University Press of Florida

American Government

Buy This Book ( Related URL )

Material Information

American Government
Physical Description:
Lenz, Timothy O.
Holman, Mirya
University Press of Florida
Place of Publication:
Gainesville, FL
Publication Date:


From Florida Atlantic university Department of Political Science comes an exciting new book that explores the role of government, politics, and policy ion American lives. Full of real life applications and scenarios, Lenz and Holmans provide a text intended to encourage and enable political thinking (a reflective stance toward the world that helps a person to critically consider and participate in politics). Numerous hyperlinks send students into real world websites for illumination and exploration.
General Note:
Common Course numbers POS 033, 041, 042, 043, 044, 049, 050
General Note:
Downloads are freely available (no cost). Click the shopping cart button to purchase a low cost printed textbook online or you may also phone the University Press of Florida to order a textbook on their toll free number: 800-226-3822.

Record Information

Source Institution:
University Press of Florida
Holding Location:
University Press of Florida
Rights Management:

This item is licensed with the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial No Derivative License. This license allows others to download this work and share them with others as long as they mention the author and link back to the author, but they can’t change them in any way or use them commercially.
Resource Identifier:
isbn - 978-1-61610-163-3
System ID:

This item is only available as the following downloads:

Full Text


rfntbnr olm b n f fff A b f ff fff ff ff ff ffff


rfntbnnbrrbb rfntbrbnnnfbbf rfntbrfbnn rfntbbnfbrnnnbn rfntbbnnbrrbb frrfrfntbbbfb nnfbrrfntbrbtf nnfrfntbbnnrr nnffrfntbbfnrr nnffrfntbbb nnfrfntbbfrb


nnfrfntbbnnrrbrrbbbbfbbf bfrbrbtfnbnbfnrrbbfb


rffntbnfrnfrffnt bnfntftnt tnrnrfrrfnnnttf fbnrtnfttn rfntbftntftrfnrfn ffnrffn rr nrfnfnntrftnnn fnfffnrfnrn ftftnnftnrntfn frnbnrfnntnf tff fnfnnbnrfttf nfntfbnrftnrfbn rffntbnrffbnrfnnfnfbnrf fbnrfbnnfrfbnrf bnrfbnrffnrbnrf bnrf fn fnt


ffrnn ffnnfbrf f nt tnnb tbrn tnbfbtfrnn rnnnf frnnbrtfrf frnnbrbnnbnf frnnbrbn f rnfrn ffnfrn fftfrn nfrn rfbrbn nnrnnbtnnrn


CHAPTER 1: Why Government? Why Politics?


2 | Chapter 1: Why Government? Why Politics? 1.0 | What is Government? Government can be defined as the institutions and processes that make and implement authoritative decisions for a so ciety. The government unit can be a city, county, state, regional, national, or inte rnational government. The decisions, which include laws, regulations, and other public policie s, are authoritative in the sense that individuals and organizations are legally obligated to obey the decisions or face some kind of sanction. In the U.S., government includes the national government institutions (Congress, the Presidency, the federal courts, and a broad range of federal bureaucracies), the 50 state governments (state legisl atures, governors, state courts, and state bureaucracies), and the local governments (counties, cities, and other special government units such as school boards). 1.10 | Why Government Is government necessary? Is it possibl e to live without government? Why do governments exist all over the world when people all over the world are so critical of government? These are old political questi ons that were first asked when people began thinking about life in organized so cieties. Questions about the need for government and the legitimate purposes of government are continually being asked because the answers reflect contemporary thinking about basic human values, including freedom, order, individualism, equality, economic prosperity, national security, morality and ethics and justice. These values are central to government and politics in all countries although the values attached to them and their relative importance varies a great deal. Given the almost universal cri ticism of government, and a strong tradition of anti-government rh etoric in the United States, it is worth wondering why government? One recurring theme in American government and politics is the conflict between two basic values: freedom and order. Freedom (or liberty) is highly valued in the American political tradition. Individual freedom is an essential element of democracy. Self-government requires indivi dual liberty. In the U.S., freedom of religion, speech, press, and association are individual liberties that are guaranteed by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The language of the First Amendment, which begins with Congress sh all make no law., reflects the most common understanding of individual liberty in the U.S. where freedom is usually defined as the absence of government limits. Order is also a basic political value. One of the primary responsibilities of government is to create and maintain good public order. G ood public order is commonly defined to include public safety (individuals are protected from crime, foreign invasions, and domestic disturbances) as well as behavior that a society considers appropriate conduct. Governments use law to create and maintain these aspects of good public order. These laws so metimes limit individual liberty in order to achieve order. Politics is often about where to strike the right balance between allowing individuals the freedom to do what they want, to live their lives without government restrictions, and giving government power to control behavior in order I believe that all government is evil, and that trying to improve it is largely a waste of time H.L. Mencken (1880 1956) Democracy is the worst form of government except for all those others that have been tried. Winston Churchill (1874 1965)


Chapter 1: Why Government? Why Politics?| 3 to maintain good public order. In American politics, debates are often framed as freedom versus order because the relationship between individual freedom and government power is considered a zero-sum relationship: an increase in one means a corresponding decrease in the other. The power problem illustrates this relationship. 1.12 | The Power Problem The power problem refers to the need to grant government enough power to effectively address the problems that people expect gove rnment to address, while also limiting power enough so that government can be held accountable. The challenge is to give government enough power so that it can addre ss or solve the problem s that people want government to solve, such as providing public safety and national security and economic prosperity, while also limiting government power so that it can be held accountable by the people. Too little power can be a problem because weak governments or failed states can provide havens for criminals or terro rists. Too much power can be a problem because strong governments can threaten individual rights. Creating good government requires striking the right balance between granting and limiting power. Doing so is difficult because people have different views about the bala nce point. Politics is about reconciling individual, ideological, and partisan differences of opinion about the power problem. 1.13 | Politics People have different opinions about whether their political system, or the political system of another country, a llows too much individual free dom or provides too little public order. People also have different belie fs about what government should be doing. The U.S. Constitution does not say very much about the specifics of where to strike the balance between rights and powers. It mos tly provides general guidelines about powers and rights. The Fourth Amen dment provides the people a ri ght against unreasonable searches and seizures, but it does not say wh en a police officers search or seizure is unreasonable. The Eighth Amendment prohibits cruel and unusual punishment but does not define it. Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution grants Congress power to provide for the general Welfare of the Unite d States, but it does not define general welfare. The fact that the Constitution includes such general language means that some disputes about where the balance between government power and individual rights should be struck are more political than legal In democratic political systems, politics is about different beliefs about how much power government should have and what government should be doing. Conservatives and lib erals typically take different positions in political debates about government power, both the amount of government and its uses. Political opinions about the right bala nce between individual rights and government power are influenced by conditi ons. Is it a time of war or peace? Is the economy good or bad? Is there good public order or is it a time of crisis or disorder? These are the political conditions that determine public opinion. The Constitution does not say very much about government power during times of crisis or emergency. Article I Section 9 of the Constitution does provide that Congress may suspend th e writ of habeas corpus when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Sa fety may require it. But most questions


4 | Chapter 1: Why Government? Why Politics? about striking the right balance between granting and limiting power, or the balance between individual freedom and government power, or the right size and role of government, are left for each generation to decide depending on the particular circumstances they face. American politics is often framed as debates about the size of government. These debates are familiar arguments about big government versus small government. But politics is actually more likely to be about the role of governmentthe purposes and uses of government power. The big v. small arguments tend to distract from the disagreements about what government shoul d be doing. Politics is about whether government is too strong or t oo weak, too big or too small, doing too much or too little. Politics is also about whethe r government is doing the right things or the wrong things, whether specific public policies should cha nge, and whether the government has the right priorities. Many of these polit ical questions about the ri ght size and proper role of government are actually questions about whethe r a political system is a just system. 1.14 | Justice Justice is a basic concept that is hard to precise ly define. It can be generally understood to mean that an individual is treated fairly. Politically, justice usually means that an individual is treated fairly by the government. The definition of justice as fairness includes the belief that indi viduals should get what they deserve: good or appropriate behavior is recognized and rewarded; bad or inappropriate behavior is recognized and punished. There are many definitions of just ice, but most include a moral or ethical componentthat is, definitions of justice commonl y identify a particular set of values as important. Justice is important politically because it describes a proper ordering of things, values, and individuals within a society. The nature of a just society or politi cal system has been the subject of human inquiry since people fi rst thought about living a good life in an organized society. Ju stice is a familiar subject in works of politics, philosophy, theology, and law. The Ancient Greek philosophers Plato and Aristotle described what they believed to be the attributes of a just society and the best form of government to achieve justice. The Founders of the American political system also thought a great deal about a just society and the best form of government. The Declaration of Independence explains why the American colonists were justified in fighting the Revolutionary War against Great Britain. It includes a long list of charges that the king of Great Britain acted so unjustly that the colonists we re justified in taking up arms and breaking their political bonds with Great Britain. The Preamble to the U.S. Constitution also declares an interest in creati ng a form of government that promotes justice. It explains that the Constitution was established in Orde r to form a more pe rfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity The interest in justice was not limited to the founding era. Both sides in the Civil War claimed to be fighting for justice: the Nort h fought against slavery, among other reasons,


Chapter 1: Why Government? Why Politics?| 5 and the South fought for states rights, among other reasons. The various civil rights movements of the 20th Century were also organized efforts to achieve a more just society for Blacks, women, and other minorities. Polit ical theorists continue to explore the meaning and importance of justice. In A Theory of Justice, John Rawls argued that justice is the first virtue of social inst itutions, as truth is of systems of thought.1 The argument that justice is the most importa nt virtue for our social, political, and governmental institutions to pursue reflects the continued value placed on justice in modern thinking about government and pol iticsbut recognizing the importance of justice is much easier th an actually defining it. Political science studies individuals (and individual behavior) and systems (and the workings of institutions). At the individual level of analysis, justice is as simple as a persons expectation that she or he will be treated fairly. In this sense, justice is an expectation that a person will get what they deservewhether it is recognition and reward for doing well and behaving appropriately, or sanctions for not doing well or behaving inappropriately. At th e system level of analysis, a just political system is one that maintains a political order where indivi duals are treated fairly, where the system treats people fairly as is therefore a legiti mate system of governance. One factor that complicates considerations of whether an indi vidual is treated fairly or a political system is just is that fair treatm ent may be a universally accepted concept but views on what fair or just treatment is in a particular situation is a subjective value judgment. What justice means is further complicated by the fact that there are different types of justice. Retributive justice is concerned with the pr oper response to wrongdoing. Retributive justice is most relevant to the criminal justice system and the theory and practice of punishment as reflec ted in sentencing policy. The law of retribution lex talionis reflects the concep t of retributive justice the belief that punishment should fit the crime. The biblical vers e life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, wound for wound, stripe for stripe, embodies the principle of retributive justice. However, there is no consensus that the an eye for an eye principle of retributive justice should be in terpreted literally to mean th at justice requires taking an eye for an eye, a hand for a hand, a tooth for a t ooth, or a life for a life. The alternative to this literal reading of retributive justi ce is the metaphorical interpretation. The metaphorical interpretation requ ires proportionalitya punishment that fits the crime. A just punishment must be propor tionate to the crime, but ju stice does not require that punishment be identical to the crime. A second type of justice is restorative justice Restorative justice is also relevant to the criminal justice system. However, unlike retributive justice, which is primarily concerned with punishing an offender, restor ative justice emphasizes the importance of restoring the victim (making the victim whole again) and rehabilitating the offender. A third type of justice is distributive justice Distributive justice is concerned with the proper distribution of values or valuables among the individuals or groups in a society. The valuables can be things of material value (such as income, wealth, food, health care, tax breaks, or property) or non-material values (such as power, resp ect, or recognition of status). Distributive justice is based on the assumption that values or valuables can be distributed equitably based upon merit. Politica l debates about economic inequality, a fair tax system, access to education, and generati onal justice (whether government policies


6 | Chapter 1: Why Government? Why Politics? benefit the elderly more than the young) are often conducted in terms of distributive justice: who gets what and who should be getting what. 1.2 | The State of Nature: Life Before or without Government One of the most important concepts in western political thought is the st ate of nature. The state of nature is used to explain the origin of government. The 17th Century English political philosopher Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679) believed that life in a state of nature (that is, without government), would be solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short because human beings are self-interested actors who will take advantage of others. Hobbes believed that it is simply human nature for the strong to take advantage of the weak. The competition for economic and political advantage results in a constant war of all against all that makes an individuals existence precarious. Hobbes and other social contract theorists believ ed that individuals who are living a precarious existence in the state of nature decide to enter into a social contract that creates a government with enough power to ma intain order by contro lling behavior. The terms of the social contract in clude trading some of the individual freedom in the state of nature for order, security, justice, or other political values His classic work Leviathan (1651) describes a strong government with power to create and maintain order. The word Leviathan comes from the biblical reference to a great sea monsteran image that critics of modern big government consider appropriate. All ideologies include a vi ew of human nature. Some ideologies are based on a negative view of human nature one that describes humans as basically self-interested or even quite capable of evil. Some ideologi es are based on a more positive view of human natureone that describes humans as basically public-spirited or even benevolent. Ideologies with a more posi tive view of human nature assume that individuals are capable of getting along we ll without government, with mi nimal government, or with government that is much weaker than a Leviathan. For a view of human nature as capable of good or evil, that stresses the importance of education and socialization to develop the better instincts and moral conscience, read President Abraham Lincolns First Inaugural Address which appeals to Americans to be guide d by the better angels of our nature. 1.21 | John Locke (1632-1704) In An Essay Concerning the True Origi nal, Extent and End of Civil Government the English political philosopher John Locke described life in the pr e-government state of nature as a condition where a ll men are in a state of pe rfect freedom to order their actions and dispose of their possessions and persons, as they think fit, within the bounds of the law of nature, without asking leave, or depending upon the will of any other man.2


Chapter 1: Why Government? Why Politics?| 7 Locke did not mean that perfect freedom gave individuals license to do whatever they wanted. The law of nature mandated that n o one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions. According to Locke, the natural state of man is to live free from oppression and the wi ll of manliving together a ccording to reason without a common superior on earth and to have only the law of Nature for his rule. However, history teaches that some individuals inevit ably gain power over others, and use their power to harm them. The us e of power or might without rightthe fear that might makes rightis one reason why individuals deci de to leave the state of nature and live under government. 1.22 | Jean-Jacques Rousseau In The Social Contract Jean-Jacques Rousseau (17121778) wondered why people were born free but everywhere lived with government: Man is born free, and everywhere he is in chains. The American political tradition of criticizing government raises the question whether government is necessary. To govern means to control. Government control is intended to create and maintain order. Why is government necessary to create order? In the history of western political thought, the altern ative to government is life in what political philosophers call a state of nature Life without government in a state of nature created problems or conditions that caused individuals to believe that living with government would be an improvement. 1.23 | Influences on the American Founders John Locke believed that indivi duals decided to leave the st ate of nature and live under government because government offered greater protection of their rights including the right to life, liberty, and property. This natural rights-based understanding of the purposes of government greatly influenced the writers of th e Declaration of Independence. The Declaration of Independe nce explained and justified the American Revolution as a necessary actthe right and duty of a free people to assert their natural or unalienable Rights to Life, Liberty, a nd the Pursuit of Happine ss when confronted with tyrannical government. Some of th e most important words and ideas in the Declaration of Independence can be traced to the writings of Locke. Natural rights are those that individuals have because they are human beings or because they are God-given rights. Natural rights are not created by human beings or government. Natural rights contrast with positive rights, which are created by an act of government. 1.24 | The Social Contract Theory of Government Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau, are classi cal political philosophers who are social contractarians They advocate a social contract th eory that provides a justification for creating government and operatin g it as acts of self-governm ent. According to social contract theory, people crea te governments by entering into written or unwritten agreements to live together under a particul ar form of government. The agreement is a contract because it binds the parties to specific ri ghts (or benefits) an obligations, duties, and responsibilities. The agreement is social because it involves the members of a community or society deciding to create a binding agreement to live together under a


8 | Chapter 1: Why Government? Why Politics? form of government. In the U.S., the so cial contract is a written document: the Constitution. The terms of this social contract include individual rights and responsibilities as well as government power s and responsibilities. The people have a duty to obey the law. The government has a resp onsibility to provide safe streets, national security, and other public goods. Social contract theory is identified with self-government because it is based on popular sovereignty. Popular sovereignty is the belief that the people are sovereign, that the people are the ultimate source of governi ng authority. Popular sovereignty describes political authoritythe legi timate use of government poweras based on the consent of the governed. Government is based on the consent of the people; government is not imposed on the people. Social contract theory explains why it is ratio nal for an individual to voluntarily give up the freedom of living in the state of nature and agree to live under a government that can tell them what they can and cannot do. The social contract explains why it is rational for an individual to accep t a government with the power to take a persons life, liberty, and property. John Stuart Mill elaborated on social contract theory in works that described liberal democracy as the major political development or advance of the 19th Century. His classic book On Liberty elevated the importance of individual liberty as a political value and advocated for stronger protection of individual liberty from restrictions by government and the rule of the majority. Mill is re membered today for his articulation of the Harm Principle as a way to determine the proper use of government power to limit individual freedom. The Harm Principle held that th e only legitimate reason for using law to limit an individuals freedom was to prevent one person from harming another. The Harm Principle is considered a libertarian principl e because it was devel oped in order to limit government power to restrict individual libert y. The Harm Principle is libertarian in the sense that it considers laws that are passed to prevent a person from harming themselves inappropriatewhich means that paternalistic legislation such as laws requiring the wearing of seatbelts or moto rcycle helmets or prohibiting the use of drugs would be considered inappropriate. The Harm Principle is also libertarian insofar as it considers moral regulatory policies (e .g., legislating morality) inap propriate use of government power. The contract theory of government rema ins a strong influence on thinking about government. In A Theory of Justice (1971), the political philosopher John Rawls explains why it makes sense for individuals to give up their individual preferences (or personal freedom to do as they please) and agree to live under a government where they submit to the judgment, authority, or power of other members of the politi cal community. Like Locke and Mill, Rawls believes that people cr eate governments because they believe that life under government will more just, fa irer, than life without government. The idea of government based on a social cont ract has an especially strong appeal in the U.S. The enduring appeal is rooted in pol itics and economics. Its appeal can be traced to the fact that social contracts were part of both the colonial experience (e.g., the Mayflower Compact of 1620 and the Massac husetts Bay Charter of 1629) and the founding experience (e.g., the Constitution). Social contract theory remains politically appealing because it is based on the democratic idea of popular sovereignty, the belief that government power comes from the peopl e and must be based the consent of the governed. The social contract th eory of government is also in fluential because the U.S. is


Chapter 1: Why Government? Why Politics?| 9 a capitalist country with an economic system that is base d on individuals entering into private contracts with one another to provi de a broad range of goods and service. A people familiar with using cont ractual agreements to order private affairs are likely to consider social contracts a legi timate way to order public affairs. 1.3 | Modern Government Despite todays widespread and strong crit icism of government, few people argue that government is unnecessary. Few people are an archists. Anarchism is the political philosophy that believes government is unnecessary and that government power is illegitimate because it is based on force or compulsion. The term anarchism derives from a Greek word meaning without bosses. Anarchism is often considered chaos or extreme disorder. Anarchists do not advocate chaos, they simply believe that individuals can freely and voluntarily organize their lives to create social order and justice w ithout being compelled or controlled by government. Anarchists have a positive or optimistic view of human nature. They believe that the human capacity for reason makes it possible for i ndividuals to realize the benefits of voluntarily worki ng together, and to voluntarily accept some controls on their behavior. Anarchists believe that the private sector can provide the goods and services, as we ll as the good public order that most people have come to expect from the government. The widespread acceptance of government as necessaryor at least a necessary evildoes not mean there is consensus on th e size and role of government. American politics includes lively debates about the ri ght size of government and the appropriate role for governmentwhat government should be doing. From the founding era, to the development of the American political syst em, and continuing today there have been debates about the size, scope, and purposes of government. Criticism of government is one of the familiar themes of American politic s. We love to hate government because we think the government is doing th ings it should not be doing, or not doing thi ngs that we think it should be doing. Which raises th e question, what should government do? What are the criteria for determining whether government provides a good or service rather than having it provided by the private sector? 1.31 | Market Failures Governments everywhere are expected to maintain good public order, provide national security, maintain public safety, and provide material prosperity and economic stability. In the U.S., how do we decide what the govern ment (federal, state, or local) should do and the private sector should? In a politic al system based on limited government, and an economic system based on a market economy, there is a preference for goods and services to be provided by the private sector. The Subsidiary Principle is that wherever possible decisions should be made by the pr ivate sector rather th an the government, and wherever possible decisions should be made by the lower level of government (local) rather than the higher level of government. Th e Subsidiary Principle does not mean that all government action is inappropriate, but it indicates that government action should be


10 | Chapter 1: Why Government? Why Politics? limited to situations where the private marketplace is unable to efficiently and equitably provide a good or service. One reason for gove rnment intervention in the market is when there is a market failure. The following aspect s of market failures are discussed below: public goods, monopolies, externalities, information asymmetries, and equity. A public good is one that, once provide d, cannot be limited to those who have paid for it. Clean air, clean water, safe street s, and national security are often cited as examples of public goods. The government provide s national security because it is hard to limit the benefits of being safe from fo reign attacks or terrorism to those who have been willing to pay the costs of providing the benefits of national security. The government also acts to provide clean air (i.e., regul ating air pollution) because it is hard to limit the breathing of clean air to those i ndividuals who have voluntarily paid for the clean air. The fact that it is hard or even impossible to limit a good or a service to those who have paid for it raises the free rider problem: individuals have an economic incentive to enjoy the benefit without paying the cost. Clean air and national security are considered public goods because they are provided by the public (the government) through taxes or regulation. A second market failure is externalities In a perfect market, an economic transaction (the buying/selling of a good or service) will include the total cost of the good or service so there is no need for government interventio n or regulation of a ma rket transaction that does not affect parties other than the buyer and seller. Gove rnment intervention in the marketplace can be justified where market tran sactions have externalities. An externality occurs when a market transaction affects individuals who are not a party to the transaction. There are positive externalities and negative externalities An example of a negative externality is the pollution that is caused by making or using a product but which is not reflected in its price. The price of a gallon of gasoline, for example, does not include the environmental degradation caused by using a gallon of gas to run a lawnmower or drive a car. The purchase pric e of a plastic toy or a steel car does not include the cost of the air pollution or wate r pollution that is caused by the manufacture or use of the toy or car because the factory may have been able to allow some of the cost of production to go downstream (if the plant is lo cated along a river) or into the Jetstream (the high smokestacks at a steel plant can disp erse air pollution into the atmosphere). The manufacturer and the consumer are not paying for all of the costs of production and consumption when water and air pollution ar e not included in the price of a good. Individuals who live downstream or downwind pay the price of di rtier air or dirtier water. These are negative externalities because the producer and consumer agree on a purchase price that negatively affects third pa rties to the market transaction. Examples of positive externalities include education, vaccination, and crime control. Education can benefit an individual, and it could be limited to those who actually pay for it. But the benefits of education are not neces sarily limited to the student (who pays the tuition and receives the education) and the school (which receiv es tuition). The third party benefits (the positive externalities) include employers who have a qualified workforce and society because democracy is presumed to require an educated citizenry. These have historically been arguments for public education. Another example of a market failure is a monopoly Free-market economic theory is based on competition. If a single business has a monopoly in a particular sector of the market, the lack of competition will result in market inefficiency or failure. In the


