facilities, Saddam Hussein remained in power, a decision many foreign policy experts later came to criticize. It appeared that U.S. foreign policy in the post–Cold War era would focus on political stability in the Middle East and defending human rights.
Though the 1980s were before you were born and may even seem like ancient history to you, historians assert that it can take as many as 50 years or more before enough time has elapsed for people to evaluate the past objectively. Keeping that in mind, let’s take a look at some of the major trends and developments that historians have begun to identify in the past 20 or 30 years.
As was the case a century ago, when predominantly Eastern European immigrants arrived by the millions onto America’s shores, immigration in recent decades has significantly affected the shape and tenor of American society. In 1890, 86 percent of immigrants to the United States were from Europe. From the 1970s through today, however, the fastest growing ethnic minorities in the United States have been Hispanics and Asians, and according to the 2000 census, Hispanics now outnumber African Americans as the largest minority in the United States. Much of this growth among Asians and Hispanics has been fueled by immigration.
The Immigration Act of 1965 contributed significantly to the increase in immigration by members of these population groups. This legislation phased out all national quotas by 1968 and set annual limits on immigration from the Western Hemisphere and the rest of the world, essentially relaxing restrictions on non- European immigration. It gave priority to reuniting families and to certain skilled workers (particularly scientists) and political refugees. Though the vast majority of immigrants who entered under this legislation did so in order to join family members, searching for employment and escaping from persecution still ranked high among the most common reasons people came to the United States. Several groups admitted under these regulations included Cuban and Southeast Asian refugees created by Fidel Castro’s revolution and the Vietnam War, respectively.
At the end of the twentieth century, from 1970 to 2000, the number of foreign-born people living in the United States went from 10 million to 31 million, or 11 percent of the total population. Fifty-one percent of those foreign-born were from Latin America, while 27 percent were from Asia, the second-largest group. Not since the turn of the twentieth century has the United States experienced a comparable surge in immigration. In 1915 immigrants made up 15 percent of the total population, the largest percentage in our history so far.
What will all these changes mean for American society? The increasing racial and ethnic diversity of our population has not only sparked heated debate on immigration policy but also on issues such as bilingual education and affirmative action. Discussions of immigration policy have generally centered on illegal immigration, the role and impact that immigrants have on the economy, and the extent to which an influx of new cultures, attitudes, and ideas will reshape society. Tensions created by this new wave of immigration have resulted in various measures to curb illegal immigration, abolish bilingual education in some states, and allow both low-skilled and high-skilled workers into the United States on a temporary basis to provide needed labor and services. In 1986, for instance, Congress passed the Simpson-Mazzoli Act, which outlawed the deliberate employment of illegal immigrants and granted legal status to some illegal aliens who entered the United States before 1982. However, problems persist.
Whether you believe that immigrants place a burden on social services or support and enrich the development of our economy and society, it is clear that the United States is in the midst of major demographic changes that are visible today. With each new wave of immigration, ethnic enclaves sprout in big cities and neighborhoods, contributing to America’s unique mixture of peoples. A century ago, there were communities such as Little Italy in New York City or Chinatown in San Francisco. Today, reflecting more recent population trends, there are places like Little Havana in Miami and Little Saigon in Orange County, California. Americans have also seen an increase in multilingual services and the media catering to Hispanics and Asians in particular. Even political parties openly attempt to attract Hispanics in recognition of their potential political influence. The impact of these changing demographics will be felt for generations to come.
William Jefferson Clinton was the first Democrat to be elected president since Jimmy Carter. After more than a decade of Republican control of the White House, Clinton and Al Gore took control in January 1993. Although it is doubtful that you would be required to write an essay that went through the 1990s, you could see a few multiple-choice questions about the major events that occurred during Clinton’s two terms as president. The following is a brief review of those issues and events.
The first significant event of the Clinton presidency was the establishment of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). Although the treaty had been negotiated by the previous Republican administration, Clinton signed it into law in 1993. The agreement did exactly what it sounds like it did—eliminated trade barriers among the United States, Mexico, and Canada. While the treaty was severely criticized by American labor unions, who feared American companies would move their factories elsewhere in order to reduce costs with lower wages and operation costs, corporate interests supported it enthusiastically. Despite often speaking favorably about the concept of free trade, and gradually reducing tariff barriers over time, the United States has historically interfered with trade, usually in the form of high, protective tariffs, when it was beneficial to certain political and economic groups, but always under the guise of protecting the “national interest.”