Chapter 1: Why Government? Why Politics?| 11 absence of competition, there is no incentive to set a fair price or otherwise provide consumers with good service. In a small town or an urban neighborhood with two independent grocery stores, competition will keep prices in check because neither store can greatly increase the price of flour w ithout losing customers to the other store. However, if one of the stores closes, the remaining store can char ge higher prices and provide lower services because customers have no choice but to pay the higher price and put up with the level of service. Congress passed the Sherman Antitrust Act in 1890, which prohibited monopolies (or restraints of trade), because the industrial revolution resulted in sugar, steel, and monopolies that limited competition. The Standard Oil Company, for example, controlled about 90% of the oil refining in the U.S. Big government was used to keep big business in check where monopolies emerged in various sectors of the indus trial economy. More recently in the information-based economy, the federal government (and, in fact the European Unio n) has challenged Microsofts domination of the software market. A final market failure issue is equity Markets are about econo mics. Politics can be about equitythe assurance that everyone in a society has fair access to certain goods and services that are available in the pr ivate market and public goods. Collective goods (or social goods) are those that could be delivered in the privat e sector based solely on a persons ability to pay for the good or serv ice, but which are often provided by the government or subsidized by taxes as a matter of public policy. Public utilities such as water and sewage and electric ity and telephone serv ice, for example, could be provided by the private sector solely on the basis of an individuals ability to pay for them, but the political system considers these goods a nd services, including basic education and perhaps health care, social goods. 1.4 | Why Politics Government obviously involves po litics, and it is ha rd to talk about government without talking about politics, but government is not the same thing as politics. Politics exist wherever people interact with one another. Politics occurs in families, religious organizations, educational institutions, orga nized sports and entertainment, and the workplace. Political scientists focus on certain kinds of politics, th e kinds that involve government and public policy, for example. 1.41 | What is Politics? There are many different definitions of politics. The political scientist Harold Lasswell defined politics as the determination of who gets what, when, how.3 This definition focuses on politics as the authoritative allocation of scarce resources such as money, land, property, or wealth. David Easton defined politics as the authoritative allocation of values for a society.4 This definition of politics as the allocation of scarce resources is sometimes


12 | Chapter 1: Why Government? Why Politics? thought to refer only to material values such as taxes or govern ment benefits provided by education, health care, job training, veterans, or social welfare programs. However, politics is not limited to the authoritative allocat ion of scarce material valuables. Politics is also about values. Politics includes aut horitative statements about non-material or spiritual values which is why politics is often about religion, morality, values, ethics, patriotism, civics, honor, and education. Politics includes government actions or polic ies that subsidize ce rtain behaviors or values that are considered desirable and worthy of support in order to promote them: for example, marriage, child rearing, education, work. Politics also includes government actions or policies that regulate certain values or behaviors that are considered undesirable in order to control them or to discourage them: idleness; smoking or other tobacco use; consumption of alcohol; and gambling (although the discouragement of gambling is diminishing as governments rely on taxes from gambling). Politics also includes government actions or policies that prohibit certain behaviors or values by making them illegal: for example, drug usage; prostitution; or hate crimes. In addition to material and spiritual valu es, politics includes th e processes by which decisions are made. Process politics includ es campaigns and elections, interest groups lobbying, voting behavior of individual citizens, the d ecision making of government officials in the legislative and executive branches of government, and even the decision making of judges. The following provides basic definitions and explan ations of some of the terms that are essent ial to understanding American government and politics. 1.42 | What is Political Science? Political Science is the branch of the social sciences (e.g., ec onomics, sociology) that systematically studies the theo ry and practice of government. It includes the description, analysis, and prediction of the political behavior of indi viduals and organizations (such as political parties and interest groups) as well the workings of political systems. The discipline of political science has histor ical roots in moral philosophy, political philosophy, political economy, hi story, and other fields of study that traditionally examined normative (or value-based) beliefs about how individuals should live a good life in a good society. Modern political science is less normative and more scientific in the sense that it emphasizes the systematic st udy of government and politics. It examines empirical evidence or data on government and politics. 1.5 | Political Values Politics and government are not limited to materi al values or valuab les such as money, property, or other forms of w ealth and possessions. Government a nd politics are also concerned with values. Some of the most important political valu es include individual rights such as freedom and equa lity, social order, public sa fety, ethics, and justice. 1.51 | Personal Liberty (Individual Freedom) Freedom has become an especially important value in modern government and politics. Contemporary politics in the U.S. and elsewhere emphasizes individual liberty more than in the past when other values, such as maintaining good moral order, were


Chapter 1: Why Government? Why Politics?| 13 relatively more important. Indivi dual liberty is generally considered an individuals right to make decisions about his or her own life without government restrictions, limits, or interference. In this respect, individual libe rty is an aspect of self-determination or personal autonomy where individuals are free to decide how to live their lives. There are, however, two broad concepts of liberty: a negative concept of liberty and a positive concept of liberty. In On Liberty, John S. Mill differentiated between liberty as the freedom to act and liberty as the absence of coercion. Mill wa s describing the difference between negative libertythe absence of constr aintsand positive liberty, an individuals freedom to live life as he or she wants. In this sense, negative means the absence of legal limits and positive means the opportunity (to do something). In Two Concepts of Liberty Isaiah Berlin elaborated on this distinction be tween positive liberty and negative liberty. Negative liberty refers to the condition where an individual is protected from (usually) governmental restrictions. Positive liberty refe rs to having the means, the resources, or the opportunity to do what one wants or to become what one wants to become, rather than merely not facing governmental restraints The negative concept of liberty is the dominant concept in the American political a nd legal tradition in the sense that individual liberty is generally consider ed the absence of government restraints. The negative concept of liberty is reflected in the language of the Bill of Rights. For example, the First Amendment provides that Congress shall make no law restricting freedom of religion, speech, or press. The civil liberties guaranteed in the Constitution do not, as a rule, give individuals a right, they place limits on the government s power to limit individual freedom. This distinction between negative and positive liberty is important. One reason why the U.S. Constitution has fallen out of favor as a model for other countries is because of the modern expectation that Constitutio ns guarantee positive rights and liberties.5 Section 2 of The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms provides that everyone has fundamental freedoms of thought, belief, opi nion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication. South Africas Constitution provides that everyone has the right to freedom of artistic expression, human dignit y, the right to life, and freedom from all forms of violence and torture. Germanys Constitution guarantees everyone the right to the free development of his personality and the right to life. (Art.1(1) 1.52 | Social Order Order is an important political value becau se one of the major responsibilities of government is to create and maintain good so cial order. The public expects government to fight crime, manage public demonstratio ns and protests, and prevent social unrest including civic disturbances, ri ots, or even domestic rebellions, and national security from foreign threats. The governments role in providing these aspe cts of physical order or conditions is less controversial than its ro le in providing good soci al order as it relates Think About It! Should Constitutions guarantee positive liberty?


14 | Chapter 1: Why Government? Why Politics? to standards of moral, ethical or religious behavior. Moral regulatory policy can be very controversial because it involves values a bout which people may strongly disagree. The term culture wars refers to ideological battles over values related to public policies concerning issues such as abortion, gay righ ts, the definition of marriage, welfare, religion in public life, and patriotism. 1.53 | Justice Justice is a basic concept that is central to most assessments of the legitimacy of a society. While it is hard to pr ecisely define justice or a just society or political order, the concept of justice as fair treatment is a un iversal value shared by people everywhere. Justice means being treated fairly or getting ones just deserts whether they are rewards for doing well or sanctions for inappropriate be havior or punishment for illegal behavior. 1.54 | Equality Equality is an important value in democratic political systems. Equality is an essential element of democracy. However, equality is actually a complicated and controversial concept whose meaning and significance has been debated from the founding era until today. Equality does not mean that everyone must be treated the same, or that it would be a good thing if everyone were treated the same. The words of the Declaration of Independence assert that we are all created equal and endowed by our creator with certain unalienable rights But this has never been understood to mean that everyone is the same (in terms of abilities, for example) and should be treated the same as everyone else (regardless of me rit). The natural inequality of age and ability, for instance, are contrasted with the political eq uality that is expressed by references to egalitarian principles such as one person one vote or equality under the law. This concept of political and legal equality is e xpressed in the Fourteenth Amendment, which prohibits the state governments from denying to any person w ithin their ju risdiction the equal protection of the laws. The Fourteenth Amendment was initially intended to prohibit racial discrimination, but its scope has been broadened to include prohibition against legal discrimination on the basis of ge nder or age. Government can treat people differently, but it cannot discriminate against individuals, which means inappropriately treating individuals differently. 1.55 | Political Power, Authority, and Legitimacy Power, authority, and legitimacy are important concepts that are central to the study of politics and government. Power can be defined as the ability to make another person to do what you want, to force others to do what you want. Power is using coercion or force to make someone comply with an order. Power is independe nt of whether it is pr oper or legitimate to demand that another person obey an order. A gunman has power to make a person


Chapter 1: Why Government? Why Politics?| 15 comply with an order or demand to give up a wallet, for example, but this power is not considered legitimate. Authority can be defined as the right to ma ke other people do what you want. A person is authorized to make another comp ly with their demands. The authorization could be based upon a persons position as a duly elected or appointed government official. The word authority derives from the Latin word au ctoritas. In modern usage, authority is a particular type of power, po wer which is recognized as legitimate, justified, and proper. The sociologist Max Weber identified three types of authority: traditional, charismatic, and rational-legal. Traditi onal authority is base d on long-established customs, practices, and social structures and relationships. Tradition means the way things have always been done. Power that is passed from one generation to another is traditional authority. Traditional authority hist orically included the hereditary right to rule, the claim of hereditary monarchs that th ey had a right to rule by either blood-lines (a ruling family) or divine right. The concep t of a ruling family is based on traditional authority. The rise of social contract theory, where government is based on the consent of the governed, has undermined traditional authority and challenged its legitimacy. Democracies generally require something more than a rulers claim that their family has, by tradition, rule d the people. The second type of authority is charismatic authority. Charisma refers to special qualities, great personal magnetism, or the distinct ability to inspire loyalty or confidence in the ability to lead. Charismatic authority is therefore personal. In politics, charismatic authority is often based on a popul ar perception that an indivi dual is a strong leader. The Spanish word caudillo refers to a dynamic political-military leader, a strong man. Charismatic leadership is sometimes associated with the cult of personality, where neither tradition nor laws determine power. The third type of authority is rational (o r legal) authority. Rational-legal authority depends on formal laws for its legitimacy. A constitution or other kind of law gives an individual or an institution power. A governme nt official has power by virtue of being duly elected or appointed to office. Most modern societies rely upon this kind of legalrational authority to determine whether power is legitimate. In the U.S., for example, the power of the presidency is vested in the office, not the individual who happens to be president. Legitimacy refers to the appropriate ability to make others do what you want, the legal right to make others co mply with demands. It is a normative or value-based word that indicates something is approved of. Political legitimacy is the foundation of governmental authority as based consent of the governed. The basis of government power is often subject to challenges to its legitimacy, the sense that the action is authorized and appropriate. Authority rema ins a contested concept because, while the conceptual difference between authority and pow er is clear, the practical differences may be hard to identify because of disagreements about whether a law is legitimate. In the U.S., the tradition of civil disobedience recogni zes that individuals have some leeway to refuse to comply with a law that they consider illegitimate. 1.6 | Citizenship


16 | Chapter 1: Why Government? Why Politics? A citizen is a member of the political community. Certain rights, duties, and obligations are attached to an individuals st atus as a citizen. Citizen ship can be bestowed in a variety of ways. In some societies, one becomes a citizen by being born on the territory of the country or vi a parents who are citizens. Such citizenship is automatic in the United States (also known as jus soli or th e right of soil). There are also other forms of citizenship. You can choose to be a citize n, called naturalization, by learning about a political system, meeting some form of re sidency requirement, and taking an oath. In Germany until the 1990s citizenship was by blood (or right of blood). Your parents had to be ethnically German for you to re ceive citizenship. There was no method by which a non-German could become a citiz en until the late 1990s, when the law on citizenship was changed to allow naturalizatio n. Other countries require citizens to pass certain economic requirements to become citizens. Citizens have responsibilities as active me mbers of a polity. Citizens are expected to obey the laws, vote, pay taxes, and if required submit to military service. Citizens also have rights and freedoms. Subject s, those subjected to the rule of the few or the one, have neither rights nor freedoms and their sole responsibility is to do what they are told. The actions of governments are binding on all ci tizens. One reason why individuals worry about government power is because the governme nt can use its criminal justice powers to take a persons life or liber ty (e.g., a sentence of death or imprisonment), and the government can use its civil justice powers to take a persons property (e.g., fines and eminent domain). Citizen vigilance is necessary to guard against government abuse of its substantial powers. 1.7 | The Forms of Government One subject of interest to polit ical science is the different forms of government. A simple description of the different forms of governme nt is that there is government of the one, the few, and the many. Each of these three forms of government has a good variation and a bad variation. Table 1.7 The Forms of Government Form of Government Good Variation Bad Variation The One Monarchy Tyranny/Autocracy The Few Aristocracy Oligarchy (rich or powerful) The Many Polity/Democracy Democracy (tyranny of majority) The three forms of government refer to the basic system of government, the government institutions that are establishe d by a political community. The U.S. system of government was intended by its founders to be a mixed form of government because it includes elements of all three forms: monarc hy (the presidency); ar istocracy (the Senate, the Electoral College, and the Supreme Court); and democracy (the House of Representatives; elections). The founders cr eated a mixed form of government as part of the institutional system of checks and balances.


Chapter 1: Why Government? Why Politics?| 17 The system of checks and balances was designed to create a political system where institutions and political organizations provided a measure of protection against corruption and abuse of power The Founders thought that th e mixed form of government was the best way to avoid what historical e xperience seemed to indicate was inevitable: the tendency of a political system to become corrupt. The Founders were acutely aware of the historical problem of corruption, and the tendency of governments to become corrupt over time. History provided many ex amples of power corrupting individuals and governments. The awareness of corrup tion caused the Founders to worry about centralized power. Their worries we re succinctly expressed by the 19th Century ItalianBritish figure, Lord Acton (1834-1902), whose famous aphorism warned: Power tends to corrupt; absolute power corrupts absolutely. The Founders believed the power problem of corruption could be avoided by dividing power so that no one person or institution had complete power. The Founders also realized that each form of government tended to become corrupt or decay over time. A monarchy (which might be a good form of go vernment of one) was apt to turn into tyranny. An aristocracy (which might be a good form of government of the few best and brightest) was apt to turn into oligarchy ( government of the rich or powerful). And a democracy (government of the many) was ap t to decay into mobocracy, tyranny of the majority, or rule by King Numbers So they created a mixed form of government. The roots of American thinking about de mocracy can be traced to Classical (or ancient) Greece and the Roman Republic, the Age of Enlightenment, the Protestant Reformation, and colonial experiences under the British Empire. The ancient Greeks in the city-state Athens created the idea of th e democratic government practiced as a kind of democracy. The Romans developed the co ncept of the representative democracy, one where citizens elect representativ es to act on their behalf. The United States is a republic. A republic is a representative democracy The diagram below describes the difference betw een direct and representative democracy. In a republic, individuals do not dir ectly govern themselves. Voters elect representatives who, as government officials, make laws for the people. This contrasts with a direct democracy, where voters choose public policies themselves. Today, Elected Representatives The People The People Public Policy (Laws) Public Policy (Laws) Direct Democracy Republic/Representative Democracy


18 | Chapter 1: Why Government? Why Politics? however, the term democracy is used generically to include direct and indirect democracy (or republican systems of government). The Constitutions original design provided for only limited democracy in the way the nationa l government worked. The members of the House of Representatives were directly el ected by the people, but the members of the Senate were selected by state legislators, the president was chosen by the Electoral College (not by popular vote of the people), and federal judges were nominated by the president and confirmed by the Senate to serv e life terms. And only a small percentage of citizens (white male property owners) were originally allowed to vote in elections. The Constitution provided only limited popular control over government because the Founders were skeptical of direct democracy. Over time, the Constitution, the government, and politics become more democr atic with the deve lopment of political parties, the direct election of senators, and an expansion of the right to vote. 1.8 | Summary: Why government and politics? Government and politics occur almost everywhe re because they are one of the ways that individuals organize themselves to achieve individual goals su ch as wealth, public safety, and education. Government and politics also he lp achieve shared soci al goals such as a sense of belonging to a community, national security, and the establ ishment of a just society. These material and non-material goa ls can be provided by, or protected by government. But they can also be threatened by government or even taken by it. Government can, for instance, take a persons life, li berty, or property. The fact that government can protect or threaten importa nt values is one of the reasons why government and politics are almost continua lly debated and argued and sometimes even fought over. Individuals and groups have different ideas about government should be doing, and are willing to fight for control of government so that their ideas and beliefs can be acted upon or implemented in public policy. 1.9 | Other Resources 1.91| Internet The Library of Congress: For more information on the political th eory of Thomas Hobbes and John Locke: and The Declaration of Independence: 18th_century/declare.asp The U.S. Constitution: 18th_century/usconst.asp U.S. Government: The Center for Voting and Democracy has links to articles related to elections and democracy, and links to organizations and ideas related to reforming the electoral system, and analysis of electoral returns.


Chapter 1: Why Government? Why Politics?| 19 1.0 | Study Questions 1.) What are the basic questions to be asked about American (or any other) government? 2.) Why do governments exist everywhere if governments everywhere are widely criticized? 3.) What is politics? 4.) What is meant by power? 5.) What is political power? 6.) Explain the concepts authority, legitimacy, justice, and democracy. 7.) Distinguish among the three concepts of democracy mentioned in the chapter, explaining in which of these senses the textbook refers to American government as democratic. 1.92 | In the Library Berlin, Isaiah. 1958. Two Concepts of Liberty Oxford: Clarendon Press. Hobbes, Thomas. 1996. Leviathan. Richard Tuck, ed. New York: Cambridge University Press. Locke, John. 1773. An essay concerning the true or iginal extent and end of civil government. Boston: Edes and Gill. Locke, John. 1988. Two Treatises of Government Peter Laslett, ed. New York, Cambridge University Press. Mill, John Stuart. 1869. On Liberty. London: Longman, Roberts & Green. Plato. 1995. The Last Days of Socrates. Hugh Tredennick, ed. New York: Penguin. Rawls, John. 1971. A Theory of Justice Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press. Rousseau, Jean-Jacques. 1762. The Social Contract Weber, Max. 1958. The three t ypes of legitimate rule. Berkeley Publications in Society and Institutions 4 (1): 1-11. Translated by Hans Gerth. Xenophon. 1990. Conversations of Socrates. Hugh Tredennick, ed. New York: Penguin. Key Terms Public Good Power Authority Legitimacy Government Politics Citizen Justice Social Contract Direct Democracy Representative Democracy Oligarchy Monarchy Polity Tyranny Aristocracy Personal Liberty


20 | Chapter 1: Why Government? Why Politics? 1 John Rawls. 1971. A Theory of Justice. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press. 2 Locke, John. 1689. Second Treatise of Civil Government. Chapter 2: Of the State of Nature. 3 Harold Dwight Lasswell. 1935. Politics Who Gets What, When and How. Gloucester, MA.: Peter Smith Publisher Inc. 4 The Political System 1953. New York: Knopf, p.65. 5 Law, David S., and Versteeg, Mila. 2012. The Dec lining Influence of the United States Constitution. 87 New York University Law Review 3(June):762-858. Available at


2.0 | The Constitution and Constitutional Government This chapter examines the U.S. Constitution and the system of constitutional government. The primary goals are to describe the origin and development of the Constitution, explain the functions of a constitution, and describe and explain the contemporary workings of CHAPTER 2: The U.S. System of Constitutional Government Image courtesy of


22|Chapter 2: The US Constitutional Government the U.S. system of constitutional government In order to accomplish these goals, the chapter explores the political theory of th e Constitution and the practical politics of governance with special emphasis on compar ing how the constitutional system was intended to work with how it actually work s today. The chapters main theme is the tension between the American commitment to the Constitution and the enduring ideals embodied in it, and the pressure s to adapt to political, econo mic, social, technological, and scientific change. The tensions between continuity (remaining true to basic principles) and change (meeting contemporary needs) exist in all political systems, but the tensions between the desire to stay the same and the forces of change are especially strong in the U.S. because Americans have an especially strong commitment to the Constitution as a foundational or fundamental document. This commitment to basic constitutional values is especially strong during times of great ch ange and challenges, when it expressed as political appeals to re turn to the na tions founding values and the original understanding of the Constitution. Th is is a recurring theme in the American politics of the Constitution. 2.1 | The Constitution and Constitutional Government A constitution is a governing document that sets forth a countrys basic rules of government and politics. Constitutions are today almost universally recognized as an appropriate foundation for a political sy stem, therefore most countries have a constitution. The expectation that a modern political system will have a constitution originates from the political belief that constitutional government is a good form of governmentthat constitutional government is a legitimate, rightful, or appropriate form of government. Cons titutions are closel y associated with government legitimacy because constitutions are considered one of the best ways to achieve the rule of law. Th e rule of law supports government legitimacy by requiring that government action be author ized by law, thereby making it possible to hold government officials legally accountab le for their actions. The rule of law is one of the ways to achieve and maintain political legitimacy, the acceptance of a government as the appropriate authority. Po litical legitimacy increases compliance with the law because people are more willing to obey the law if they consider it legitimate. Constitutional government is government according to th e rule of a basic or fundamental law. Constitutional government is not merely government based on the rule of law. It is government based on a particular kind of the rule of law: the rule of a basic or fundamental law. Th e constitution provides the foundation for the system of government. Political system s based on constitutional government have a legal hierarchy of laws. In the U.S. system of constitutional government, the hierarchy of laws includes constitutional law, legislative or statutory law, and administrative or regulatory law. The legal hierarchy means that not all laws are created equal. Constitutional law trumps the other kinds of laws. Legislation (statutes passed by congress or a state legislature) cannot conflict with the Constitution. Administrative regulations, rules which are created by administrative or bureaucratic agencies, must be consiste nt with the legisla tion that created and authorized the administrative agency and regulations must not conflict with the We are under a Constitution but the Constitution is what the Court says it is. Charles Evans Hughes For as in absolute governments the king is law, so in free countries the law ought to be king; and there ought to be no other. Thomas Paine, Common Sense (1776)


Chapter 2: The US Constitutional Government|23 Constitution. The Constitution establishes th e basic framework of government, allocates government powers, and guarantees individual ri ghts. These basic as pects of government and politics are considered so important that they are provi ded for in the Constitution. One of the most important f eatures of constitutional government is the fact that the Constitution cannot be changed by majority ru le. The Constitution cannot be changed by ordinary lawslegislation passed by majority vote. Constitutional amendments require super majority votes. Diagram 2.1 below illustra tes the hierarchy of laws in the U.S. 2.2 | The Rule of Law The rule of law is defined as the principle that governme ntal authority is exercised only in accordance with public laws that are adopted and enforced according to established procedures. The pr inciple is intended to be a safeguard against arbitrary governance by requiring that those who make and enforce the law are also bound by the law. Government based on the rule of law is contrasted with government according to the rule of man. The rule of man describes a political syst em where government officials determine their own pow ers without reference to pre-existing laws. The idea of government according to the rule of law has ancient roots. One source is classical Greek and Roman political thought. Th e writings of the ancient Greek political philosophers Plato and Aristotl e described and analyzed different forms of good and bad government. Plato believed that the best form of government was the rule of man, specifically rule by a philosophe r-king. He described a philo sopher-king as a wise and good rulerthink of someone like Solomon, a wise person who not only knew what to do but was a good person who could be trusted to do what is right. Plato believed that rule by such a philosopher-king was the best form of government because the wise and good leader would be free to do what was right without being limite d by laws or other government institutions with which power was shared. Aristotle described a good form of government as one with institutions and laws. His description of a good form of government is more closely identified with the modern concept of government according to the rule of law. For exampl e, Aristotles good government was less dependent on a leaders character. He described a system of government that did not depend on getting a leader as good and wise as Solomon. Aristotle made government power less personal and more institutional: a leaders power Constitutional Statutory (or Legislat ive)Law Administrative (or Regulatory) Law Diagram 2.1 The Hierarchy of Laws in the United States


24|Chapter 2: The US Constitutional Government was based on the authority of the office held rather than personal attributes such as physical strength, charismatic leadership, here dity or blood-lines, or some other personal attribute. Western thinking about the rule of law also includes English and French political philosophers. The English political philosopher Samuel Rutherfords Lex, Rex (1644) advocated using law ( Lex ) to control the power of a monarch or other ruler ( Rex). The English political struggles to bring the ki ng under the law influenced American thinking about good government. The French political philosopher Montesquieus The Spirit of the Laws (1748) provided the American Founders with specific ideas about how to create a system of government that guard ed against the abuse of power. Montesquieus main contribution to the U.S. system of constitu tional government is the principle of the separation of powersdividing government into three branches (the legislative, the executive, and the judicial branches). During the colonial and revolutionary eras, Thomas Paine s Common Sense (1776) drew upon these sources for inspiration about how law could be used to control the power of the king, and indeed all government power. In this sense, Paines political theory reflected the development of the rule of la w to displace the rule of man. According to Paine, the world may know, that so far as we a pprove of monarchy, that in America THE LAW IS KING. For as in absolute governments the King is law, so in free countries the law OUGHT to be King; and there ought to be no other. The bold assertion that the ki ng was not the sovereign ruler a claim that the king was not above the law but rather subject to itea rned Thomas Paine a deserved reputation as a political radical. Remember that such statem ents could not only be considered treason, for which the penalty could be death, but th ey challenged the English monarchys claims to the divine right to rule. One of the best st atements of what the rule of law meant to the Founders is John Adams statement in The Constitution of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts : Support for the rule of law continued to develop during the 19th century. The legal scholar Albert Venn Diceys Law of the Constitution (1895) how it meant that everyone was under the law and no one was above it: In the government of this commonwealth, the legislative department shall never exercise the executive and judicial powers or either of them: the executive shall never exercise the legislative and judicial powers, or either of them: the judicial shall never exercise the legislative and executive powers, or either of them: to the end it may be a government of laws and not of men. (The Constitution of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Part The First; Art. XXX)


Chapter 2: The US Constitutional Government|25 2.3 | Is the Rule of Law Part of the American Creed? The rule of law has become so important in American thinking about government that it is considered part of an American Creed A creed is a statement of beliefs. It is usually meant to refer to a statement of religious beliefs or faith but the American political creed refers to the widely-shared set of political beliefs or values about the best way to form and administer good government. The American Creed consists of the countrys basic governing principles: the ru le of law, popular sovereignty, checks and balances (principally the separation of powe rs and federalism), individual rights, and judicial review. In fact, most governments toda y are at least officially co mmitted to the rule of law even if they do not live up to the ideal. The im portance of the rule of law is reflected in the fact that non-governmental organizations (NGOs) such as the World Bank consider the rule of law an essential condition fo r political, social, and economic development. The World Banks Law & Development/Law and Justice Institutions Programs link the rule of law with these important aspect s of a nations development. The almost worldwide acceptance of the rule of law as a basic principle of governing has made law one of the factors determining whether governme nt power is legitimate. The distinction between power and authority is based on the difference between the illegitimate use of power or coercion and the legi timate use of power or coerci on. When political power is exercised appropriately, based on the rule of law, it is considered authority. In Western political development, law has displaced older or traditional sources of authority such as heredity, divine right, or personal charisma. 2.31 | Constitutional Democracy The U.S. is commonly called a democracy or a republic but it is actually a constitutional democracy or constitutional republic. The constitutional limits the democracy The Constitution limits democracy as defined as majority rule. Congress may pass popular ... every official, from the Prime Minister down to a constable or a collector of taxes, is under the same responsibility for every act done without legal justification as any other citizen. The Reports abound with cases in which officials have been brought before the courts, and made, in their personal capacity, liable to punishment, or to the payment of damages, for acts done in their official character but in excess of their lawful authority. [Appointed government officials and politicians, alike] ... and all subordinates, though carrying out the commands of their official superiors, are as responsible for any act which the law does not authorise as is any private and unofficial person. (at 194)


26|Chapter 2: The US Constitutional Government laws that ban flag burning or punish radical political speech or prohibit certain religious practices but even laws that have widespread public support can be declared unconstitutional. In the U.S. legal hierarchy, the Constitution trumps statues (even if they are popular). Democratic politics may be abou t popularity contests and majority rule but constitutional law. The Bill of Rights prot ects individual rights fr om majority rule. In fact, the Constitution is a counter-majoritarian document in the sense that it cannot be changed by a simple majority vote. Changi ng the Constitution requires extra-ordinary majorities. A constitutional amendment re quires a two-thirds vote to propose an amendment and a three-quart ers vote to ratify it. 2.32 | Three Eras of Development American government can be divided into thr ee eras or stages of political development: the founding era; the development of the syst em of government; and the emergence of the modern system of government. The founding era includes the colonial experience culminating with the Declaration of Independence and the Re volutionary War; the Articles of Confederation, which was the first form of government; and the creation of the republican system of government in1787. The development stage is not as clearly define d as the founding era. It extends from the early years of the republic to the Progressive Era (from 1890 to the end of World War I). It includes the ear ly 1800s when the Marshall Court (18011835) issued landmark rulings that broadly interpreted the powers of the national government; the post-Civil War constitutional amendments abolishing slavery, prohibiting denial of the right to vote on account of race, and prohibiting states from denying equal protection and due pro cess of law; and the Progressive Era policies regulating monopolies and worki ng conditions (e.g. enacting child labor laws, workplace safety laws, and mini mum wage and maximum hours laws. These developments changed the system of government and politics that was established by the Constitution. Political parties were organized. The powers of the president and the national govern ment expanded. The public expected broader participation in politics and greater popular control over government. The modern era of American government is usually traced to the 1930s. The Great Depression was a nationalindeed, an internationaleconomic problem that the American public expected th e national government to address. The development of a national economy further strengthened public expectations that the national government, more than the st ate governments, were responsible for the state of the economy. The public bega n to look to the federal government for solutions to problems. Organized crime wa s perceived as a national problem that required federal action. World War II and the subsequent Cold War also increased the power of the national govern ment, which has primary responsibility for foreign affairs and national defense. The creation of a social welfare state and a national security state changed po litics and governance. It altered the distribution of power between the nationa l and state governments. It also


Chapter 2: The US Constitutional Government|27 expanded the power of the presidency a nd the rise of the administrative state the expansion of the federal bureaucracy that Americans love to hate. The following sections examine the founding era. The development and modern eras are examined in greater detail in the chapters on congress, the president, the judiciary, and federalism. 2.4 | The Founding Era 2.41 | The Colonial Era People came to the new world primarily from England and Europe for a variety of reasons. Some came looking for greater pol itical freedom. Some came for economic opportunity with the promise of free land. So me were entrepreneurs who saw the New World as a place to make money. Some were seeking a new start in life. Some fled religious persecution in their home land and were searching for freedom to practice their religion. In the 16th and 17th centuries, English joint-stock companies were formed under charters from the crown to promote commercial and territorial expansion in North America. The Virginia Company of London founded the Jamestown settlement in 1607. In New England, the Massachusetts Bay Comp any charter described explicitly religious political purposes. The First Charter of Virginia (1606), The Mayflower Compact (1620) and The Charter of Massachusetts Bay (1629) are documentary evidence of the colonial era belief that politics and government had explicitly religious purposes.1 The colonial experience with charters creating communitie s also provided colonists with personal experiences creating or constituting govern ments. These experiences are one reason why the social contract theory of government has been so in fluential in shaping American thinking about government. 2.42 | The Spirit of Independence Several factors fostered a spirit of independence in the colonies. The first factor is the character of the people who came to the Ne w World. In the seventeenth century, crossing the Atlantic Ocean was a long, difficult, and dangerous undertaking. The people who made the trip tended to be the hard ier, more adventurous, or more desperate individuals, so the colonies were populated with people who had an independent streak. A second factor is geography The large ocean between the rulers and the ruled created conditions that allowed a sens e of colonial identity to develop. King James I (1600-1625) increased the independent spirit by allowing th e colonists to establish assemblies such as the Virginia House of Burgesses. Each of the 13 colonies had a constitution. These conditions fostered expectati ons of individual liberty in self-government, religious practices, and economic activity. By the mid-1700s, local traditio ns and distance weakened colonial ties to the Crown. A third factor is ideas. The political philosophy of the Age of Enlightenment included an em phasis on reason, self-government, liberty, and equality. These ideas appealed to the col onists and were used to challenge British imperial power in the New World. A fourth factor is economics The colonial economies differed from the British economy. Changes in the economic ties betw een England and the colonies increased


28|Chapter 2: The US Constitutional Government support for political independence. During th e colonial era the British economic policy was mercantilist. Mercantilism is the theory that the government controls and directs economic activity, particularly foreign trade, in order to maximize the states wealth. The British controlled colonial industries and trad e to increase imperial wealth. The British prohibited their colonies from trading with other imperial powers like the Dutch to ensure that British colonial gold and silver stayed within the empire. The American colonies initially benefited economically from this me rcantilist arrangement. They had a buyer for the raw materials and other goods produced by the colonies The American colonies produced wood for ships for the British fleet as well as tobacco, cotton, rice, and sugar for export. In return, the colonists could buy finished products like ships and rum. Mercantilism was responsible for the triangle trade: slaves were brought to America from Africa; sugar, cotton, and tobacco we re exported to England; and manufactured goods, textiles, and rum were sent to Africa to pay for slaves. This mercantilist arrangement changed as the colonial economy developed. The colonies started chafing against mercantilist pol icies as they believed they were no longer receiving competitive prices for their goods. Furthermore, as the New England economy developed into a manufacturing and tr ade economy, New England started taking Englands place in the trade triangle, thereby reducing the need for the British Empire. 2.43 | Trade and Taxation Despite the complaints about trade policies, the colonists were generally content with British governance until the Seven Years War (1756). The long and expensive war with the French and Indians ended with the British in control of most of North America. The colonists thought this would open up even more cheap frontier land for them to settle but the British had other ideas. The Crown decreed in 1763 that there would be no further westward movement of British subjects because the Crown did not want to pay to defend settlers against Indians. The British Parliament taxed the colonists to pay for the very expensive war. The Sugar Act of 1764 taxed sugar, wine, coffee, and other products commonly exported to the colonies. The colonists resented these ta xes and began to cry no taxation without representation! Parliament further angere d the colonists by passing the Stamp Act in 1765, which required all printed documents to bear a stam p. The printer had to pay for the stamp. In the same year, the Parliament passed the Mutiny (Quartering) Act that forced colonists to either provide barracks for British soldiers or house them in their homes. The colonists, who were already mad about paying taxes, star ted protesting that they have to pay for


Chapter 2: The US Constitutional Government|29 soldiers to live in their homes. The Sons of Liberty, which were organized by Samuel Adams and Patrick Henry to act against th e Crown, looted the Bo ston tax collectors home. Violence spread throughout the coloni es and the stamp act became virtually unenforceable. In 1767, Parliament enacted the Townshend Acts that imposed duties on many products including tea. The Sons of Liberty started a boycott which prompted the British to send troops to Boston. When British soldiers fired on a crowd of protesters, killing five people, the event was depicted as the Bost on Massacre. Paul Reve re portrayal of the British captain ordering the troops to fire on the crowd inflamed colonial passions. In 1772, still upset by the tea tax, Samuel Adams suggested the creation of Committees of Correspondence to improve communication among colonists. By 1774, twelve colonies had formed such committees which organized protests prior to the revolution and coordinated ac tions during the revolution. Despite colonial opposition, Parliament passed another tax on tea in 1773 a nd, consistent with mercantilist economic policy, granted a monopoly to the East India Company. The colonists responded by dumping tea into Boston Harbor. The Bos ton Tea Party enraged King George, who declared that it was time to force the co lonies to fall into line. The King persuaded Parliament to pass the Coercive Acts or the Intolerable Acts, which allowed Britain to blockade Boston harbor and placed 4,000 more soldiers in Boston. These actions increased resentment on both sides of the Atlantic. All but one colony (Georgia) agreed to send delegates to a new continental congress to present a united message to the King. Paul Reveres engraving of the Boston Massacre


30|Chapter 2: The US Constitutional Government 2.44 | The First and Second Continental Congresses The First Continental Congress that met in Philadelphia in September and October 1774 consisted of 56 delegates from ev ery colony except Georgia. They adopted a statement of rights and principles including colonial rights of petition and assembly, trial by peers, freedom from a standing army, and the selection of representative councils to levy taxes. The statement provided that the Congress woul d meet again in May 1775 if the King did not agree with their requests. King George refused the request of the Continental Congress. A second Continental Congress ca lled a meeting in May of 1775, but before the delegates could meet fighting broke out at Lexington and C oncord, Massachusetts. When the delegates at the Second Contin ental Congress convene d on May 10, 1775 the atmosphere was more hostile toward Brita in. King George sent 20,000 more troops. The Revolutionary War had begun in earnest. 2.45 | The Declaration of Independence (1776) The Declaration of Independence was written to justify the colonists taking up arms to overthrow an existing political system. It is a philosophical defense of the right of Think About It! Anti-war movements in the Revolutionary Era? Not everyone in the colonies supported the Revolutionary War. And not everyone in Britain thought it was a good idea to send troops to put down colonial rebellions. See the British political cartoon from 1775 describing King Georges decision as being lead by obstinacy and pride:


Chapter 2: The US Constitutional Government|31 revolution. Thomas Jefferson, a Virginia farmer and lawyer, was the main author of the Declaration of Independence. The language that Jefferson used in the Declaration reflected John Lockes words and ideas abou t natural or God-gi ven rights, popular sovereignty, the social contract theory of government based on the consent of the governed, and even a peoples right to revo lt against an unjust government. The following language from the Declaration of I ndependence explains th ese ideas: The Declaration acknowledges that people should not be quick to revolt against a government. It is only after a long train of abuses intended to reduce the people to despotism that it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security... The Declaration listed the Kings actions that aimed to establish absolute tyra nny over the states. It then declared That these United Colonies are, and of right ought to be, FREE AND INDEPENDENT STATES; that they are absolved from all allegiance to the British crown and that all political connection between them and th e state of Great Britain is and ought to be, totally dissolved 2.5 | The Articles of Confederation The first American form of government was the Articles of Confederation The Continental Congress approved the Articles of Confederation and they took effect in 1781 upon ratification by all thirteen states. A confederation is a loose association of sovereign states that agree to cooperate in a kind of voluntary league of friendship. The Second Article of Confederation provi ded that Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and righ t, which is not by this Confederation expressly delegate d to the United States, in Congress assembled. The Third Article provided that The said States hereby severa lly enter into a firm league Think about it! Does the spirit of the Declaration of Independence give us the right to revolt against the government? When in the course of human events, it beco mes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes wh ich impel them to the separation. We hold these truths to be self-evident: That all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain una lienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that, to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; that whenever any form of government beco mes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it....


32|Chapter 2: The US Constitutional Government of friendship with each other, for their common defense, the security of their liberties, and their mutual and general welfare, binding th emselves to assist each other, against all force offered to, or attacks made upon them or any of them, on account of religion, sovereignty, trade, or any other pretense whatever. In a confederation, political power is decentralized because the central (or national) government is weak and the state or regi onal governments are strong. The Articles of Confederation had major defects which were exposed during the Revolutionary War. The defects became more apparent after the Revolut ionary War when the states no longer felt the need to work together to face the thre at of the common enemy. The Articles had five major defects related to taxing power, an ex ecutive official, commerce, amendment, and the power to maintain domestic order. Taxing The national government did not have the power to tax, which meant that congress (the main institution of the nationa l government) had to beg the states to pay for the war and other government functio ns. It is hard today to imagine a government without the power to tax. Executive. The Articles did not provide a ch ief executive. The Revolutionary War was fought against a monarchy (an execu tive figure), and the natural reaction of the Founders was to create a new poli tical system which did not have a single leader or executive figure who could become a monarch. The Declaration of Independence lists the colonists gr ievances against King George. The Revolutionary War was fought against a monarch who was accused of tyrannical abuse of power. It was logical for the F ounders to create a form of government where a representative body, a legislative institution more closely identified with democratic government, had the most power. Commerce. The Articles did not give the national government power much economic power. The states had power to regulate interstate and foreign commerce. Some states enacted laws whic h benefited economic interests in their state and discriminated against out of st ate or foreign business interests. These kinds of economic protectionist legislation limited trade. States could also coin money. Critics eventually saw state power over commerce and economics as a barrier to the development of a national economy and advocated giving the national government power over inte rstate and foreign commerce. Amendment One of the most important challeng es facing any political system is how to provide for change in response to different ec onomic, social, or political circumstances. The Articles could be amended only by unanimous consent of congress and the state legisl atures. This made it very difficult if not impossible for the government to adapt to circumstances that it faced. Domestic Order. Because power was decentralized, the national government did not have power to act to ensure domes tic tranquility and order. Maintaining good public order is one of basic responsibilities of any government. The national governments ineffectual response to dom estic disturbances such as Shays


Chapter 2: The US Constitutional Government|33 A scene at Springfield, during Shay's Rebellion, when the mob attempted to prevent the holding of the Courts of Justice E. Benjamin Andrews, 1895 Rebellion and secessionist movements in some parts of the country exposed the weakness of the national government under the Articles. The most famous of these domestic threats to public order were armed marches in Massachusetts. In the fall of 1786 and winter of 1787, Daniel Shay s, a Revolutionary War veteran, lead around 1500 supporters on an armed march to stop mortgage foreclosures. Economic conditions were ba d. High state taxes and high interest rates caused farmers to face bankruptcy and mortgage foreclosures. Shays and his supporters marched on the government to demand that it provide them with some relief from the bad economic conditions. The State of Massachusetts appealed to the national government for help in putting down Shays Rebellion but the national govern ment could not act without the consent of the other states, which rejected the request for money to establish a national army. Order was fina lly restored when the governor of Massachusetts called out the state militia.


34|Chapter 2: The US Constitutional Government Shays Rebellion alarmed government offici als and political lead ers who believed the national government needed to be given more power to respond to such threats to good public order. A constitutional convention was held in the summer of 1787 to revise the Articles of Confederation to co rrect its defects. However, the delegates to the convention decided to abolish the Articles of Confederation and crea te a new form of government. After lively debate, the delega tes drafted a new constitution which created a new system of government, a federal republic with a stronger national gove rnment. Modern Americans tend to forget the central role th at Shays and other unruly individuals played in the creation of th e republic. (Holton 2007) Radi cal popular action has been a part of the American political experience and tradition from the founding of the republic, through the civil war fought to preserve the union, to mode rn efforts to create a government that is responsive to the people. 2.5 | The U.S. Constitution Although the delegates to the Constitutional Co nvention met in secret the records of the convention debates reveal livel y debates about what form of government to create. The convention debates and the subsequent debates over ratification of the new constitution were generally organized as a debate between the Federalists and the Anti-federalists. The Federalists supported ratification because they believed that the country needed a stronger national government. Their arguments for ratification were made in a series of famous essays written by James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and John Jay called The Federalist Papers The Anti-federalists opposed ratification of the Constitution because they believed that it gave the national government too mu ch power. They preferred a political union where the states had more power. The Anti-federalists tend to be overlooked because they lost the argument The Constitution was ratified. But the Antifederalist Papers are worth reading in an era when Am erican politics includes criticism of the size of the federal government.