Also notable during Clinton’s presidency was the 1994 Congressional Election. Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich’s Contract with America outlined a specific series of laws the Republican Party wished to pass, designed to reduce taxes, consolidate government programs, and reform welfare entitlement programs. The Republicans won back control of the Congress, but their power was limited by Clinton’s moderating Democrat executive power. Clinton cooperated with the Republicans in Congress on some matters, especially reforming welfare and giving the states more control over administering welfare benefits. This led to him winning the 1996 presidential election over Bob Dole.
No doubt, the most infamous event of Clinton’s presidency was the Clinton- Lewinsky scandal that led to Clinton’s impeachment during his second term in office. Some Clinton supporters believe that special prosecutor Kenneth Starr had it in for the Clintons, beginning with his accusations of their dubious real estate dealings in what came to be known as Whitewater. Regardless, the U.S. House of Representatives, which had a Republican majority at the time, impeached Clinton for perjury, obstruction of justice, and abuse of power. Remember that impeachment is the formal accusation of wrongdoing; it does not mean that the accused is thrown out of office. According to the Constitution, the House of Representatives has the “sole power of impeachment,” and any federal official can be impeached for committing treason, bribery, or other “high crimes and misdemeanors.” The United States Senate then has the “sole power to try all impeachments.” Although Clinton was impeached, he was acquitted by the Senate and remained in office to finish his second term. Several federal judges have been impeached throughout American history, but Clinton was only the second president ever impeached. Lincoln’s vice president, Andrew Johnson, was impeached, but he too was acquitted and was not thrown out of office. Students sometimes think that Nixon was impeached for his involvement in Watergate. Not quite. He resigned before the House of Representatives completed the process.
Clinton was really the first president to take office after the end of the Cold War, and he made it clear that one of his major foreign policy goals was the protection of human rights around the world, although some criticized his turning a blind eye to human rights violations in China, defending capitalism over democracy. In 1999 Clinton supported a bombing campaign in the former Yugoslavia under the auspices of NATO. Slobodan Milosevic, president of Serbia, was conducting a brutal policy of “ethnic cleansing” against Balkan Muslims. Milosevic was eventually tried and convicted for committing “crimes against humanity.”
Other notable events that took place during the Clinton years include his “Don’t ask, don’t tell” policy pertaining to gays in the U.S. military and his appointments of Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer to the Supreme Court. Two significant initiatives that failed were his proposal for a national health care program and campaign finance reform.
While it is incredibly unlikely that you will be asked to know anything specific about the George W. Bush administration, other than the obvious major events like 9/11 and the situation in Iraq (although certainly not in any detail), you may see a question about the 2000 election. According to the Constitution, a candidate must win a majority of electoral votes to win the presidential election. However, because of the “winner-take-all” system regarding the allotment of electoral votes in most states, it is possible for a candidate to win the majority of the popular vote nationwide but lose the presidency. Recall that this happened in 1824, when Jackson won a plurality of the popular vote, but John Quincy Adams became president, and again in 1876, when Samuel J. Tilden lost to Rutherford B. Hayes. On election night in November 2000, it appeared that Al Gore had defeated George W. Bush. However, through a convoluted series of mishaps with the voting procedure in Florida, the results of the Electoral College were questioned. Eventually, the Supreme Court prevented a formal recount of the vote in Florida and George W. Bush, son of former president George H. W. Bush, was elected.
The George W. Bush presidency also marked the rise in neoconservatism, which literally means “new conservatism,” a movement in sharp opposition to “paleo-conservatism” or the conservatism of prior Republican administrations. Neoconservatives, such as Vice-President Dick Cheney, Secretary of State Donald Rumsfeld, and advisor Paul Wolfowitz, promoted the idea of spreading democracy worldwide and putting American corporate interests first through the use of military actions abroad. Global trade and open immigration is a net positive for America in neoconservative thought.
Some former Democrats latched onto neoconservatism, while both staunch liberals and paleo-conservatives criticized the Bush Administration. For liberals, the Bush policies were symptomatic of excessive corporate power and global imperialism, while traditional conservatives such as Patrick J. Buchanan lamented the cost of military adventures overseas, the loss of domestic jobs incurred by global free-trade agreements, and the ravages of unrestricted immigration. Americans on both sides of the aisle, it seemed, had lost faith in the ability of the federal government to solve social and economic problems.
Following the accomplishments of Freedom Summer in 1964, the Voting Rights Act of 1965, and the Twenty-fourth Amendment to the Constitution, measures such as literacy tests and poll taxes that had been used by many Southern states to deny African Americans the right to vote were summarily banned. The results in the South were dramatic: In 1960 only 20 percent of eligible African Americans had been registered to vote, but by 1971, that number had jumped to 62 percent. Cities such as Los Angeles, Chicago, Washington, D.C., Atlanta, and New Orleans elected their first African American mayors in the 1980s. The nation’s first African American governor in recent memory was elected in 1990 in Virginia.