Chapter 2: The US Constitutional Government|35 The Declaration of Independence and the Constitution were written for two very different purposes. The Declaration is a philosophical defense of a peoples right to overthrow an unjust government. The Constitution is a practical, working document that was written to create a more effective form of government. The Preamble of the Constitution states that We, the people establish the Constitution in order to form a more perfect Union, establish justice, insure domestic tr anquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity The Constitution created a new form of government, a more perfect Union that was more capable of accomplishing the th ings that the people expect government to do. Alexander Hamilton explained this purpose in Federalist Number One : AFTER an unequivocal experience of the inefficiency of the subsisting federal government, you are called upon to deliberate on a new Constitu tion for the United States of America. The subject speaks its own importance; comprehending in its consequences nothing less than the existence of the UNION the safety and welfare of the parts of which it is composed, the fate of an empire in many respects the most interesting in the world. Considering the passionate motives of those who supported or opposed the new Constitution, Hamilton worried that a spir it of self-righteous passion would make compromise and cooperation difficult, and that the intolerant spirit would tempt one side to attempt to dominate the other side by physical force rather than th e force of argument.


36|Chapter 2: The US Constitutional Government In To Secure These Rights: The Declarat ion of Independence and Constitutional Interpretation (1995), Douglas Gerber argues that the purpose of the Constitution was to effectuate or make possible the Lockean liber al principles that were asserted in the Declaration of Independence The Declaration asserted the existence of certain unalienable or natural rights; the Constitution created a system of constitutional government that provided the means to ach ieve the rights and protect them. The main body of the Constitution establishes the basic framework of government. It provides for a republican system of governme nt; elections and representation; and it grants and limits the powers of government Article I provides the powers of the legislative branch. Article II provides the powers of the executive branch. Article III provides the powers of the judicial branch. The first ten amendments to the Constitution, commonly referred to as the Bill of Rights, provide for individual rights. The Bill of Rights includes important limits on the powers of government. 2.51 | The Three Functions of the Constitution The U.S. Constitution does three things. It establishes the basic framework of the government; it allocates government powers; and it declares or guarantees individual rights. Establish the basic framework of government The Constitution creates a republican form of government, a federal system of government, and a system of government with the separation of powers. A republic is a type of democracy. It is an indirect democracy. Elected representatives make public polic y for the people. The people control government by electing government officials. A federal system is a two-tiered system of government where power is divided between a central government (the national or federal government) and the regional or state governments. Federalism is a geographic division of power between the national government and the state governments. The actu al division of powers is specific in some areas of public policy (e.g., the national gove rnment has exclusive power over interstate commerce, coining money, and foreign affairs) but general in others (e.g., both national and state governments make crime, educa tion, environmental, and tax policy). Furthermore, the division has changed over time. The federal government is involved with more areas of public policy than origin ally intended because the Founders intended to create a state-centered political system Federalism is an important part of the Madisonian system of institutional checks a nd balances whereby the national and state governments check one anothers powers. The separation of powers is a functional division of power among the legislative, executive, and judicial branches of governme nt. The separation of powers serves two purposes. First, it is part of the Madisonian system of checks and balances designed to prevent the concentration of power in the hands of one individua l or one institution. Second, it contribute s to good governance. The checks and balances purpose is directly related to the intention to limit government power. In fact, it is sometimes considered evidence that the Founders intended to create an ineffici ent system of government. The se paration of powers role in the system of checks and balances is to distribute power among three separate but interdependent branches to prevent any one individual or instit ution from getting too


Chapter 2: The US Constitutional Government|37 much power. The separation of powers is one of the Constitutions basic governing doctrines even though it is not specifically mentioned in the Constitution. The three branches were not intended to be completely independent of one another. The French political philos opher Montesquieu, who was the main inspiration for the tripartite separation of powers, believed that each branch had to be sufficiently independent of the others so that one bran ch could not create, or abolish, any other branch. Separation of powers does not mean that each branchs powers are completely separate from the others. In fact, the system of institutional jealousy depends on some overlap so that each branch will guard ag ainst another branch poaching on its turf. Congress power to enact laws can be checked by the presidents ve to. The presidents veto can be overridden by a two-thirds majo rity vote in both houses of congress. The president is delegated power as commander-in-chief, but only congress has the power to declare war and to raise and support an arm y. The president has the power to nominate federal judges, ambassadors, and other high government officials, but the nominations must be confirmed by the Senate. And the S upreme Court has final authority to strike down both legislative and presid ential acts as unconstitutional. The president nominates federal judges but they must be confirmed by the Senate. Congress determines the federal judiciarys budget and the organization of the federal court system. Over time, the president has become a very important partic ipant in the legislative process. It is commonplace today to refer to the administrations budget for instance, or the administrations bill in congress. Presiden tial legislation and judi cial policy making are part of the modern vocabulary of government and politics. The second reason for the separation of po wers is that it contributes to good governance. The argument that the separati on of powers contributes to good governance is based on the belief that each branch of government has a special institutional competence, and that good governance requires all three special competencies. The legislative branchs competence is representa tion (of districts, states, and interests), deliberation, and ultimately compromise to make laws for the nation. The executive branchs competence is action (the ability to act swiftly when need ed) and administration (to justly administer the laws passed by congr ess). The executive is to ensure that the laws passed by Congress are uniformly applied, not enfor ced selectivel y against the minority party, racial or ethnic minorities, or the political opponent s of the people who made the laws. The judiciarys competence in a political system with a tradition of individualized justice is dispute resolution: to conduct trials where laws are applied to individuals, and to interpret the laws when there are legal disputes about what the laws mean. The Founders thought that the separa tion of powers was a modern, political scientific contribution to good government. In Federalist 47 Madison praised the celebrated Montesquieu for popularizing th e invaluable precept in the science of politics. In contrast to the checks and balan ces purpose of the separation of powers, the good governance purpose emphasizes government efficiency/effectiveness more than inefficiency/limited government. The Founders intended the legislative bran ch to make laws, the executive to carry them out, and the judicial branch to interpret the laws. But this is not exactly the way the system works. The modern national government does have three separate institutions but they actually share law making power. For instance, the terms presidential legislation and legislating from the bench are commonly used to de scribe what the modern


38|Chapter 2: The US Constitutional Government presidency and judiciary actually do. Descri ptions of how the modern government works typically include legislative policymak ing, executive policymaking, and judicial policymaking. The separation of powers is not essential for democracy. Modern democracies include presidential government and parliamentary government. The separation of powers is more common to presidential systems than parliamentary systems, which typically fuse legislative and executive powers. The prime min ister, the executive figure, may be an elected member of the legislative body, the pa rliament. In parliamentary systems, one institution, the elected legisl ature or parliament, is the supreme governing body; the other institutions (the prime minister or the courts) are inferior to it. In separation of powers, each branch is largely indepe ndent of the other branches in the sense that the other branches are not created by, or dependent on, another branch for its existence. Congress cannot abolish the judiciary; the president cannot abolish congress. Accordingly, in a fusion of powers system such as that of the United Kingdom, the people elect the legislature, which in turn selects the executive (who is usually calle d the prime minister. The fact that a prime minister is selected by the legislative body, and is an elected member of that body, means that parliament ary systems fuse rather than separate institutional powers. In the U.S., the separation of legislative and executive power is evident in the fact that Congress does not select the president, and th e president is not a member of congress. The president is selected independent of C ongress. In a parliamentary system, the tenure of a prime minister selected by a legislatur e is likely to end when the term of the legislature ends and a new parl iament selects a new executive. In a presidential system the executives term may or may not coincide with the legislatures term. However, legislative and executive powers can be info rmally fused when the presidents party controls Congress. Party loyalt y (to a president of the same party) can weaken a member of congress institutional l oyalty. The fusion can create problems. Party loyalty can undermine the institutional checks and balances if the majori ty party in congress supports the president. Allocate Power. The second function of a Constituti on is to allocate power. The Constitution both grants and limits government powers. The main grants of power to the national government are provided in Article I (legislative), Article II (executive), and Article III (judicial). Article one I, Sec tion 8 provides a list of powers delegated to Congress. The main limits on the power of th e national government are provided in the Bill of Rights. The challenge when writing a constitution is to strike the right balance between granting and limiting government power: a government that is too weak can be ineffectual or result in a failed state; a government that is too strong can threaten individual liberty. Guarantee Individual Rights (or Freedoms) The third function of a constitution is to provide for individual rights. The U.S. Constitution, the 50 state constitutions, and the constitutions of other countries include provisions declaring or guaranteeing rights. In the U.S. Constitution, the Bill of Rights provi des for freedom of speech, religion, and press, as well as providing protection ag ainst unreasonable search and seizure, due process of law, the right to a trial by jury, and protection against cruel and unusual


Chapter 2: The US Constitutional Government|39 punishment. These constitutionally protected ri ghts are sometimes called civil liberties. Civil liberties are distinct from civil rights which is a term that usually refers to individual rights that are provided in legislation rather than the Constitution. Civil Liberties are the cons titutional rights that lim it the governments power to restrict individual freedom. Civil liberties are often called individual rights or individual liberties because they limit government powe r over individuals. Civil liberties include the First Amendment guarantees of freedom of religion, speech, and press; the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms ; the Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable search and seizure; the Fifth Am endment guarantee of due process of law; the Eighth Amendment prohibition agains t cruel and unusual punishment; and the Fourteenth Amendment guarantee of equal protection of the laws. Some of the most important civil liberties provi sions are described in very general language: the protection against unreasonable search and seizure; the guarantee of due process of law; and the prohibition against cruel and unusual punishme nt. The meanings of these vague words are not precise. People disagree about thei r meaning. As a result, conflicts between individuals who claim a civil liberties freedom from government restriction and government claims that they have the power to restrict the freedom are often decided by the Supreme Court. The term civil rights is often used generically to refer to individual rights and individual liberties. But there are two signi ficant differences between civil liberties and civil rights. First, civil rights are statutory rights. They are provided in legislation, not the Constitution. Second, civil rights protect indi viduals against discrimination. Civil rights laws promote equality by prohibiting discrimi nation on the basis of race, gender, religion, ethnicity, or some other status or characte ristic. Two examples of landmark civil rights laws are the 1964 Civil Rights and the 1965 Voting Rights Act. 2.52 | The Bill of Rights When the Constitution was submitted to the states for ratification, it did not include a provision declaring or guaran teeing individual rights. The Federalists, who supported the Constitution, argued that a bill of rights was unnecessary because the powers of the newly formed national government were so caref ully limited that individual rights did not have to be specifically mentioned in the C onstitution. In fact, some Federalists argued that adding a bill of rights could actually be dangerous be cause listing specific individual rights that the government could not limit would inevitably be interpreted to mean that the government could limit any rights that were not actually mentioned in the bill of rights. Nevertheless, legislator s in some states threatened to withhold ratif ication of the Constitution unless a bill of rights was added to the document. The Anti-federalist George Mason, a c onstitutional convention delegate from Virginia, opposed the new constitution because it did not include a bill of rights. The Anti-federalist worries that the new consti tution created a stronge r national government but did not include a bill of rights threatened the ratification of th e Constitution. In order to ease Anti-federalist worries a bill of rights was proposed to limit the power of the national government. The first ten amendments were based on Masons Virginia Declaration of Rights In 1789, the First Congress of the United States adopted the first ten amendments to the Constitution. These am endments were ratified by the required


40|Chapter 2: The US Constitutional Government number of states in 1791. The following is an edited version of the first ten amendments to the Constitution (the Bill of Rights): First Amendment: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of the speech, or of the press.. Second Amendment: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bea r Arms, shall not be infringed. Fourth Amendment:The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated. Fifth Amendment: No person shallbe subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb, nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. Sixth Amendment: In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed..and to have the assistance of counsel for his defence. Seventh Amendment: In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved Eighth Ame ndment: Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishment inflicted. Ninth Amendment: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. Tenth Amendment: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people Until 2008, the Supreme Court had interpreted the Second Amendment as guaranteeing the states the power to mainta in a well-regulated militia. As such, the Second Amendment was read as a federalism amendment: it protected the states from the federal governmentparticularly its military power. In District of Columbia v. Heller the Supreme Court ruled that the Second Am endment guaranteed an individual right to keep and bear arms. As a result, the right to keep and bear arms has now been added to the list of civil liberties that individuals and organizations, such as the National Rifle Association, can use to challe nge gun control and ot her regulatory policies enacted by the federal, state, or local governments. Most of the provisions in the Bill of Rights apply to criminal justice. They list specific rights. The Ninth Amendm ent is different. It was added to the bill of rights to ease Anti-federalist worries that not listing a right mean that th e right did not exist. What if the men who made up the li st forgot to include a basi c right? What if a future generation considered a right a fundamental right? The Ninth Amendment was intended as a statement that the Bill of Rights should not be read as an exhaustive list.


Chapter 2: The US Constitutional Government|41 2.53 | Civil Rights and Civil Liberties The relationship between religion and politics is one of the most controversial issues in American politics. During the colonial era, government and politics had explicitly religious purposes. The First Charter of Virginia (1606), the Mayflower Compact (1620), and The Book of the General Lawes and Libe rtyes Concerning the Inhabitants of the Massachusetts (1648), for example, describe government and politics as organized efforts to make people moralas defined by organized religious beliefs. Some colonies had an established churchan officially recognized and government supported church. Massachusetts established the Congregational Church as the official church and some southern colonies established the Anglican Chur ch as the official re ligion. Over time, the colonies moved away from establishing an o fficial denomination and toward establishing Christianity or Protestantism. The Constitution changed the relationship be tween church and stateor at least the relationship between religion and the federal government. Article VI of the Constitution provides that no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States. More important, the First Amendment prohibits Congress from making any law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise of religion. The First Amendm ent guarantees freedom of religion, which includes the right of i ndividuals and organizations to activ ely participate in politics, but it limits government support for religion. Poli tical and constitutional debates involve providing public aid to religious schools, po licies allowing or requi ring organized prayer in public schools, religious displays of th e Ten Commandments or crches in public places, laws related to the teaching of evol ution or creation science, and legislating morality. Civil liberties claims have been made to challenge the const itutionality of using law to promote morality by regulating obscenity, to prohibit certain sexual behavior, and to define marriage as a relationship between one man and one woman. 2.6 | Constitutionalism This chapter began with an acknowledgement th at having a constitu tion is today almost universally accepted as the best form of government. But having a document called a constitution does not mean that a politic al system is committed to constitutional government. Constitutionalism refers to the public and government officials commitment to the values that are expressed in the Constitution. Without the commitment, a constitution is merely paper or words without much to back them up. With the commitment, a constitution acquires real political and legal force. Americans have an especially strong commitment to the Constitution. Support for the Constitution remains strong even in tough times of economic hardships, domestic disorder, or national security threats. In contrast public support for the government varies a great deal, and in fact support for government institutions has de clined over time. The enduring appeal of the Constitution and the belief in the founding values th at are embodied in it (e.g., freedom; limited government; equality) remain a pol itical constant even in times of great political change, conflict, and even turmoil. What explains the enduring appeal of the Constitution?


42|Chapter 2: The US Constitutional Government One explanation is that the enduring public support reflects a general commitment to the Constitution or to constitutional government rather than support for specific provisions of the Constitution or particular interpretations of them. This explanation is supported by studies of public opinion that re veal consistently lo w levels of knowledge about what is actually in the Constitution. A public opinion survey conducted by the Constitution Center revealed startlingly low leve ls of public knowledge about the Constitution: less than five percent of the American public could correctly answer even basic questions about the constitution. The consistently high levels of public s upport for the Constitution do not mean there is general consensus about what specific provisions of the Constitution actually mean. In fact, the general consensus supporting the Co nstitution masks politic al conflict about what specific provisions of the Constitution mean and how to interpret them. For instance, both conservatives and liberals profess support for the Constitution and the values embodied in it. But they consisten tly disagree about the governments criminal justice powers, its economic regulatory powers, its moral regulatory powers, and its war powers. For instance, both sides in the debates about the role of religion in American government and politics appeal to the Constitution as supporting their side of the debate about school prayer. Liberals and conservatives also disagree about how the Constitution should be interpreted. A Pew Research survey of public opinion about the Constitution revealed major differences between conservatives and liberals, an ideological divide that was so wide that it was described as a chasm. Conservatives belie ve the Constitution should be interpreted according to the orig inal meaning of the words or the original intentions of those who wrote them. Liberals believe that the Constitution should be interpreted according to contemporary societal expectations. These differences reflect the tension between continuity and change, between adhe ring to certain beliefs and changing with the times. Particularly during hard times or tim es of crisis, conservatives are apt to blame political problems on departing the republic s political and constitutional founding values, and to call for a return to th em as the solution to the problems. 2.61 | The Relationship between the Constitution and the Government The relationship between the political system that was established by the Constitution and modern governance is both inte resting and complicated. Pub lic opinion reflects such strong support for the Constitution and such strong criticism of the government that it could be said that Americans love the C onstitution but hate the government (that it created). Although it may s eem surprising, venerating the Constitution can create governance problems. Reverence for the Cons titution can create problems. Take, for example, constitutionalists. Constitutionalists believe the Constitution should be strictly or literally interpreted. Some religious cons titutionalists believe that the Constitution was a divinely-inspired document. The belief th at a document is divinely-inspired makes reasoned political analysis, including assessm ent of the problems of modern governance, difficult. Secular constitutionalists merely be lieve that the Constitution should be strictly interpreted. Some of the indi viduals who call themselves constitutionalists are advocates of the Tenth Amendment. The motto of these Tenthers is The Constitution. Every Issue. Every Time. No Exceptions, no Excuses These constitutionalists believe the solution to the nations problems is to return to the original Constitution, not the


Chapter 2: The US Constitutional Government|43 Constitution as it has come to be understood. This is one of the main points of the Tea Party movement. Political and legal scholar s disagree about whether th e nations problems can be solved by returning to the original understanding of the Constitution and how the government was intended to work. Appeals to return to the Founders views are misleading insofar as it presumes that th ere was one, single, uni fied voice. At a minimum there were basic differences between the Federalists and the Anti-federalists The bicentennial of the Constitution in 1987 produced a number of scholarly works that identified governance problems that could be traced to the Constitution, and recommended constitutional reforms to create a more workable government.2 Constitutionalists and some conservatives re ject the argument that the constitutional design of government is flawed or that m odern challenges require modernizing the Constitution. Those who advocate change write in the Jeffersonian tradition. 2.62 | Should Laws, Like Food Products, Have Expiration Dates? Thomas Jefferson argued that laws, incl uding the Constitution, should have sunset provisions. He thought that laws should la st only twenty yearsthe lifespan of a generationbecause one generation should not bind a succeeding generation. No society can make a perpetual constitution, or even a perpetual law, because just as the earth belongs always to the living generation, pe ople are masters of their own persons, and consequently may govern them as they pleas e. The constitution and laws naturally expire at the end of 19 years. the life span of a generation. Laws that are enforced longer are enforced as an act of force, and not of right. Jefferson did not think that the problem of one generation binding another could be solved by claiming that each succeeding generations decision not to repe al a law was tacit consent to it. This tacit consent might apply if the form of governmen t were so perfectly contrived that the will of the majority could always be obtained fair ly and without impediment. But no form of government is perfect. Representation is likely to be unequal and vicious, various checks limit proposed legislation, factions control govern ment bodies and bribery corrupts them, and personal interests cause government officials lose sight of the general interests of their constituents. So practically speaking, a law of limited duration is much more manageable than one that needs to be repealed.3 One contemporary critic of the const itutional design of American government, Sanford Levinson, thinks that venerating the founding era and the system of government created by the Constitution is, ironically, not in keeping with the founding values of the republic. In Our Imbecilic Constitution Levinson reminds us that the authors of the Federalist Papers advocated ratification of the new Constitution by mock[ing] the imbecility of the weak centr al government created by the Articles of Confederation. Levinson scolds those who call the modern Am erican political system dysfunctional, even pathological for failing to even men tion the Constitutions role in generating the pathology. According to Levinson, slavery, the Senate system of providing equal representation to North Dakota and California, the Electoral College, and the separation of powers, all created problems but the wors t single part of the Constitutionis surely Article V, which has made our Constitution among the most difficult to amend of any in the world. Amendment is so difficult that the mere discussion of possible reforms is considered a waste of time. He considers it unfortunate that most contemporary


44|Chapter 2: The US Constitutional Government Americans have lost the ability to thi nk seriously about whether the Constitutions provisions for governance still serve us very well and instead envelope the Constitution in near religious veneration. Levinson blames the modern dysfunctional government on the decision to make the Constitution so hard to amend. Most of th e 50 state constitutions are much easier to amend. He notes that fourteen states give the voters the oppo rtunity call a constitutional convention at regular intervals. There have been more than 230 state constitutional conventions, and each state has had an average of almost three constitutions. Levinson describes the framers willingness to critique, indeed junk, the Articles of Confederation truly admirable, and he thi nks that we are long overdue for a serious discussion about [the Constitutions] own role in creating the depressed (and depressing) state of American politics. 2.63 | Continuity and Change The U.S. Constitution is distinct ive in at least two respects. First, it is the worlds oldest continuing governing document. Second, the Constitution is a very brief document. The Constitutions brevity and longevity are related. The Constitution has lasted as long as it has partly because it is such a short document. It is a short document that is filled with general phrases describing government and politi cs. The Preamble declares its purpose as to form a more perfect Union and establis h Justice. creating a more perfect Union. Article I gives Congress power to use wh atever means necessary and proper to accomplish the things that Congress has power to do. The Bill of Rights has especially memorable but flowery phrases. The 5th Amendment prohibits government from denying any person due process of law The 4th Amendment prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures. The 8th Amendment prohibits cruel and unusual punishment These general provisions of the Constitution allow for, or perhaps require, interpretation to give them concrete meaning, interpretation to determ ine how they are to be applied in specific instances. Interpretation is a way to inform ally change the meaning of the Constitution to accommodate change without requiring fo rmal amendment or an entirely new constitution. The short and general Constitution has endured for more than 200 years with only 27 amendmentsand the first ten amendments were adopted as the bill of rights in 1791. This means that the C onstitution has undergone only minimal formal changes despite more than two centuries of major po litical, economic, soci al, technological, and scientific changes. Which raises a question: Is the Constitution, an Eighteenth Century document, still relevant to Twenty-first Century government and politics? It is. But the informal accommodation to reflect change means that it is no longer possible to read the Constitution to understand how modern American government and politics actually work. The following are just some of the major political developments that are not even mentioned in the Constitution. Political Parties. The Constitution does not say anything about political parties even though parties play a central role in politics and government. Parties have also changed the way the Electoral College works.


Chapter 2: The US Constitutional Government|45 Corporations The Constitution does not say anything about corporations even though they are important economic organi zations that the Supreme Court has said are persons for the purposes of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Fed The Constitution does not say anything about the Federal Reserve Board even though the Fed is a very important government body with control over monetary policy. The Fourth Branch The Constitution creates three branches of government but the development of the federal bureaucr acy has created a fourth branch of government. Presidential Government The Founders created a system based on legislative government but presidential power has expanded greatly over time and the system developed in presidential government. Presidential Legislation This term applies to, among other things, executive orders and executive agreements. Judicial Review The Constitution does not explicitly give courts the power of judicial review, but this implied power to review the acts of other government officials to determine whether they are constitutional has greatly expanded the power of courts. The Congressional Committee System It is impossible to understand how Congress works without describing the committee system and the party leadership system. The Sole Organ Doctrine. This doctrine is one of the key concepts for understanding the modern presidents role in foreign affairs and national security policy. A National-centered System The Founders created a state-centered political system, but the government has develope d into a national-centered system. 2.7 | Continuity One way to better understand the U.S. Constitution is to compare it to other constitutions. The constitutions of the 50 states are very different than the U.S. Constitution. Among Think About It! Can a person read the Constitutio n to get a good understanding of how American government and politics work today? Act on It! Contact a local, state, or nationa l government official (e.g., your member of Congress), and ask them whether they support any constitutional amendments.


46|Chapter 2: The US Constitutional Government other things, the state constitutions are much younger, longer and more detailed than the U.S. Constitution. The constitutions of other countries are even more varied. The ready electronic access to the constitutions of other countries makes it easy to compare the constitutions of the countries of the world. Reading a country s constitution to determine what form of government the country has, and to determine what civil rights and liberties it includes, provides insights in to the political history of a nation. It is especially interesting to compare the civil rights and liberties provisions in the newer constitutions with those of older constitutions such as th e U.S. Constitution because the U.S. played an important role in writing the constitutions of Germany and Japan after World War I and, more recently, the constitutions of Iraq and Afghanistan. 2.8 | Summary This chapter examined the origins and development of the U.S. system of constitutional government. It includes the various factors th at fostered colonial independence and the subsequent development of American governme nt and politics. The primary theme is the distinctive tension in American political culture between continuity (preserving the original understanding of the Constitution and the founding era values) and change (adapting to the political, so cial, economic, and technologic al conditions of the times). One aspect of self-government is thinking a bout the system of govern ment and politics so that, as informed citizens, we can answer tw o basic questions. How is it working for us? How can we help to form a more perfect Union? 2.9 | Additional Resources 2.91 | Internet Sources: Primary documents are available at Montesquieu. The Spirit of the Laws. Paine, Thomas. 1776. Common Sense commonsense/singlehtml.htm Rutherford, Samuel. 1644. Lex Rex: Law Is King, or The Law & The Prince. The Constitution of the Commo nwealth of Massachusetts The First Charter of Virginia (1606) ris/organic/1606-fcv.htm


Chapter 2: The US Constitutional Government|47 Key Terms: Constitutions Rule of Law Mercantilism The triangle trade Seven Years War The Sugar Act The Stamp Act Mutiny Act The Townshend Acts The Coercive Acts Confederation Shays Rebellion A republican system of government Federalism Separation of powers Checks and balances The Bill of Rights The Mayflower Compact (1620) The Charter of Massachusetts Bay (1629) The Lawes and Libertyes of Massachusetts (1648) The National Constitution Center: The constitutions of countries of the world: 2.92 | In the Library Amar, Akhil Reed. 2005. Americas Constitution: A Biography New York: Random House. Beard, Charles. 1913. An Economic Interpretation of the Constitution of the United States. New York: Macmillan. Berkin. Carol. 2003. A Brilliant Solution: Inventi ng the American Constitution Harcourt. Bowler, Shaun and Todd Donovan. 2001. Demanding Choices and Direct Democracy. University of Michigan Press. Breyer, Stephen. 2006. Active Liberty: Interpreting our Democratic Constitution Dicey, Robert A. and Albert Venn. 1895. Law of the Constitution. 9th Edition, 1950. London: MacMillan. Gerber, Douglas. 1995. To Secure These Rights: The D eclaration of Independence and Constitutional Interpretation New York: New York University Press. Holton, Woody Holton. 2007. Unruly Americans and the Origins of the Constitution New York: Hill and Wang. Ketcham, Ralph. 2003. The Anti-Federalist Papers and the Constitutional Convention Debates. Signet Classics.


48|Chapter 2: The US Constitutional Government Kyvig, David E. 1998. Explicit and Authentic Acts: Amending the U.S. Constitution, 17761995. University Press of Kansas. Maier, Pauline. 1997. American Scripture: Making the Declaration of Independence. New York: Knopf. 1 A repository of these historical documents is available at 2 See, for example, A Workable Government? The Constitution after 200 Years 1987. Ed. by Burke Marshall. New York: W.W. Norton & Company; Reforming American Gover nment: The Bicentennial Papers of the Committee on the Constitutional System. 1985. Ed. by Donald L. Robinson. Boulder, CO: Westview Press. 3 Letter to James Madison, (September 6, 1789) In The Papers of Thomas Jefferson Edited by Julian P. Boyd, et al. Princeton: Princeton University Press. 1950.


3.0 | Congress Is Congress the Broken Branch of Government? Congress is the government institution that everyone loves to hate. Congress has been called the broken branch of government because nothing seems to make the Congress less capable of action than the need for action. Why? In the 19th Century, the Senate was consid ered the greatest deliberative body in the world. Today, Congress still debate s issues but the quality of the debates CHAPTER 3: Congress


50|Chapter 3: Congress rarely rises to the level of greatness. And c ongressional speeches are often delivered to an empty chamberbut one with a camera focu sed on the speaker. The way the modern Congress works, or does not work, exposes Congr ess to the charge that it is a perfectly good 19th Century institution! The main purpose of this chapter is to e xplain the role Congress plays in the modern system of government. The chapter focuses on the following issues: The Power Problem with Congress: more acco untability than effectiveness? The Functions of Congress. How Congresss role has changed over time. The Organization of Congress. How bicameralism, the committee system, and the party structure, affect the cong ressional decision making processes. Information about the functions of Congre ss, the organization of Congress, and the members of the House of Representatives and the Senate is available at the following website: ederal/Legislative.shtml 3.1 | The Power Problem The power problem is the need to grant government enough power to effectively address the problems that people expect government to solve, while also limiting power so that it can be held accountable. A successful governme nt is one that strikes the right balance between granting and limiting power. The main power problem with Congress is effectiveness: Congress is often unable to get anything done. Congress has been called the broken branch of government because the public (and many political scientists) consider it an inefficient or ineffective instit ution. Congress has plenty of critics. Public opinion polls generally reflect that the public does not hold Congress in very high regard because Congress does not seem to be maki ng much headway toward solving the nations problems. Public confidence in Congress as an effective institution is not high. The reasons for this criticism of Congress can be traced to its organization and operation. Congress is not designed to be an especially effective institution. It is designed as a representative institution where different in terests and perspectives are represented, and decision-making requires negotiating, bargaining, and compromise. These democratic values (representation, bargaining, and compro mise) are sometimes at odds with effective or decisive action.


Chapter 3: Congress|51 GALLUP 2010 Confidence Poll; Now I am going to read you a list of institutions in American society. Please tell me how much confidence you, yourself, have in each one -a great deal, quite a lot, some, or a little. Are members of Congress smarter than te nth graders? A study of congressional speeches on the floor of the House and Senate concluded that the level of speech was at the tenth grade level and declining Descriptions of sophomoric talk do not instill public confidence in Congress. Think about it! Are members of Congress sophomoric? Are they smarter than a 5th grader? Analysis shows they talk like 10th graders. 05/21/153024432/sophom oric-members-ofcongress-talk-like-10th-graders-analysis-shows 3.2 | Change over Time Congress role in the U.S. system of govern ment has changed a great deal over time. Congress does not play the same role that it did during the founding era. The Founders made Congress the law-making branch of the federal gov ernment. Article I Section I of the Constitution provides that all legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives. Congress was intended to be the first branch of government in the sense that it was intended to be the primary branch of the federal government. Congress was the most powerful (and therefore also the most dangerous) branch of government. The political experiences of th e Founders made it logical for them to create a political system where the legislative branch was mo st powerful. The Revolutionary War was 42 28 35 18 28 29 12 11 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 1974198319881993199820032008Confidence in Congress(% of those indicating a great deal and quite a lot) 2


52|Chapter 3: Congress fought against a monarchy. Many of the Founders remained wary of executive power. And the Founders believed that the legislative branch was more democratic, that it was a republican or representative institution during a tim e when republican or representative government seemed to be the wave of th e future. Representative government was considered modern, one of the then-recent a dvances in the science of good government. The Founders did not create three branches of government with equal power. The legislative, executive, and judicial branches we re created equal in the sense that they have the same constitutional status. The Founders cr eated a system of legislative government, not executive government or judicial governm ent. But as the U.S. political system developed, the presidency accumulated a great deal of power in absolute terms and relative to Congress. Congress is still the first branch but it is not necessarily the primary branch of government. The modern sy stem has developed into a political system based on executive governance rath er than legislative governance. This change has occurred over time. The 19th Century was the golden age of representative assemblies as governing bodies. The 20th Century was not kind to representative assemblies which lost fa vor to executive govern mentparticularly parliamentary systems headed by prime minist ersin most countries of the world. The decline of congressional power relative to the president is certainly one of the most importance changes in the way the U.S. system of government works. Congress is no longer the central institution of the national government.1 Congress is still a powerful institution. Compared to the representative assemblies in many other countries, Congress is a powerful institution because it plays both a lawmaking and a representative role. In most modern parliamentary systems, the repr esentative body (the parliament) is largely limited to representation, w ith a prime minister who act ually governs the country and makes policy for the nation. Congress still performs many important func tions, but its primary role, to be the lawmaker for the nation, has diminished. The modern Congress focuses less on making laws for the nation and more on representation and oversight of the administration. Representation of constituents (i.e., individuals in the dist rict or state) and organized interests is a very important function of i ndividual members of Congress and Congress as an institution. The importance of legislativ e oversight of the ad ministration (and the bureaucracy) has increased as Congress has delegated more and more power to the president and the size of the federal bureaucracy has increased. But the president has taken the lead in many areas of public policy makingparticularly global affairs such as national defense and foreign polic y but also areas of domestic policy such as fiscal policy (the setting of budget priorities). Congress lost power rela tive to the executive for a broad range of reasons. One of the general reasons is rela ted to the nature of power in the U.S. system of government. Power is dynamic, not static. It is not a solid or fixed quantity. It is more like a liquid that flows to wherever it seems to be most effective. Power will flow to whichever level or government (national or state) seems more effective at addressing the problems facing the nation. And power will flow to whichever branch of government (legislative, executive, or judicial) which seems most eff ective. Or power will flow to the private sector if the public considers the private sect or more effective at solving a problem than the public sector. Today, the general public sees the president as the nations leader because the presidency seems to be a more effective institution.


Chapter 3: Congress|53 3.3 | The Separation of Powers In order to describe the way Congress work s today, and to understand its current role, it is necessary to understand how the separation of powers works today. The separation of powers doctrine does not provide for a watert ight separation of legislative, executive, and judicial powers. Although the Constitution delegates to Congress all legislative powers, Congress is not the only government body that makes laws. According to the Congress website, The legislative bran ch is the law making branch of the government made up of the Senate, the House of Represen tatives, and agencies that support Congress. Congress is the only source of federal statutes or legislation, but there are other kinds of law, including executive orders, executive agreements, administrative regulations, and even case law. Presidents make law when they sign executive orders. The Supreme Court makes law when it interprets what the Fourth Amendment prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures actually means when police officers are investigating individual s who are suspected of crimes. A nd administrative agencies such as the Federal Communications Commission and the Internal Revenue Service make laws through rulemaking actions that define inde cency or determine whether a religious organization should be gran ted tax exempt status. Just as the executive and judicial branch es have some lawmaking powers, Congress also has powers over the other branches. The House of Representatives controls appropriations or the budget. Without funding, the other branches particularly the executive branch are hamstringed in their ability to act. The House also has the power of impeachment or the formal charging of a governme nt official with treason, bribery, other high crimes and misdemeanors. The Senate then acts as a court for the impeachment, with the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court presiding. The Senate also has the power to approve (or fail to approve) the most important of the presidential appointments, including federal judgeships, ambassadorships, and cabinet level posts. The Senate also approves a ll treaties. Congress also has the power to declare war. 3.4 | Constitutional Powers Congress has two types of cons titutional powers: enumerated powers and implied powers. Enumerated powers are those that are specifically mentioned. Enumerated powers are sometimes called delegated powers because th ey are powers that th e Constitution actually delegates to government. Implied powers are those that are not specifically mentioned but which can be logically implied to flow from those that are enumerated. 3.41 | Enumerated Powers The following are some of the enumerated powers granted in Artic le I, Section 8: The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and exci ses, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States; To borrow money on the credit of the United States;


54|Chapter 3: Congress To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes; To establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States; To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures; To establish post offices and post roads; To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to th eir respective writings and discoveries; To constitute tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court; To define and punish piracies and felonies committ ed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations; To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water; To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years; To provide and maintain a navy; To make rules for the government and re gulation of the land and naval forces; To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions; And To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitu tion in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof. 3.42 | Implied Powers Article I Section 8 is a list of Congresss enumerated powers. The list of specifically mentioned powers ends with the necessary and proper clause. (See above). The necessary and proper clause has been interp reted to mean that Congress can make all laws which shall be necessary and proper to achieve its enumerated powers. In effect, the necessary and proper clause gives Congress power to choose the means it considers necessary to achieve its legislative ends. For example, Congress has the enumerated power to raise an army, and the implied power to use a military draft to raise the army. Congress has enumerated power to regulate commerce and coin money, and the implied power to create the Federal Re serve System and the Depart ment of the Treasury to perform these functions. The necessary and proper clause is sometimes called the elastic clause because it has been interpreted very br oadly to allow Congre ss to choose the best means to accomplish its specifically mentioned powers. Think about it! Presidential nominees must be confirmed by the Senate. When was the last time the Senate rejected a presidential nominee to head an executive department? Or a Supreme Court nominee? inations.htm


Chapter 3: Congress|55 The Supreme Court established the precedent for broadly interpreting the necessary and proper clause to give Congress implied powers in McCulloch v. Maryland (1819). This landmark case involved a legal challenge to Congress power to charter a national bank. Congress created a national bank. Mary land taxed the Baltimore branch of the national bank. The Supreme Court was asked to decide whether Congress had the power to create a national bank and whether a state could tax a branch of the bank. Chief Justice John Marshall ruled that the pow er to create a national bank was an implied power that flowed from Congress delegated powers, in cluding the power to regulate commerce. Congress could decide whether a national ba nk was a necessary and proper way to regulate commerce. Marshall, incidentally, wa s a prominent member of the Federalist Party, which supported a strong national govern ment to promote economic development. The McCulloch ruling established a precedent that th e Court would broadly interpret the powers of Congress. As a result, Congress today legisl ates on many areas of public policy that are not actually mentioned in the Constitution as grants of power. 3.5 | What Does Congress Do? Congress has four main roles or functions: Lawmaking for the nation (Legislating) Representation (of Constituents and Interests) Legislative Oversight (Investigating) Constituency service (Solving Constituent Problems) 3.51 | Law-making for the nation The Constitution delegates all legislative power to Congress. It therefore is the only branch of government that can make laws. Both the House and the Senate must pass a bill for it to become a law but they have different roles in the law making process. For instance, tax bills must originate in the Hous e of Representatives. This provision of the Constitution reflects the Founders belief that de cisions to tax the people should originate with the government institution that was closest to the people. The members of the House are closer to the people than member s of the Senate. Members of the House are directly elected by the people to serve two-year terms. The members of the Senate were originally chosen by state legislatur es and served six-year terms. 3.52 | Representation Congress is a representative institution. Th e members of the House and Senate are elected representatives of the people. Congres s is institutionally designed to represent geographic districts. In the House of Representatives, the legislative districts are 435 geographic areas with about 650,00 0 people in each district. In the Senate, the districts are the 50 states. Representa tion is not limited to geography Members of Congress also


56|Chapter 3: Congress represent individuals and orga nized interests. In a larg e, populous nation such as the United States, representative institutions increase political efficacy Political efficacy is the belief that it is possible for a person to participate effectively in government and politics. Representative institutions are one of the ways that government is designed to be responsive to public demands and interests. Efficacy is related to the belief that individuals and orga nizations can have an impact on government. In the U.S. system of republican government, congress is the institution that is designed to represent the people, deliberate on public policy options, a nd enact make laws for the nation. There are three theories of representation: the delegate theory; the trustee theory; and the politico theory. The delegate theory is that members of Congress should act as instructed delegates of their constituents. According to this theory, elected representatives are not free agents: representatives have a political obligation to do what their constituents want. A legisl ator who votes on bills based strictly on public opinion polls from the district, for example, is acting as a delegate. The trustee theory is that members of Congress should do what they think is in the best interest of their constituents. According to this theory, elected representati ves are free agents: they can vote according to what they think is right or best regardle ss of public opinion in the district. A trustee uses his or her judgment when deciding how to vote on a bill, for example. A trustee does not feel obligated to vote based on p ublic opinion polls from the district. Studies of Congress indicate that legislator s are not typically either delegates or trustees. The politico theory of representation s uggests that representatives are rational actors whose voting behavior reflects the dele gate or trustee theory of representation depending on the situation. Members of Congress are expected to represen t their districts. The representation of districts includes representing individuals and organized constituents such as business interests that are located in the district. Me mbers from agricultural districts are expected to represent agricultural interests. Members from urban districts are expected to represent urban interests. Members from manufacturing districts are expected to represent manufacturing interests, and member s from districts where mining, forestry, or other natural resource interests are located ar e expected to represent those interests. Where one industry is especially important to a district, particularly in the House of When one interest is the dominant interest in a districts, a represen tative may be strongly identified with that single interest. For example, Congressman Norm Dicks represents Washington States 6th Congressional District. The 6th District includes Tacomas port district, the Puget Sound Naval Yard and ot her military installati ons, and a number of defense contractors. One of the companies, Boeing, which is the worlds largest aerospace manufacturer, was headquartered in Washington State until it relocated to Chicago. Representative Dicks serves on three key House Appropriations Subcommittees dealing with defense, Interior and the Environment, and Mil itary Construction/Veterans. Representative Dicks came to be called The Representative from Boeing because of his strong advocacy for Boeing. His represen tation of American Defense Contractors included strong opposition to the U.S. military s decision to award a major defense contract to build the new generation of airplane refueli ng tankers to a European and American consortium of airplane builders. 3.53 | Constituency Service


Chapter 3: Congress|57 Act on It! Contact a member of congress, your representative, or one of your senators and ask them about a political issue of concern to you. How can you find a member of congress? Go to the Click on Legislative Branch Select House of Representatives or Senate Go to the Home Page and enter your zip code. The third congressional role is related to representation. Constituency service is helping constituents solve problems that they may ha ve with the government. All the Web sites of the members of the House of Representati ves prominently list constituency service as one of the things that the member of congress does for the individuals or organizations in the district. Members of Congress maintain offices in their districts to help solve constituent problems: getting government benef its such as Social Security checks; getting Veterans services; problems with government re gulations of business; or who have kinds of problems or issues that c onstituents have with the gove rnment. This constituency casework often involves helping in dividuals or organizations cut through government red tape or bureaucratic procedures. 3.54 | Legislative Oversight The fourth congressional role is oversight. Congresss over sight role consists of two primary functions: Oversight of the Laws Investigation of Scandals The first oversight function is oversight of the laws being administer ed or executed by the President and the bureaucracy. The oversight of the laws is important because although Congress passes laws, the executive branch or the bureaucracy administers or carries out or implements the laws. This means that the body that makes the laws does not actually implement them. Congress oversees the administration of the laws by conducting hearings to determine how public policy is being implemented, to determine whether the president is implementing the laws the way Congress intended, or to determine whether the law needs to be changed based on information about how it is working, especially whether it is worki ng well or not. The main met hod of legislative oversight is


58|Chapter 3: Congress through congressional hearings at which member s of the executive branch or independent regulatory agencies may be ca lled to testify about how th ey are carrying out the laws passed by Congress. Congressional hearings are the principal formal method by which committees collect and analyze information in the early stages of legislative policymaking. But there are other kinds of hearings as we ll: confirmation hearings (for the Senate, not the House), legislative hearings, oversight hearings, investigative hearings or a combination of them. Hearings usually include oral testimony from witnesses, a nd questioning of the witnesses by members of Congress. There are several types of congressional h earings. Congressional Standing (or Policy) committees regularly hold legislative hearings on measures or policy issues that may become public law. Agriculture committees hol d hearings on proposed legislation related to agriculture policy. Banking and financial services committees hold hearings on bills related to the financial services sector of the economy. The armed services committees hold hearings on legislative proposals related to national defense and the military. The health, education, and labor co mmittees hold hearings on bills related to these aspects of domestic policy. Sometimes a committee holds hearings on several bills before deciding on one bill for further committee and chambe r action. Hearings provide a forum where witnesses from a broad range of backgrounds ca n appear to provide facts and opinions to the committee members. The witnesses include members of Congre ss, other government officials, representatives of interest groups academics or other e xperts, as well as individuals directly or indire ctly affected by a proposed bill. Most congressional hearings are held in Washington, but field he arings are held outside Washington. Oversight hearings are intended to review or study a law, a public policy issue, or an activity. Such hearings often focus on th e quality of federal programs and the performance of government officials. Heari ngs are also one way for Congress to ensure that executive branch is implementing laws consistent with legislative intent. A significant part of a congressional committe es hearings workload is dedicated to oversight. Committee oversight hearings might include examination of gasoline price increases, lead paint on toys imported from China, the safety of the food supply in the wake of e. coli contamination, indecent progr amming broadcast over the television or radio airwaves, the governments response to natural disasters, terrorism preparedness, Medicare or Medicaid spending or access to health care, or matters related to crime policy. The second oversight function is investigation of scandals. Investigative hearings are similar to legislative hearings and oversight hearings, but they are specifically convened to investigate when there is suspicion of wrongdoing on the part of public officials acting in their official capacity, or suspicion of private citizens whose activities or behavior may warrant a legislative remedy. Congress might conduct investigate hearings to get additional information about use of steroids in