In 1968 Shirley Chisholm was the first African American woman elected to Congress; in 1972 she also became the first African American to run for president. Reverend Jesse Jackson also ran for the Democratic presidential nomination in 1984 and 1988, winning many of the primary elections. According to the U.S. Census Bureau in 2000, there were 1,540 African American legislators, representing 10 percent of the total number of legislators nationwide. Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice, both Secretaries of State under President George W. Bush, occupied the most powerful political office that African Americans had held since Thurgood Marshall was appointed to the Supreme Court by Lyndon Johnson in the 1960s. Of course, those records were surpassed with the historic 2008 election of Barack Obama as president of the United States.
As in the past, people in the 1950s and 1960s flocked to the cities for employment and cheaper housing. African Americans continued to move to Northern and Western cities as they had done during World Wars I and II, while other minorities, including immigrants from Latin America, were drawn to cities for similar reasons. By the 1970s and 1980s, however, mounting urban problems—overcrowding, increasing unemployment and crime rates, and decaying and inadequate housing and commercial areas—initiated a trend of mostly white, middle-class Americans leaving the cities for the suburbs (a phenomenon nicknamed “white flight”); the open spaces, shopping malls, and better-funded schools of the suburbs also enticed people to move. When middle-class families moved to the suburbs, businesses and industries that once provided vital jobs and tax revenue for cities followed. The result was that poor people and racial minorities remained in cities where there were insufficient funds for housing, sanitation, infrastructure, and schools.
Meanwhile, televised urban riots in the 1960s, such as those in Los Angeles, Chicago, and New York after the assassination of Martin Luther King Jr., only served to widen the gap between cities and suburbs and to heighten racial tensions. One of the worst urban riots occurred much later in 1992 in South Central Los Angeles, where many African Americans expressed outrage at the acquittal of four white police officers who were videotaped beating a black man, Rodney King.
Tensions between urban and suburban areas surfaced in ways that highlighted both racial and class animosity. In 1974–1975 the forced busing of students resulted in violence in South Boston when black students from a poorer section were bused into a predominantly white, working-class neighborhood school by court order. Buses were vandalized and attacked while riot police tried to quell the mob. White families moved from South Boston or sent their children to private schools, while even some black families opposed the forced busing, arguing instead that the schools in their black neighborhoods should receive better funding. Busing continued in many major cities through the late 1990s, and although many schools did achieve greater racial integration, the strategy was not without its critics. Indeed, the Supreme Court decision in Milliken v. Bradley (1974) held that an interdistrict remedy for unconstitutional segregation found in one district exceeded the scope of the violation.
But while the image of the scary inner city still has a hold on some imaginations, it is no longer supported by statistics. Both violent crime and property crime have plunged since the early 1990s, and crime in 2010 reached its lowest level in forty years. In large urban areas the drop in crime has been even more pronounced. Affluent young professionals have flocked back to city centers. There is an active debate over what has caused this encouraging trend—one theory credits falling levels of lead in the environment due to legislation in the early 1970s, as lead poisoning is linked to criminal activity. Whatever the reasons, the dramatic drop in crime has led to a revitalization of American cities over the course of the past twenty years.
America entered a new phase of foreign policy when Osama bin Laden’s Al Qaeda organization attacked the World Trade Center and the Pentagon on Sept. 11, 2001. Two planes flew into the World Trade Center’s Twin Towers, and one flew into the Pentagon. A fourth plane was allegedly planned to hit the White House, but passengers overcame the hijackers long enough to crash the plane into a field in Pennsylvania. In total, almost 3,000 civilians were killed on 9/11. The Bush Administration quickly got support from NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organization) allies to launch an attack on the Taliban government in Afghanistan in October of 2001, where bin Laden and Al Qaeda were headquartered. The ensuing war led to the removal of the Taliban from power and a restoration of democracy in Afghanistan.
Allegations that Saddam Hussein helped to orchestrate 9/11, as well as his ongoing human rights violations against his own people and rumors of weapons of mass destruction, led the Bush administration to invade Iraq in March of 2003. American troops quickly seized Baghdad and Hussein went into hiding, leaving a power vacuum. American military leaders worked to establish a provisional government, but tensions between rival political and religious factions erupted, leading to a prolonged American occupation.