Chapter 3: Congress|59 professional sports such as baseball, or to determine whether tobacco companies are spiking the nicotine content in cigarettes or whether tobacco company executives think nicotine is addictive Congress has broad power to investig ate and it has used it since the earliest days of the republic. Some of its most famous investigative hearings are benchmarks in American political history: The Teapot Dome Scandal in the 1920s The Army-McCarthy Hearings du ring the Red Scare in the 1950s The Watergate scandal in the 1970s The Church Committee Hearings on the CIA and illegal intelligence gathering in the 1970s The Iran-Contra Affa ir Hearings in 1987 The National Commission investiga ting the 9/11 terrorist attacks The National Commission investigating the financial crisis Investigative hearings gather information and issue repor ts that are often used to pass legislation to address the problems that th e hearings examined. The National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States was created to investigate the facts and circumstances relating to the terrorist attacks. The National Commissions Report was used to increase coordination of in telligence about terrorism. The Financial Crisis Inquiry Report submitted by the National Commission on the Causes of the Financial and Economic Crisis in the United States in January 2011 included among its recommendations regulation of cer tain financial transactions. Confirmation hearings on pres idential nominations are held in fulfillment of the Senates constitutional role to advise and consent. Senate committees hold confirmation hearings on presid ential nominations to execu tive and judicial positions within their jurisdiction. When the President nominates the head of an executive agencysuch as the Secretary of State, Inte rior, Department of Homeland Security, or Defensethe Senate must confirm the nominat ion. The Senate also must confirm the presidents nominees for federal judgeships. Confirmation hearings offer an opportunity for oversight into the activities of the nominees department or agency. The vast majo rity of confirmation h earings are routine, but some are controversial. The Senate ma y use the confirmation hearing of a nominee for Attorney General to examine how the Administration has been running the Department of Justice and provide some guidance on how the Senate would like the Department to function. The Constitution also requires that the Senate consent to the ratification of treaties nego tiated by the executive branch with foreign governments. Arms control treaties have historically been controversial. Recently, the Senate used the ratification of the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty between the U.S. and Russia to exert power over the executive branch and to in fluence the foreign policy choices of the President.2 Therefore, hearings provide an opportun ity for different points of view to be expressed as a matter of public record. So confirmation hearings are one of the ways that the Senate performs its constitutional res ponsibilities in an im portant area of public policy. One of Congress implied powers is the power to issue subpoe nas and to hold individuals in contempt of C ongress for not complying with demands to testify or provide requested information. Most of the time indi viduals welcome an invitation to testify


6 6 0|Chapt e M R o Oversi g b asebal p owers open m i finally h Cleme n b efo r advo c an i n subp o C Subp The pow e relat e Con g privi l duri n Com m Alco h illeg a prov i dem a e r 3: Cong M Congr e Roger Cl e o ger The Roc k g ht and Gover n l career. Clem e by the House o i nd until trial, h ave my day i n n s and his law y r e Congress c ate their p o n vitation, a o ena. C ommittees a oenas are is subpoena p o e r to legisla t e d to Congr e g ress reque s l ege as a co n n g an oversi g m ittee dem a h ol, Tobacc a l gun runni i ded, and th a nded infor m H ress e ssional P Let me be e mens, to H o k et Clemens w n ment Reform f e ns celebrate d o f Representat the message s n court. A ju r y ers before the because it c o sitions on i m committee a lso may su b s ued infreq u o wer is an t e, and hea r e ss need fo r s ts records n stitutional p g ht investig a a nded reco r o, Firearms ng on the M e guns end e m ation about H ouse Overs i http://ww j un e P owe r in A Cl e clear. I hav e o use Comm i w as indicted o n f or lying abou t d career has be e ives. In respo n s aid. I apprec i r y ultimately f o House Comm i an be a val u m portant p u or subcom m b poena corr e u ently, and m implied po w r ings and s u r informatio n from the e p ower to re f a tion. In 201 r ds related t and Explo s M exican bor d e d up in the the progra m i ght of Oper n e 12/holder_ A ction: T e mens e never take n i ttee on Ove r n August 19th, t using perfor m e n called into q n se, Clemens T i ate all the sup p o und Mr. Cle m i ttee: u able opport u u blic policy i m ittee may e spondence, m ost often i n w er of Con g u bpoenas a r n related to l e xecutive b r f use to give 2, the Hous e t o Operatio n s ives sting o d er. The op possession m and how i t ation Fast a n ewshour/b b 0620.html T he Indic t n steroids o r rsight and G 2010, by the H m ance enhanci n q uestion by th e T weeted I loo k p ort I have be e m ens not guilty u nity to co m i ssues. How require an books, pap e n the course g ress. Con g r e implied p l egislation it r anch, the Congress t h e Oversight n Fast an d o peration t h eration lost of a Mexi c t went wron g a nd Furious b /law/jan t ment of r HGH G overnment R H ouse Commit t n g drugs durin e subpoena an d k forward to w e n getting. I a m of criminal c h m municate, p w ever, if a p e appearance e rs, and oth e of investig a g ress has th e p owers that is consider i president c h e informati and Gover n d Furious, h at was inte n track of gu n c an drug ca r g Roger R eform t ee on g his long d indictment w ill keep an m happy to h arges. Mr. p ublicize, a n e rson declin e b y issuing e r documen t a tive hearing e enumerat e are logical l i ng. But wh e ite executi v on it reques t n ment Refor m a Bureau o n ded to tra c n s that it h a r tel. Congre s n d e s a t s. s. e d l y e n v e ts m o f c k a d s s


Chapter 3: Congress|61 3.6 | Lawmaking, Representation, or Oversight? Today, Congress devotes more time to repres entation and oversight and less time making laws for the nation. This shift has occurred more in some areas of public policy than in others. In foreign affairs and national secu rity, for example, Congress generally follows the presidents lead in form ulating public policy. In domestic affairs, Congress typically exerts more influence over public policy. As individual members of Congress pay more attention to representa tion, oversight, and constituency serv ice, they pay less attention to law making for the nation. As a result, Congress as an institution also focuses less on its traditional lawmaking role. This change is reflected in the congressional work schedule. Todays Congress spends much less time in session. For an interesting perspective by a member of the House of Representatives who left Congress and then returned after 33 years, listen to Congressman Rick Nolan s (Democrat-Minnesota) thoughts about why Congress no longer works (well). 3.7 | The Internal Organization of Congress How an institution is organized affects what it does. The three most important aspects of the way Congress is organized are bicamera lism, the committee system, and the party system. 3.71 | Bicameralism Congress is a bicameral or two-house body. Bicameralism is part of the system of checks and balances and part of the functional diffe rences in legislative governance. The House of Representatives and the Senate have differe nt sizes, roles, and ru les of operation. The House is larger and therefore has more formal rules of operation to govern debate. The Senate is smaller and relies more on informal rules, a tradition of open debate (including the infamous filibuster), and personal relationships. In order for a bill to become a law it Think About It! How does Congress work? sman-returning-after-33-years-says-congressworks-and-cooperates-less-now


62|Chapter 3: Congress must pass both houses of Congressa fact th at makes lawmaking in bicameral bodies much more complicated th an in unicameral bodies. 3.72 | The Committee System The key to understanding how Congress work s is the committee system. Congress does most of its work in committees. The committ ee system is a form of division of labor. Most modern organizations operate with a sy stem of division of la bor where individuals are assigned different tasks in or der to take advantage of speci alization or expertise. The standing committees in Congress are an exam ple of specialization. The jurisdiction of congressional committees such as the House of Representatives committee on agriculture, the committee on education and labor, the committee on financial services, and the committee on foreign affairs reflects their area of legislative expertise and authority. There are four basic kinds of committees: standing committees, joint committees, conference committee, and select or special committees. The House of Representatives committee system and the Senate committee system are similar but each body creates its own committee system. Standing committees are the most prominen t of the committees. These are the permanent committees that focus on specific area of legislation, such as the House Committee on Homeland Security or th e Senate Committee on Armed Forces. The majority of the day-to-day work in Congress occurs in these standing committees. Generally, sixteen to twenty members serve on each committee in Senate and thirty-one members serve on co mmittees in the House. The majority party determines the number of committee members from each party on each committee, which ensures that the majority party will have the majority of committee members. Standing committ ees also have a variety of subcommittees that cover more precise subsections of the legislative issues addressed by the committee. Generally, subcommittee members have considerable leeway in shaping the content of legislation. Joint committees have members from the House and the Senate and are concerned with specific policy areas. These committees are set up as a way to expedite business between the houses, part icularly when pressing issues require quick action by Congress. Conference committees are created to reconc ile differences between the House and Senate versions of a bill. The conference committee is made up of members from both the House and the Senate who work to reach compromises between similar pieces of legislation passe d by the House and the Senate. Select or special committees are temporary committees that serve only for a very specific purpose. These committees conduct special investigations or studies and report back to whichever chamber established the committee.


Chapter 3: Congress|63 Speaker Majority Leader Majority Whip Republican Congressional Campaign Committee Republican Conference Republican Steering Committee Committee on Rules Minority Leader Democratic Policy Committee Minority Whip Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee Democratic Caucus Senate Committee Hearing on the Banking Industry Subprime Mortgage Crisis 3.73 | The Political Party System The third organization characte ristic that is essential for understanding how Congress operates is the party system. The House and the Senate are organize d differently but both houses have party leadership structures. The majority party is the party with the most seats; the minority party is the party with second number of seats. The majority party in each house organizes the sessions of Congress and selects its leadership. The majority party in the House of Represen tatives selects the Speaker of the House and the majority party in the Senate choses the Majority Leader. The House of Representatives leaders are chosen by the members of the House. The Senate leaders are chosen by the members of the Senate. Leadership in the House of Representatives


64|Chapter 3: Congress The House is a much larger body than the Senate therefore th e House relies more heavily on formal rules to function. Loyalty to the party organiza tion, party leadership, and voting along party lines are also all more common in the House than in the Senate. The most powerful position in the H ouse of Representatives is the Speaker of the House, which is the only leadership position in the House that is created by the Constitution. The Speaker is a member of the majority party and is elected by their party to oversee House business, interact with the Senate and the President, and is the second in line of presidential succession. In addition to the Speaker, the House leadership includes majority and minority leaders; majority and minority whips; party policy committees that the Republicans call a Steering Committee an d Democrats call a Democratic Policy Committee; Republican and Democratic c ongressional campaign committees; and the Republican Conference and Democratic Caucus. The Senates presiding officer is determin ed by the Constitution, which sets forth that the vice-president of the United States is the ranking officer of the Senate. The vicepresident is not a member of the Senate, so he votes only in the case of a tie. The president pro tempore or the official chair of the Senate, is a largely honorary position awarded to the most senior senator of the ma jority party. The leader with power in the Senate is the majority leader, who is electe d to their position by their party. The Senate, with far fewer members than the House, is a more causal organization that relies much less on formal structures of power for organiza tion. As such, the majority party leader in the Senate has less power than the Speaker of the House. The Senate also lacks a rule committee, but has a largely similar structure to the House, in terms of the positions of power within each party.


Chapter 3: Congress|65 3.8 | How a Bill Becomes a Law Presiding Officer Vice President or President Pro Tempore Majority Leader Democrat ic Policy Committe e Majority Whip Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee Democratic Conference Democratic Steering Committee Minority Leader Repubican Committee on Committees Minority Whip Republican Congressional Campaign Committee Republican Conference Republica n Policy Committe e Leadership in the Senate Party Leadership in Congress Historical: Different Time Periods Current: Who is the current Speaker of the House? Who is the current Majority Leader in the House? Who is the current Majority Leader in the Senate? Who is the current Minority Leader in the Senate?


6 6 6|Chapt e T invo l form a cons i for c subc o and i n subc o b ill t o e r 3: Cong T he process l ving a serie a l step in ei t i deration in c onsideratio n o mmittee. T n terest grou p o mmittee se n o the full H o Ho u Bil l A s c o A s s u F u c o R u Ful l C Fu l P ress by which s of proced u t her the Hou t he legislati v n ; once in h e subcom m p s concerne d n ds the bill b o use or Sen u se l is int r signe d o mmit t signe d u bcom m u ll Co m o nside r u les C o l Hou s C onf l l Ho P resi d Congress m u ral steps th a se of Repre s v e body. T h the com m m ittee will s t d with the b i b ack to the f ate for cons r oduc d to a t ee d to a m ittee m mitte r ation o mmit t s e Vot e eren use d en t m akes legi s a t have bee n s entatives o r h e bill is int r m ittee, the b t udy the bil l i ll, and deb a f ull commit t ideration. I n ed e t ee e ce C o t ial S s lation is c o n institution a r the Senate i r oduced an d b ill is assi g l hold hear i a te and edit p t ee, who vot e n the House Sena t Bill i A ss co m A ss su b Fu l co n Full o mm i Ful l igna t o mplex an d a lized overt i i s to introd u d assigned t o gned to a n i ngs for tho s p rovisions o f e s on wheth (and only i n at e i s Int r igned m mitt e igned b comm l l Com m n sider a Senat e i ttee l Sen a at ure d drawn o u i me. The fir u ce the bill f o o a committ e n appropria t s e individua f the bill. T h h er to send t h n the Hous e r oduc e to a e e to a ittee m ittee a tion e Vote a te u t, st o r e e t e ls h e h e e ), e d


Chapter 3: Congress|67 the bill is then sent to th e House Rules committee, where the rules governing debate and amendments on the bill are decided. Both the House and the Senate debate and vote on the bill. If the bills considered by the House and Senate differ, the bills are sent to a Conference committee, which crafts a single b ill that both houses of Congress will find acceptable. The bill from the Conference committ ee is then sent back to both the House and the Senate for a final vote. If the bill passes both houses, the legislation is sent to the president for either approval (t hrough signing) or a veto. If th e president vetoes a bill, a two-third vote by both the House and the Senate can override the veto. 3.81 | Sessions of Congress A term of Congress is divided into two sessions, one for each year. Congress has occasionally also been called into an extra or special session. A new session commences on January 3 (or another date, if Congress so chooses) each year. 3.82 | Finding Legislation How can I find a federal law? Congress legislates on an extremely broad range of subjects ranging from domestic policy (clean air, clean water, obscenity or indecency on radio or television or the Internet, crime, health care) to foreign affairs (international trade, defense policy). One way to find a federa l law is through Select Multiple Previous Congresses; select Bill Summary Status ; select Congress (of your choice); select Advance Search; type in search phrase (e.g. Venezuela, for legislation related to that country); select date, or date range; and hit search. 3.9 | Additional Resources 3.91 | Internet Resources A user friendly website for information about Congress is In order to get a sense of how important cons tituency service is to members of Congress, visit the website of your congres sional representative or the si te of another member of the House of Representative: Think the Senate doesnt have a sense of humor? Senate history, art, and politic al cartoons are available at the Senate website: yout/art/g_three_sections_wit h_teasers/exhibits.htm


68|Chapter 3: Congress Study Questions 1) Discuss the powers of Congress and the differences between the House and Senate. 2) What are the constitutional powers of Congress? 3) What roles do political parties play in the organization of Congress? 4) To what extent do the various leadership positions in the House and Senate make some leaders more powerful than others? 5) Describe a typical day of a member of Congress. 6) How representative is Congress? Discuss both the theories of representation and the demographic make-up of Congress. How has this changed over time? 7) What is the traditional process by which a bill becomes a law? 8) How can Congress exercise oversight of the executive branch? Have recent congresses taken this res p onsibilit y seriousl y enou g h? TERMS: Appropriations Impeachment Enumerated powers Implied powers Necessary and proper Clause Delegate Trustee Politico Majority party Minority party Speaker of the House President pro tempore Standing committees Joint committees Conference committee Select or special committees Legislative oversight Constituency service Information about the organization, functions, and workings of Congr ess is available at ederal/Legislative.shtml, and The first C-SPAN coverage of the Senate occurred on June 2, 1986. The video, Twentyfive Years of C-SPAN2 Cove rage, is available at The Washington Post s Today in Congress section including committee hearings and votes. 3.92 | In the Library Arnold, R. Douglas. 2006. Congress, the Press, and Public Accountability Princeton University Press. Dodd, Lawrence and Bruce Oppenheimer (eds). 2001. Congress Reconsidered 7th ed. Congressional Quarterly. Mayhew, David. 2000. Americas Congress Yale University Press. OConnor, Karen (ed). 2002. Women and Congress: Running, Winning, Ruling Haworth. Tate, Katherine. 2003. Black Faces in the Mirror: African Americans and their Representatives in the U.S. Congress Princeton University Press.


Chapter 3: Congress|69 1Theodore J. Lowi and Ginsberg, Benjamin (1996). American Government Fourth Edition. New York: W.W. Norton & Company. p. 153. 2


4.0 | Introduction When the American public thinks of the presid ency, they think of the Presidentthe person whose name, face, character, and personality are prominently featured during the presidential campaign, and the person who upon taking office dominates media coverage of the federal government. The President personifies the government. The personal nature of the Presidency is reflected in the fact that Article II of the C onstitution provides that The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United states of America. The modern President personifies the federal government. But the modern presidency is actually a vast institution that consists of a large number of offices, executive departments, and agencies. The presidency consists of an individual and an office Understanding the role of the presidency in modern American government and politics requi res learning about both the President the individual who happens to occupy the Office of the Presid ent of the United States, and the presidency the institution. CHAPTER 4: The Presidency


Chapter 4: The Presidency|71 George Washington 1st President of the United States (1789-1797) This chapter examines three main issu es that are central to the presidency: The power problem: Accountability. The increase in presidential power: Presidential government? Management of the executive branch: Controlling the bureaucracy. 4.1 | The Power Problem The power problem is the difficulty of stri king that delicate balance between granting government enough power to be effective whil e also limiting power so that the people can hold government accountable. The power problem for Congress is on the effectiveness side of the scale. Congress is institutionally designed for representation of interests and deliberation; it is not de signed for decisive, effective action. The power problem for the presidency is on th e accountability side of the scale. The concentration of executive power in the hands of one indivi dual or office may increase effectiveness, but the nature of modern presidential power ma kes it hard to hold presidents legally accountable for their use of power. The nature of the presidency, the discretionary nature of presidential power, and the fact that much of a Presidents political power is personal make it hard to hold a President legally accountable for the use of government power. 4.12 | Is the Presidency Imperial or Imperiled? The rule of law is a principle that is so widely accepted as the appropriate standard for evaluating government that it is considered part of the American creed. Virtually all civics courses and introductions to American government contrast political systems based on the rule of law with those based on the rule of man. The rule of law is defined as the principle that governme ntal authority is legitimately exercised only in accordance with written, publicly disclosed laws adopted and enforced in accordance with established procedure. The rule of law principle is intended to be a safeguard against arbitrary govern ance by requiring that those who make and enforce the law ar e also bound by it. As the following description of presidential pow er indicates, the modern exer cise of presidential power is difficult to reconcile with this principle. The whole government is so identified in the minds of the people with his personality that they make him.respons ible for society itself. William H. Taft 27th President of the United States All the president is, is a glorified public relations man who spends his time flattering, kissing, and kicking people to get them to do what they are supposed to do anyway. Harry S. Truman 33rd President of the United States


72|Chapter 4: The Presidency Source: C-SPAN Survey of Historians on Presidential Leadership 4.13| Increased Power The power of the president has greatly increased over time, and that the increased power of the president has presented some challenges. The modern presidency is much more powerfu l than the Founders intended it to be. For example, Abraham Lincoln did not aspire to be president. His ambition was to serve in the Senate. The great leaders of the day, men lik e Henry Clay, Daniel Webster, and John C. Calhoun, served in the Senate which was then the greatest deliberative body in the world. The antebellum presidency was by contrast a mundane administrative job that offered little to a man of Lincolns oratorical abilities.1 The modern president is not only more powerful than the president was in the early years of the republi c but the modern president is more powerful relative to Congress. The Founders created a system of government that was based on legislative governance in the sense that Congress was intended to be the primary branch of government. The modern system of government has actually de veloped into a political system that works more like presidential or executive government. The presidency has become the primary branch of government, the most powerful branch of gover nment with more authority over more areas of public policy than was the case when the country was founded. Pr esidential power increased for a variety of reasons. One reason is crises, both domestic and fore ign, wars, and other threats to national security, concentrated power in the pr esidency because it was designed to act with greater speed than the other branches of government. The increased power of the president has caused po litical scientists to regularly take the pulse of the presidency to determine whether it is too strong, too weak, or just about right. The term Imperial Presidency is used to refer to presidents who are too strong, too powerful for our own good. The term Imperiled Presidency is used to refer to pres idents who are too weak, not powerful enough to govern effectiv ely. In the 1960s, the increase d power of the presidency caused some concern. The term Imperial Presidency was coined to describe a presidency that had grown too powerful, and resembled a monarc hy insofar as it was becoming hard to control.2 The Imperial label was initially applied to the presidencies of Lyndon Johnson (1963-1968) and Richard Nixon (1969-1974). The Imperiled Presidency label was initially applied to the presidencies of Gerald Ford (1973-1976) and Jimmy Carter (1977-1980). Pres ident Ford seemed incapable of responding effectively to the economic crises caused by th e OPEC oil embargo. The Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries oil embargo cau sed energy price increases and inflation.3 The Ford administrations response to the threat in cluded distributing WIN buttons, but the Whip Inflation Now buttons seemed a pathetically weak response to the economic threat of gas shortages. President Carter se emed incapable of responding eff ectively to nati onal security threats. The Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in 1978 and the anti-American Iranian Revolution of Best Presidents Worst Presidents 1. Lincoln 1. Buchanan 2. F. Roosevelt 2. A. Johnson 3. Washington 3. Pierce 4. T. Roosevelt 5. Truman 4. Harding 5. W. Harrison


Ronal Presid Unite d 1979, w h presiden c 4.2 | Pre s One of t h new go v Revoluti o wary of e Articles o over exe c and cons The p followin g Constitut i Enumerated Implied Inherent? d Reagan, ent of th e d States h ich includ e c y had beco m s idential P o h e main que v ernment s o nary War e xecutive p o o f Confeder a c utive powe r iderable ch e p resident h a g is a diagra m Forma l i on Sta t Dele g 40th e e d taking o m e too wea k t ( c s ( r B a 9 i d d i p o wer stions debat hould hav e fought agai n o wer. But t h a tion, one o f r concluded e cks and bal a a s both leg a m of presid e l (Legal) P t utes C a g ate d o f America n k to respond Ron a t o return to ( 1981-1988) c onfidence i n s ecurity. H ( Bush the E r enewed co n B ill Clinto n a bout both a 9 /11 terroris t 43, 2001 i mperial pre d ynamic, s u d ifferently i n i llustrates t h p lays in the U ed during t h e a single n st monarc h h e constituti o f which was with the cr e a nces. a l (or form a e ntial power s Preside n a se Law Precedent n hostages i strongly to t a ld Reagan c a stronger p marked a n American H owever, R e E lde r or 4 n cerns abo u n s tenure i a n imperial a t attacks, Pr e 2008) ten u sidency. T h u bject to s o n terms of w h e difficulty U .S. system h e constituti o executive h y made de o nal conve n the lack of a e ation of an e a l) powers a s n tial Powe r Party Leader Person a Skill s i n Iran c r e a t hese intern a c ampaigned p residency, a a return to leadership i e agans suc c 4 1), who s u t an imper i i n office ( 1 a nd an imp e esident Geo u re has re n h e fact that o much fl u w hether a str o assessing t h m of govern m o nal conven t official. T h legates to t h n tion was ca l a n executiv e e xecutive o f a nd politica Informal ( P u Op al s Chapt e a ted the im p a tional thre a for the pre a nd his ele c a strong i n foreign a f c esso r Geo r s erved fro m i led presid e 1 993-2000) e riled presi d rge W. Bus h n ewed que s presidentia l u ctuation, a n o ng preside n h e role the m m ent. t ion of 178 7 h e recent h e constitu t l led to rem e e figure. Th e f fice with c o l (or infor m (Political) u blic p inion Media e r 4: The P r p ression th a a ts. sidency ple d c tion as pre s presidency f fairs and na t r ge H. W. m 1989 to e ncy. Ironi c raised que s d ency. Sin c h s (the Yo u s tions abo u l power see m n d evaluat e n t is good o r m odern pre s 7 was wheth e memory o f t ional conv e e dy defects i e extended d o nsiderable p m al) powers E Circ u Public Address e r esidenc y a t the d ging s ident with t ional Bush 1992, c ally, s tions c e the u nger, u t an m s so e d so r ba d s ident e r the f the e ntion i n the d ebate p ower The E vents/ u mstances e s |73


74|Chapter 4: The Presidency The legal powers are provided in the Constitution, statutes, and case law. The presidents constitutional powers are set forth in Article II Compared to Article I, which sets forth congress powers, Article II is a short and general article. The statement that the executive Power shall be vested in a President is followed by brief descri ptions of how the president is selected, who is eligibility to serve as presiden t, a statement that the president is commander-in-chief, and a description of the president s appointment and treaty maki ng powers. The presidents statutory powers are extensive. As described below, congress has delegated broad powers to the president which greatly supplement the presidents constitutional powers. The presidents case law powers are based on court rulings, primarily Supreme Court precedents. One of the most intriguing aspects of presidential power is the fact that the presidents formal constitutional powers have changed very little since the founding of the republic but presidential power has changed a great deal. The major changes have occu rred in the presidents statutor y powers, case law powers, and in the political powers. 4.21| The Legal Sources In order to understand the presidency, it is very important to recognize the difference between legal and political powers. In fact, the differen ce is one of the keys to explaining the modern presidency. The Presidents constitutional powers have remained surprisingly constant (or steady) for more than 200 years. In fact, the ma jor amendment affecting pr esidential power is the 22nd Amendment and it actually reduced presiden tial power by limiting a president to serving two full terms in officethereby making a Presid ent a lame duck as s oon as the second term begins. But presidential power has increased a grea t deal since the founding of the republic, and presidential power fluctuates considerably from one president to another. What does the static 1789 1851 1910 1951 2010Presidential Power Less Power More PowerConstitutional Power of the President


Chapter 4: The Presidency|75 nature of the presidents consti tutional powers and the dynamic natu re of presidential power say about presidential power? It suggests that the ke y to understanding changes in presidential power are developments in statutory and case law as well as politics. 4.22 | The Article II Constitutional Power Presidents claim three kinds of constitutional powers: enumerated, implied, and inherent powers. The delegated powers ar e the least controversial. Enumerated powers are those that are actually mentioned or enumerated in the Constitu tion in Article II. The enumerated powers make the president the chief executive and Commander in Chief; give the president power to veto legislation, grant pardons, and make treaties and appoint ambassadors and other government officials including Supreme Court justices; and provide that the president shall from time to time report to Congress on the state of the union as well as to take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, and shall Commission all the Officers of the United States. Some of these enumerated powers are shared wi th Congress. Treaties must be ratified by the Senate. Supreme Court appointments (and some ot her high level executive appoints such as the secretaries of the executive de partments) must be confirmed by the Senate. The power of appointment provides a president with an extremely important role in the administration of the federal government. The President nominates the heads of the 15 Executive Departments, federal judges, and other government officials such as the head of the Federal Reserve Board. The Senate, however, must conf irm a nominee in order for th e person to be appointed as Secretary of Defense, Secretary of State, Attorney General, or Supreme Court Justice. Implied powers are those that are not actually mentioned in the Constitution, but which are logically related to them. Implied powers are more controversial that enumerated powers because they are not actually mentioned, but me rely implied. The following are examples of implied powers of the president. Firing. If the president has the enumerated power to appoint an official, then it is implied that the president also has the power to fire th at official. The power to fire is considered a power that is logically related to the ch ief executive responsibility to manage the executive branch. Executive Privilege. Executive privilege is a presidents power to refuse to disclose communications with his subordinates. Th e Supreme Court has recognized that this power exists in order to ensure that a president recei ves candid advice about public policy matters. Executive privilege lim its the power of Congress or the courts to compel the president or his subordi nates or advisors to disclose communications. Executive Agreements. Executive Agreements are international agreements between the leaders of countries. Executive agreements f unction like treaties but they do not require senate ratification, therefore the president control over executive agreements is greater than control over treaties. The Supreme Court has ruled that the presidents constitutional power over foreign affairs implies the pow er to enter into executive agreements. Executive Orders. An executive order is a presidential directive, usually issued to an executive branch official, which provides sp ecific guidelines on how a policy is to be implemented. Executive orders are a way for the president to manage the executive


76|Chapter 4: The Presidency branch. In effect, executive orders are a form of law or policy making by the executive branch. The most controversial kind of presidential power is inherent power. Inherent powers are not actually mentioned in the Constitution or ev en implied from enumerated powers. Inherent powers are powers that Presidents claim as inhere nt in the office, powers that the President has simply because the President is the President. Presidents have historically claimed that they have the power to do something (e.g., use military force) simply because they are President. The argument for inherent powers is that certain powe rs are inherent in the office and therefore do not require any specific legal authorization.4 The inherent powers doct rine is controversial because it is practically impossible to hold Presidents legall y accountable if they can claim that their actions do not need legal authorization. 4.23 | Statutory Powers The presidents powers are not limited to those that can be traced to the Constitution. The president also has statutory pow ers. Congress has delegated a br oad range of powers to the president to act in domestic policy and foreig n and national s ecurity affairs. Congress began delegating policy making powers to the president in the early year s of the republic. During the 20th Century, Congress delegated so much policy making power to the president that political scientists refer to the modern president as the ch ief legislator because of the important role the president plays in the legislative process. Th e following list of statutory delegations to the president is merely a short list of congressional delega tions of power to the president that shows how Congress has delegated to the president broad policymaking power in a broad range of areas. 4.24 | Statutory Delegations Hostage Act of 1868.This 19th Century Act authorized the president to take all actions necessary and proper, not amounting to war, to secure th e release of hostages. It provided that the president may act quickly to secure the release of any citizen of the United States has been unjustly deprived of his liberty by or under the authority of any foreign government. Furthermore, the president has the duty to attemp t to secure the release of any hostage and can use such means, not amounting to acts of war, as he may think necessary and proper to obtain or effectuate the release; and all the facts and proceedings relati ve thereto shall as soon as practicable be communicated by the president to Congress.5 Employment Act of 1946. This Act declared that it was the federal gove rnments responsibility to manage the economy. It also delegated to th e president the power to foster and promote free competitive enterprise, to avoid economic fluctuations or to diminish the effects thereof, and to maintain employment, productivity, and purchasing power.6 The Act was passed because of the significant increase in unemployment in the earl y 1930s and the perceived planlessness of economic policy. Gulf of Tonkin Resolution (1964). This Act authorized the pres ident to take all necessary measures to repel any armed attack against the fo rces of the United States and to prevent further aggression. Congress gave the president a blank check to fight the war in Vietnam.7


Chapter 4: The Presidency|77 Economic Stabilization Act of 1970. This Act author ized the president to st abilize prices, rents, wages, and salaries by issuing orders and regulations he deems appropriate.8 Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008. Th is Act authorized the president, acting through the secretary of the treasury, to spend up to $700 billion dollars to rescue or bailout distressed financial institutions.9 Authorizations for the Use of Military Force in Afghanistan and Iraq (2 002) In response to the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, Congress authorized the pres ident to use all means that he deems appropriate, including the use of military force, in order to enforce the UN resolutions, defend the national security interests of the United States against the threat posed by Iraq, and restore international peace and security in the region.10 The cumulative effect of congressional delegati ons has been a great in crease in the statutory powers of the president. Modern presidents have much more statutory power than early presidents. The chart below, Statutory Powers of the President Over Time, describes the statutory powers of the presid ent over time. The stepped increases indicate the statutory delegations of power. Think about it! Is it a good idea to give a president power to do whatever he deems necessary to solve a problem?


78|Chapter 4: The Presidency 4.24 | Case Law Sources of Presidential Power A third legal source of presidential power is case law. Court rulings in cases involving presidential power are an important source of pr esidential power. The Supreme Courts rulings in cases involving national security and emergency powers are an especially important source of presidential power be cause the Court has generally s upported an expansive reading of presidential power in these two circumstances. As a result, there is a large body of case law that supports presidential power. One of th e most important case law precedents is U.S. v. CurtissWright Export Corporation (1936). The case involved a major U.S. company in the business of selling weapons that challenged the President s power to issue an ex ecutive order banning companies from selling arms to two warring Sout h American countries. The Court upheld the presidents powers, and used the case to write into constitutional law the Sole Organ doctrine. The sole organ doctrine holds that the President is the sole organ of the nation in foreign affairs. The doctrine originates from a statement that Representative John Marshall made in the House of Representatives in 1799: The President is the sole organ of the nation in its external relations, and its sole representati ve with foreign nations.11 Presidents have relied on the Courts expans ive reading of presiden tial power in national security and foreign affairs. World War II, the Cold War, and the War on Terror provided presidents with many opportunities to use the sole organ doctrine to assert control over foreign affairsparticularly when challenged by Congress. The Court has generally upheld presidential claims, citing the sole organ doctrine. The enemy combatant cases that the Supreme Court decided in 2002, 2004, and 2008 were unusual, and controversial, precisely because they placed some limits on the Presidents power as commander-in-chief to decide how best to wage the war on terror. 1789 1851 1910 1951 2010Presidential Power Less PowerMore PowerStatutory Power of the President


Chapter 4: The Presidency|79 4.3 | Political Sources of Presidential Power 4.31| The Party Leader The emergence of political parties has fundament ally changed politics and government. Political parties changed government by maki ng presidents the de facto politi cal leader of the party to which they belong. The Republican and Democra tic Parties have offici al leaders, but the President is the most politically visible member of a party and the partys highest elected official. Presidents use the politi cal party as an asset to build public support for issues, to build political support for administration policies, and to organize support for electoral campaigns. President Andrew Jackson was the first President to use a mass membership party as a base of support. He served during the time when political parties cha nged from caucuses (meetings of like-minded government officials) to mass memb ership organizations (parties with whom members of the public identified). The development of political parties created a new source of power for the president among the public and othe r government officials. For example, party loyalty is one reason why members of Congre ss will support legislation for a president who shares their political party. Not all presidents have been willing or able to use the party as a base of support. President Rutherford B. Hayes wa s a Republican but he di d not consider himself beholden to either public opinion or the Republic an Party. The Republican Party apparently felt the same way about President Hayes: A lmost without exception, party leaders were contemptuous of the Puritan President and they boycotted his wineless White House functions.12 In one important respect, party loyalty underm ines the Madisonian system of institutional checks and balances. James Madison is the Founde r who is most strongly identified with the argument that political power could be held acco untable by a system of institutional checks and balances. The separation of powers into the legi slative, executive, and judicial branches was supposed to make it harder for power to be abused because each branch would jealously guard its turf from poaching by another br anch. Congress would protect its power from the executive or judicial branch; the President would protect executive power from encroachment by the congress or the courts; and the courts would protect thei r power from Congress or the President. Party loyalty can undermine the system of institutiona l checks: party loyalty can trump institutional loyalty. Members of Congress may support a presid ent of their party more than Congress, and members of the courts might suppo rt a President who shares their ideology or policy beliefs. For instance, Republican members of Congress supporte d the expansion of pres idential power during the tenure of Republican President George W. Bu sh. Diminished institutional loyalty to Congress has enabled the expansio n of presidential power. 4.32 | Personal Skills The fact that the Constitution vests the executive power in one person means that a Presidents power will depend, to some extent, on his or he r personal skills, intelligence, experience, character, leadership, and manage ment styles. The executive branch is a huge institution, and a president cannot assume that everyone will automatically do what he wants. A president can also be effective getting government officials, and members of Congress, to do what he wants by persuading them, by influencing th em. Personal skills vary from one incumbent to another, which is one reason why presidential power fluc tuates even though constitutional power remains constant.


80|Chapter 4: The Presidency A nnual State of the Union Address 4.33 | Inaugural Addresses and Annual Messages There are several formal opportunities for the President to communicate with Congress and the American people, including inaugural addresses and the State of the Union. The Presidents inaugural address is an opportunity for a President to tell Congress, the American public, and the rest of the world what he intends to do as President. The State of the Union address originates from the constitutional requirement that the President shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their C onsideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient. The State of the Unio n has changed over time, moving back and forth from a spoken to a written and back to a spok en address. The address focuses on what the president feels have been the highlights of the preced ing year, as well as his goals for the year to come. 4.34 | Events, Circumstances, Conditions Presidential power is also aff ected by the political events, ci rcumstances, and conditions facing the nation. A Pres ident whose political part y also controls Congress is usually in a better position than one who has to deal with a Congress controlled by the other party. Divided control of the federal government sometimes produces gridlock, an inability of the House of Representative, the Senate, and the Pres ident to agree on publ ic policies. Crises have historically resulted in an increas e in presidential power. In times of crisis, the public and other government officials look to the Pr esident for leadership and give him leeway to select the appropriate policy responses to the cris is. Wars and other thr eats to national security, economic crises, and other emergency conditions have also tended to increase presidential power. The Great Depression of the 1930s created an expectation that the national government respond to a national economic emergency. The Pr esident became the person held responsible for maintaining economic prosperi ty. The modern president who does not appear to be acting decisively to address problems is likely to su ffer a loss of political s upport or public approval. Public opinion polling records the effects of events or circumstances on public approval of the president. George W. Bush is a good example of the imp act of events on presidential popularity. He began his tenure in office with approval ratings of around 50%. Immediately after the 9/ll terrorist attacks, his approval rating soared to nearly 90%. Since then, his approval rating has sunk to historic lows. When he left office, his appr oval rating was around 34%.


Chapter 4: The Presidency|81 4.35 | Public Opinion In a democracy, public opinion can serve as an important source of pres idential power or an important limit on it. Strong public support adds to a Presidents formal powers, while weak public support subtracts from it. One of the mo st widely reported meas ures of public opinion about the president is the regular survey of job approval ratings. The Presidents popularity as measured by job approval is regularly measured and widely reported as a kind of presidential report card.13 Unlike the constitutional and statutory powers, which are fairly constant, public opinion is dynamic. For example, Obamas approval ratings have followed the traditional pattern of high initial approval, with eventual declines in approval ratings and increases in disapproval ratings. The 0 20 40 60 80 100Jan-89 Jan-90 Jan-91 Jan-92 Jan-93 Jan-94 Jan-95 Jan-96 Jan-97 Jan-98 Jan-99 Jan-00 Jan-01 Jan-02 Jan-03 Jan-04 Jan-05 Jan-06 Jan-07 Jan-08 Jan-09 Jan-10Approve and Disapprove Rates Approve Disapprove Approve Disapprove 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 Apr 2009 May 2009 Jul 2009 Aug 2009 Sep 2009 Nov 2009 Dec 2009 Jan 2010 Mar 2010 Apr 2010 Jun 2010 Jul 2010 Aug 2010 Oct 2010 Nov 2010Obama's approval rating % Approve % Disapprove GHW Bush Clinton GW Bush Obama


82|Chapter 4: The Presidency changes in approval ratings have resulted in Obama having less power when he pursues his policy agenda. 4.36 | The Media Presidents typically have a love -hate relationship with the media. Presidents love to use the media to get their message out, and Presidents l ove favorable coverage of themselves and their administration. But Presidents also hate bad press any critical media coverage of them or their administration. The love side of the relationship is evident in the eagerness of any administration to provide favorable photo opportun ities that reinforce the image of presidential leadership. The hate side of the relationship is apparent in st atements by presidents from Thomas Jefferson to Richard Nixon. President Jeffersons Second Inaugural Address (March 4, 1805) includes strong condemnation of press cove rage of his administration: During this course of administration, and in orde r to disturb it, the artillery of the press has been levelled against us, charged with whatsoever its licentiousness could devise or dare. These abuses of an institution so important to freedom and science, are deeply to be regretted, inasmuch as they tend to lessen its usefulness[T]hey might, indeed, have been corrected by the wholesome punishments reserved and provided by the laws of the several States against falsehood and defamation; but public duties more urgent press on the time of public servants, and the offenders have therefore been left to find their punishment in the public indignation..No inference is here intended, that the laws, provided by the State ag ainst false and defamatory publications, should not be enforced; he who has time, renders a service to public morals and public tranquillity, in reforming these abuses by the salutary coercions of the law; but the experiment is noted, to prove that, since truth and reason have maintained thei r ground against false opinions in league with false facts, the press, confined to truth, needs no other legal restraint; the public judgment will correct false reasonings and opinions, on a full hear ing of all parties; and no other definite line can be drawn between the inestimable liberty of the press and its demoralizing licentiousness. If there be still improprieties which this rule would not restrain, its supplement must be sought in the censorship of public opinion. (Courtesy of The Presidency Project John Woolley and Gerhard Peters) Richard Nixon had a difficult re lationship with the media duri ng his entire political career. President Nixons relationship with the press b ecame especially difficult when the press began investigating criminal activity related to Wate rgate and then reported on the widening scandal. The following excerpt from Presiden t Nixons News Conference on Oct. 26th 1973 reveals his disdain for the press corps: Q. Mr. President, you have lambasted the televisi on networks pretty well. Could I ask you, at the risk of reopening an obvious wound, you say after you have put on a lot of heat that you don't blame anyone. I find that a little puzzling. What is it about the television coverage of you in these past weeks and months that has so aroused your anger? THE PRESIDENT [to Robert C. Pierpoint, CBS News]. Dont get the impression that you arouse my anger. [Laughter] Q. Im afraid, sir, that I have that impression. [Laughter] THE PRESIDENT. You see, one can only be angry with those he respects. (Courtesy of The American Presidency Project: ws/index.php?pid=4022#ixzz1sa7xTDeJ)


Chapter 4: The Presidency|83 4.4 | The Office: The Organizatio n of the Executive Branch The executive branch is organized around the various functi ons of the office of the presidency. The President is the head of the executive br anch, with the vice-president and the white house staff under his direct supervision. The Executive Office of the President consists of the individuals who serve as the presidents policy advisors. These individuals also manage the various policy offices that are located in the executive branch. The final component of the presidents circle of advisors is the cabinet. The cabinet is an informal name for the heads of the fifteen executives departments e.g., the Secretaries of State, Defense, Treasury and so on. The growth of the executive branch has includ ed what is commonly ca lled the bureaucracy or the administrative state. As the chief executive o fficer, the president has a great deal of control over the administrative apparatu s that produces regulations. Department Head Year Responsibilities Secretary of State 1789 Foreign policy Secretary of the Treasury 1789 Government funds and regulation of alcohol, firearms, and tobacco Secretary of Defense 1789 National defense, overseeing military Attorney General 1870 Represents the U.S. government in federal court; investigates and prosecutes violations of federal law Secretary of the Interior 1849 Natural resources Secretary of Agriculture 1889 Farmers, food-quality, food stamps and food security Secretary of Commerce 1903 Business assistance and conducts the Census Secretary of Labor 1913 Labor programs, labor statistics, enforcement of labor laws Secretary of Health and Human Services 1953 Health and income security Secretary of Housing and Urban Development 1965 Urban and housing programs Secretary of Transportation 1966 Transportation and highway programs Secretary of Energy 1977 Energy policy and research Secretary of Education 1979 Federal education programs Secretary of Veterans Affairs 1989 Programs for veterans assistance Secretary of Homeland Security 2002 Issues relating homeland security 4.41 | The Origins of the Office of the Presidency The Treaty of Paris (1783) that ended the Revolutionary war left the United States independent and at peace but with an unsettled governmental structure. In 1777, during the war, the Second Continental Congress had drawn up the Articles of Confedera tion, a voluntary league of