Instrumental in energizing conservatives throughout the 1970s and 1980s were right-wing evangelical Christians, members of a branch of Protestantism that emphasized a “born-again” religious experience and adherence to strict standards of moral behavior taken from the Bible. Evangelicalism, particularly fundamentalist sects, became increasingly prominent in political life from the 1970s through the 1990s. Fundamentalists denounced the moral relativism of liberals and believed in a literal interpretation of the Bible. Evangelical groups also became increasingly political. Conservative evangelicals and fundamentalists such as Billy Graham, Jerry Falwell, and Pat Robertson helped to mobilize other like-minded citizens to support the Republican Party and bring together various conservative groups to form a movement known as the New Right. The growing strength of the New Right was evident in the key role it played in helping to elect Ronald Reagan in 1980, and in 1994 when the Republican Party under Newt Gingrich recaptured control of both houses of Congress under Democratic President Bill Clinton. Evangelical Christians continued to support Republicans with the election and re-election of George W. Bush. However, the election of Barack Obama in 2008 and his re-election in 2012 have led many political observers to conclude that the conservative resurgence has ebbed and that American history has entered a new phase.
Here are the most important concepts to remember from the pre-twenty-first-century period.
○ In response to a growing liberalization of government, Conservatives gained a new voice in public discourse.
○ After the collapse of the Soviet Union and the fall of the Berlin Wall, American fears shifted to the threat of Middle Eastern terrorism.
○ Immigration, both legal and illegal, grew exponentially, prompting internal debate.
○ Computer technology and the Internet become widely available, revolutionizing industry, education, and the social sphere.
See Chapter 14 for answers and explanations.
1. The top goals of the Reagan presidency included
(A) eliminating all social programs and balancing the federal budget
(B) reducing the size of the federal government and increasing defense spending
(C) using the federal government to enforce civil rights and reducing U.S. influence in Central America
(D) increasing income tax rates and strengthening environmental regulations
2. Since the end of the Cold War, the continuing American impulse to intervene in the economic and political affairs of other nations around the world is motivated by all of the following EXCEPT
(A) fears of renewed Soviet expansion
(B) the protection of human rights
(C) American economic interests
(D) the desire to promote and develop democratic institutions in former communist and Third World nations
3. All of the following acts of President Ronald Reagan’s administration are characterized as a return to conservative political values EXCEPT
(A) cuts in the federal budget
(B) the appointment of Sandra Day O’Connor to the Supreme Court
(C) tax cuts for corporations
(D) the loosening of government regulation
4. Which of the following did NOT contribute to the emergence of the New Right of the 1970s and 1980s?
(A) The Moral Majority movement
(B) The popularity of Ronald Reagan
(C) The “stagflation” economic condition of the 1970s
(D) The drop in the stock market
5. In his 1985 State of the Union Address, Ronald Reagan articulated his foreign policy goals in what has come to be known as the Reagan Doctrine. Like Truman, Reagan pledged to
(A) support anti-communist resistance movements, particularly in the Third World
(B) sponsor covert military operations to overthrow communist regimes in Eastern Europe
(C) ease tensions between the Soviet Union and the United States
(D) broker a peace agreement between the Palestinians and the Israelis
6. During the 1990s, President George H. W. Bush
(A) signed the welfare reform bill
(B) persuaded Anwar Sadat and Menachem Begin to sign the Camp David Accords
(C) sent troops to fight in the Persian Gulf War
(D) cut taxes and social services
7. Which of the following actions by the Clinton administration was most harmonious with Liberal Democrat values?
(A) Military peacekeeping interventions in the Balkans and Somalia
(B) Welfare benefit reform to encourage young mothers to reenter the work force
(C) Free trade agreements such as NAFTA and GATT
(D) The effort to pass a universal health care legislation in the Congress
8. Which one of these presidents was best known for the campaign promise “Read my lips: No new taxes!”?
(A) Jimmy Carter
(B) Ronald Reagan
(C) George H. W. Bush
(D) Bill Clinton
Respond to the following questions:
• For which content topics discussed in this chapter do you feel you have achieved sufficient mastery to answer multiple-choice questions correctly?
• For which content topics discussed in this chapter do you feel you have achieved sufficient mastery to discuss effectively in a short- answer question or an essay?
• On which content topics discussed in this chapter do you feel you need more work before you can answer multiple-choice questions correctly?
• On which content topics discussed in this chapter do you feel you need more work before you can discuss them effectively in a short-answer question or an essay?
• What parts of this chapter are you going to re-review?
• Will you seek further help, outside of this book (such as a teacher, tutor, or AP Students), on any of the content in this chapter—and, if so, on what content?