84|Chapter 4: The Presidency friendship among the states. The Articles government had inherent problems, which became increasingly apparent with th e end of the war and the defeat of the common enemy (Great Britain). During the economic depression that followed the revolutionary war, the viability of the American government was threatened by political unrest in several states, most notably Shays Rebellion in Massachusetts. The Articles had created a weak federal government, one that consisted of a Congress but no president. The lack of an executive office was one of the perceived weaknesses of the Articles of Confederation. Individuals who presided over the Continental Congress during the Revolutionary period and under the Articles of Confederation had the title President of the United States of America in Congress Assembled. This title was often shortened to President of the United States. But these indi viduals had no important executive power. The Congress appeared institutionally incap able of functioning as a lawmaker for the nation, which was a barrier to the nationwide development of commerce and economic development. The constitutional convention was convened in 1787 to reform the Articles of Confederation, but the members decided to create an entirely new system of government. While most of the delegates agreed upon the need for an executive there was a long and lively debate about the nature and power of the office. The debates about executive power revealed the power problem: how to give government enough power to be effective while also limiting power so that it could be held accountable. The creation of the executive was shaped both the colonial experiences under the British monarchy, which made delegates wary of executive power, and the weakness of the Articles of Confederation, which made delegates think executive power was necessary. They ultimately created a government with an ex ecutive with considerable power but sufficient limits with a legislative-centered system of government so that the executive was made safe for republican government. 4.42 | Washington Thwarts a Threat At the close of the Revolutionary War, a perilous moment in the life of the fledgling American republic occurred as offi cers of the Continental Army met in Newburgh, New York, to discuss grievances and consider a possible insurrection against Congress. They were angry over the failure of Congress to honor its promises to the army regarding salary, bounties and life pensions. The


officers h they mig On M Washin g unautho r the prob l meeting he sugg e Meanwh was sy m officers g republic a up. Alth o appeale d George political 4.5 | Qu a naturaliz presiden t The majority or gener a Civil W a as Allie d qualifica t anti-gov e qualifica t political Party or h ad heard f r ht not be co m M arch 10, 1 g tons main r ized meetin g l ems of the c from happe n e sted they m i le, another m pathetic to g athered in a n governm e o ugh he w a d to their s e Washingto n military an d a lifications f ed citizens w t informal, p of presiden t a ls. Thirtyo a r service a s d Command e t ion for the e rnment pol i t ion for offi c qualificatio the Democ r r om Philad e m pensated a 1 783, an an camp at N g of officers c ivilian gov e n ing by for b m eet a few d a anonymous the claims o a church b u e nt may hav e a s not entir e e nse of res p n Prevents t d a political c f or Office w ho have li v o litical req u t s had prior o ne of forty s General-in e r during W presidency. i tical climat c e. Membe r n Candida t r atic Party be e lphia that t h a t all. onymous l e N ewburgh. to be held t e rnment and b idding the o a ys later, o n letter was c o f the disg r u ilding in N e e been in th e e ly welcom e p onsibility t t he Revolt o c ommander v ed in the c u irements i n experience a two presid e Chief and P W WII are ex a During pre s e, the lack o r ship in one t es usually m e cause the U h e America n e tter was ci r It addresse d he next day its financia l o fficers to m n March 15t c irculated, t h r untled offi c e wburgh. T h e ir hands. G e e d by his m t o protect t h o f the Offic e in chief as p The cons t president i n United Stat resident in years. The T president t o naturalb o r prominent such as Schwarzen e And memb e President B president. whether th e naturalb or n c ount r y for a n clude havi n a s vice pres i e nts served i n P resident Ei s a mples of h o s idential ca m o f governm e of the two m m ust receiv e U .S. has a t w n governme n r culated a m d those co m to consider l woes. Gen e m eet at the u n t h, at the re g h is time su g c ers. On M a h e fate of th e neral Was h m en, he pe r t he young r e rs. The f a p resident wa s t itutional q n clude being t es, at least the United T wenty-sec o o serving r n qualifi individuals Califor n e gger are n e rs of the B arack Oba m There is s e requirem n citizen s h a long time w n g some g o i dents, me m n the milita r senhowe r s o w military m paigns go v e nt experie n m ajor politi c e the backi n w o-party sy s Chapt e n t was goi n m ong the of f m plaints a n possible mi l e ral Washin n authorized g ular meeti n g gesting W a a rch 15, 17 8 h e American h ington une x r sonally ad d r epublic. Se a te of a nat i s avoided. q ualificatio n a naturalbo thirty-five States for o nd Amend m two terms cation me a and succ e n ia Go v ot eligible birther m o m as eligib i s ome disc u ent that a h ould be c would be e l o vernment e m bers of Co n r y. Presiden t distinguish e service is s v ernment ex p n ce is prese n c al parties is n g of eithe r s tem which m e r 4: The P r n g broke an d f icers of G e n d called f o l itary soluti o gton stoppe d meeting. In s n g of his of f a shington hi m 8 3, Washin g experimen t x pectedly sh d ressed the m e the App e i on plagued n s to be o rn citizen o years old, a at least fo u m ent also li m in office. a ns that e ssful polit i v ernor A to be pres i o vement qu e i lity to ser v u ssion tod a president c hanged so l igible to be e xperience. n gress, gove r t Ulysses G r e d military c een as a po l p erience, or n ted as a po l s also an inf o r the Repu b m akes it ha r r esidenc y d that e neral o r an o ns to d that s tead, f icers. m self g tons t with owed m and e ndix, by a come o f the a nd a u rteen m its a The some i cians A rnold i dent. e stion v e as a y of be a that come The r nors, r ant s c areer l itical in an l itical o rmal b lican r d for |85


86|Chapter 4: The Presidency From L to R: Ronald Reagan (40s t ), Gerald Ford (38th), Jimmy Carter (39th), and Richard Nixon ( 37th ) third or minor party candidates to be successful. In 1992, third-party candidate Ross Perot received nearly 19% of the popular vote. 4.6 | Selection of the President Although people commonly refer to the election of the president, the president is actually selected by the Electoral College. The way the president is chosen is very complicated and involves both election (popular votes cast in the fifty states) and selection (Electoral College votes). The United States is a republic (or indirect democracy), but the voters do not directly elect the President. Presidents are chosen indirectly by the Electoral College This process is complicated and has been criticized for years. 4.61| Elections Elections take place every four years on the Tuesda y after the first Monday in November. Many states do provide early and abse ntee voting several weeks before election day. The U.S. does not have a single, national el ection for President. Presidential elections are actu ally 50 separate elections because each state conduc ts an election for President. 4.62 | The Campaign The modern presidential campaign begi ns before the primary elections. A primary election is an election to determine who will be the politic al partys candidate for office. The two major political parties use primary elections to clear th e field of candidates in advance of their national nominating conventions. In the 2012 presidential campaign, the incumbent President Obama did not face any Democratic Party cha llengers therefore he did not have to run in primary elections, but the Republican Party held primary elections and caucuses as part of the process to determine who would receive the Republican Party nomination. Each partys nominating convention actually selects the partys nominee for president. The partys presidential candida te chooses a vice presidential nominee and this choice is rubberstamped by the convention. The party also establishes a platform on which to base its campaign. Although nominating conventions


Chapter 4: The Presidency|87 have a long history in the United States, their importance in the political process has greatly diminished. The fact that primaries determine which candidate has the most delegates to the party convention means that modern conventions usually merely ratify the results of the primary elections, rather than actually choosing the partys nominee. However, the national party conventions remain important as a way of ener gizing the parties for the general election and focusing public attention on the nominees. Nominees participate in na tionally televised debates that are sponsored by the Commission on Presidential Debates The Commission negotiates the terms of presidential debates, including setting the rules for determining which candidate are allowed to participate in the debates. The rules typically exclude candidates other than th e nominees of the two major parties. But Ross Perot was a third party candidate who was allowe d to participate in the 1992 debates. Modern presidential campaigns rely he avily on the media. Radio and te levision campaign ads show how candidates and parties packag e and sell themselves to the general public. The Museum of the Moving Image shows campaign ads from the 1952 pres idential campaign between Republican Dwight Eisenhower and Democrat Adlai Stevenson until today. Examining campaign ads shows how parties and candidates present themselves, and they show how campaigns have changed over time. 4.63 | The Electoral College The Electoral College may be the least-known and most mi sunderstood government institution in the American political systemexcept perhaps fo r the Federal Reserve Board which is another famously obscure government institution. The Founders agreed on the need for a president, but disagreed on the way to select one. While some favored national popular vote; others wanted Congress to choose the president. The Electoral College was created by the Founders because they did not trust people enough to allow them to directly elect the president. In a time of limited public education, limited communication, and a fear of sectionalism in American politics, the Founders believed that the average voter lacked the information to be an informed, unbiased judge of candidates for the presidency. Consequently they thought that the Electoral College would serve as a kind of council of wise elders w ho would choose the best person from among those who received the most popular votes in the pres idential election. The College would review the peoples choices and then decide for itself which of their preferences would be best. However, the Electoral College no longer performs this role because of the development of political parties.


88|Chapter 4: The Presidency From L to R: George H.W. Bush (41st), Barack Obama (44th), George W. Bush (43rd), William (Bill) Clinton (42nd), and Jimmy Carter (39th) Although the Constitution would allow state legislators to select the members of the Electoral College, the states have provided for the members of the Electoral College to be chosen by popular vote. At state party conventions, the state pol itical parties choose party loyalists to serve as members of the Electoral College. Whichever partys candidate wins the most popular votes in the state gets to have its members cast the states Electoral College votes. Because the members of the Electoral College are chosen by the parties, they usually cast their votes for their partys ca ndidate for president. Voters in each of the states cast their votes for president, but the Electoral College actually selects the President. Each state has the same number of Electoral College votes as it has members in the Congress. There are 535 members of Congress, so the Electoral College consists of 535 members plus three for the District of Columbia for a tota l of 538. When citizens cast their votes, the names of the presidential a nd vice presidential candidates are shown on the ballot. The vote, however, is actually cast for a slate of electors chosen by the candidates political party. In most states, the ticket that wins the most votes in a state wins all of that states electoral votes, and thus has their slate of electors chosen to vote in the Electoral College. Maine and Nebraska do not use this method. They give two electoral votes to the statewide winner and one electoral vote to the winner of each congressional district. Ne ither state has split electoral votes between candidates as a result of this system in modern elections. The winning set of electors meets at their stat es capital on the first Monday after the second Wednesday in December, a few weeks after the election, to vote, and sends a vote count to Congress. The vote count is opened by the sitti ng vice president, acting in his capacity as President of the Senate, and read aloud to a joint session of the incoming Congress, which was elected at the same time as the president. Me mbers of Congress can object to any state's vote count, provided that the objection is supported by at least one member of each house of Congress. A successful objection wi ll be followed by debate; however objections to the electoral vote count are rarely raised. In the event that no candidate receives a majo rity of the electoral vote, the House of Representatives chooses the president from among the top three contenders. However, each state delegation is given only one vote, which redu ces the power of the more populous states. 4.64 | Is It Time for a Change? The Constitution originally provided that the U.S. Electoral College would elect both the President and the Vice President in a single election. The person with a majority would become President and the runner-up would become Vice President. The electio ns of 1796 and 1800 exposed the problems with this system. In 1800 the Democratic-Republican plan to have one elector vote for Jefferson and not Aaron Burr did not work; the result was a tie in the electoral votes between Jefferson and Burr. The election was then sent to the House of Representatives, which was controlled by the Federalist Party. Most Federalists voted for Burr in order to block Jefferson from the Think about it! This satirical news report on the Electoral College is accurate. Is this any way to select a President? ch?v=BkqEdlRDKfo


Chapter 4: The Presidency|89 presidency. The result was a week of deadloc k. Jefferson, largely as a result of Hamiltons support, ultimately won. The Twelfth Amendmen t (ratified in 1804) required electors to cast two distinct votes: one for President and another for Vice President. It explicitly precluded from being Vice President those ineligible to be President: people under thirty-five years of age, those who have not inhabited the United States for at least fourteen years, and those who are not natural-born citizens. The Electoral College remains controversial today because it is inconsistent with the general principles of democracy. The Electoral College system does not provide citizens with a constitutional right to vote for president. Furt hermore, the candidate who gets the most popular votes can lose the Electoral Co llege vote. This is what happened in 2000, when Al Gore received the most popular votes but George Bush received the most Electoral College votes. And the Electoral College is biased in favor of less populous states and against more populous states. For example, the largest state by population, California, only has about one electoral vote for every 660,000 residents, while the smallest, Wyoming, has an electoral vote for about every 170,000. This m eans that a vote cast in one state is worth much more than a vot e cast in another state. So how much is a vote for president worth? It varies a great deal depending on the state. The New York Times article, How Much is Your Vote Worth? describes why a vote for Presid ent cast in a state with a small population (i.e., Wyoming or North Dakota) is worth much more than a vote cast in a stat e with a large population (i.e., California, New Yo rk, or Florida). One of the more innovative ways to think about using technology to change the way we elect the President is the creation of an electronic national pr imary election. The Americans Elect organization thinks that the curre nt party politics does not serve people, and that the solution is to create an electronic, national primary election that gives voters mo re control over the selection of candidates and the political parties less control. What do you think of the idea? 4.7 | The Bureaucracy One component of the federal government that requires some explan ation is the federal bureaucracy. Much of the federal bureaucracy is located within the executive branch. The following provides a brief definition of bureaucrac y, a description of the federal bureaucracy, and explanation of who contro ls the federal bureaucracy. 4.71 | What is a Bureaucracy? A bureaucracy is a large organi zation whose mission is to pe rform a specific function or functions. Bureaucracies are organizations with three distinctive characteristics: Think About It! What is the best way to choose a leader? Are there differences between insiders who are promoted up through the organizational ranks and outsiders? Is it a good idea to roll the dice with an outsider? 163626172/decision-time-whydo-some-leaders-leave-a-mark


90|Chapter 4: The Presidency Hierarchy. A bureaucracy structur ed hierarchically. It has a chain of command. At the top of the hierarchy are the policy makers. At the bottom of the hier archy are the policy followers. Individuals in organizations have supervisors with higher ranks within the chain of command. Division of Labor. A bureaucracy is based on the division of labor. Individuals perform specific tasks rather than having everyone do everything the organization does. The division of labor allows organi zations to develop expertise. Rules. A bureaucracy works according to writ ten rules and regulations that determine what tasks individuals are as signed. An organization that is overly bureaucratic, which has too many strict rules and regulations, is so metimes said to have too much red tape. Too many rules and regulations can limit an organizations performance of its mission. It is important to note that this definition of a bureaucrac y is not limited to government. Bureaucracy is the most common way of organi zing individuals to perform functions in the private sector and the public sect or. Corporations in the for-prof it sector and the non-profit sector are bureaucracies. Political par ties and interest groups are pr ivate sector bureaucracies. In the public sector (i.e., government), the bureaucracy is the term for some of the officials who are responsible for administering th e laws. The elected officials (the president and members of Congress) are not c onsidered members of the fede ral bureaucracy. The political appointees that run the 15 ex ecutive departments (e.g., the de partments of state, treasury, commerce, defense, and justice) are not the bureaucracy. The federal bureaucracy is the professionals or career officials who work in th e mid and lower tiers of an organization. These individuals are not electe d or appointed: they typically receive their jobs base d on civil service tests. The federal bureaucracy consists of th e people who carry out the organizations policies that are made by the upper management levels are the political appointees. Click on the organizational chart of any of the 15 executive departments to see the bureaucratic structure of the department. The following figure represents a typical ex ecutive department bureaucratic organization. Executive Department Political Appointees (Secretaries, Under-secretaries) Policy makers Professionals (Career Officials) Policy followers 4.72 | Controlling the Bureaucracy


Chapter 4: The Presidency|91 Controlling the bureaucracy is an important political issue for two reasons. First, the increase in the size of the federal government (the problem of big government) is measured largely in terms of the bureaucracy. We still have only one presid ent and the size of Congress has been fixed at 535 for around a century. Big government is measur ed primarily in terms of the increased number of administrative departments and agen cies and bureaus and independent regulatory commissions, the increased number of federal government employees, and the increased number of federal regulations. Second, the bureaucracy is an unelected fourth branch of government with policy making (or rule making) power. The bureaucracy does not fit easily into the tripartite separation of powers into the legisl ative, executive, and judicial branches. The following diagram illustrates how the bureaucracy ma kes laws. Government agencies such as the Federal Communications Commi ssion to not make legislation, but the agency (like all the executive departments and other regulatory co mmissions) has a rule making process and the rules that they make are legally binding and therefore have the same legal effect as laws passed by Congress. So who controls the bureaucracy? Congress creates the bureaucracy (the departments and agencies and commissions) and it can abolish bureaucracies. Congress also determines the budgets of the agencies, and the appointments of the heads of the 15 executive departments and the independent commissions must be confirmed by the Senate. The president plays an important role in controlling the federal bureaucracy. Ar ticle II of the Constitution vests the executive power in the president, and provides that the pr esident has, with the ad vice and consent of the Senate, the power to appoint the heads of depart ments. These constitutional provisions make the president the chief executive with responsibility for managing the federal bureaucracy. Presidents use their power of appointme nt to control the federal bureaucracy. 4.8 | Conclusions The development of the U.S. system of govern ment from a congress-centered system to a president-centered system is one of the most impo rtant changes that have occurred over the more than 200 years of the existence of the republic. The increased pow er of the president, and the personal nature of modern pres idential power, makes the power problem with the presidency even more important. The challenge is to find wa ys to hold executive power accountable. The Legislative Judicial Bureaucratic Executive


92|Chapter 4: The Presidency personal and political nature of presidential powe r, and its roots in even ts, character, personal skills, and public opinion, presents a challenge fo r a system of government committed to the rule of law. 4.8 | Additional Resources 4.81 | Internet Resources For a brief biography of your favorite or least favorite President, go to residents/georgewashington The inaugural addresses of the presiden ts are available at the Avalon Project lon/presiden/inaug/inaug.htm and at The Presidency Project The Annual Messages to Congress and th e American Public are available at The official Website of the White House is An electronic source of information about the pres idency and presidential campaigns is available as an online class: The University of North Carolina site offers bi ographies of the presidents and first ladies including links to presidential libraries. The National Portrait Gallerys Hall of Presid ents has information about and portraits of Presidents: 4.82 | In the Library Abbott, Philip. 2008. Accidental Presidents: Death, Assassination, Resignation, and Democratic Succession (The Evolving American Presidency). Palgrave Macmillian. Bradley, Richard. 2000. American Political Mythology from Kennedy to Nixon. Peter Lang Publishing. Dionne, E.J. and William Kristol (eds). 2001. Bush v. Gore: The Court Cases and the Commentary. Brookings Institution. Sauer, Patrick. 2000. The Complete Idiots Gu ide to the American Presidents. Alpha Books. Schlesinger, Arthur M. 2004. War and the American Presidency. Norton, W. W. Company, Inc. Taranto, James and Leonardo Leo (eds). 2004. Presidential Leadership: Rating the Best and the Worst in the White House. The Free Press.

PAGE 100

Chapter 4: The Presidency|93 Terms The rule of law Imperial Presidency Delegated powers Implied powers Electoral College Primary elections Study Questions 1. Discuss how the relative powers of Congress and the presidency have changed over time. 2. What is the role of the president in the legislative process? 3. What situations have r esulted in expansion of presidential powers? 4. How has the presidents role as commander in chief of the military changed over time? 5. How do the presidents cabinet and staff assist the president in exercising his duties and achieving his goals? 6. How does public opinion affect the presidency? How does the president use public opinion to achieve his policy goals? 7. If you were redesigning the Constitution from scratch, what existing presidential powers would you retain, which would you get rid of, and which would you modify? Why? Woodward, Bob. 2002. Bush at War. Simon and Schuster. 1 Stephen B. Oates, 1994. Abraham Lincoln: The Man Behind the Myths New York: HarperPerennial, p.76. 2 Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr. 1973. The Imperial Presidency. Boston and New York: Houghton Mifflin. 3 4 Louis Fisher provides an excellent description of presidential claims of inherent powers. See /pdf/Inherent-March07.pdf 5 Quoted in Dames & Moore v. Regan 453 U.S. 654 (1981). The Hostage Act was codified at 22 U.S.C. Sect. 1732 (1976). 6 ons/review/86/11/Employment_Nov1986.pdf 7 8 9 10 W-107publ243/content-detail.html

PAGE 101

94|Chapter 4: The Presidency 11 See U.S. v. Curtiss-Wright Export Corp ., 299 U.S. 304, 319 (1936). 12Wilfred E. Binkley. 1951. American Political Parties Second Edition (New York: Alfred A. Knopf), p. 321. 13 See

PAGE 102


PAGE 103

96|Chapter 5: The Judiciary 5.0 | The Judiciary All countries have courts. Courts are co nsidered an essential element of good government because of their role in the ad ministration of justice and their role in upholding the rule of law. But courts do not play the same role in all countries. In some countries courts have a very limited role relative to the political institutions. In other countries courts have a broad role. Courts play a broad role in American government and politicsa role that has been controversial from the earliest days of the republic to current events. Today courts today rule on everything from A (abortion and agriculture and airlines) to Z (zoning and zoos). The Supreme Courts most controversial decisions on ma tters such as abortion, the death penalty, school prayer, obscenity and indecency, and sexual behavior have made the Court one of the primary targets in the culture wars The term culture war refers to the political conflicts over values rather than economics. Courts and trials certainly have captured the publics imagination. The nations history is marked by famous trials of the century. And judges are prominent in popul ar culture as indicated by the number of TV Judges (e.g., The Peoples Court; Judge Judy ; Judge Joe Brown; Judge Mathis; Judge Alex; and even Judge Wapners Animal Court ). This chapter describes the role that courts play in the U.S. system of government and politics. It focuses on three main issues: The power problem for the federal courts is legitimacy: the legitimacy of judicial power in a democratic system of government. The increased power of the judiciary: the judiciary was originally called the least dangerous branch of government but court critics now refer to an imperial judiciary. The courts as government instituti ons: the relationship between law and politics. The primary focus is on the U.S. Supreme Court but some attention is paid to organization and operation of the federal cour t system. The state court systems are only briefly mentioned. Information about the Supreme Court is available at Information about the federal court system is available at and the Federal Judicial Center 5.1 | The Power Problem for the Federal Courts The power problem for Congress is effectiv eness: the modern Congress is not a particularly effective institution. The power problem for the presidency is accountability: it is difficult to hold presiden ts legally accountable for thei r actions. The power problem for the federal courts is legitimacy Legitimacy has been an issue throughout the nations history. The problem is that in democratic political systems there is a preference for policy making by elected government officials but federal judges are appointed to life terms. This makes the federal judiciary an undemocratic government institution. This is not necessarily a problem. But it is a problem if the courts have policy making powers. Presidents come and go, but the Supreme Court goes on forever. President William Howard Taft It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is. Chief Justice John Marshall in Marbury v. Madison

PAGE 104

Chapter 5: The Judiciary|97 The federal courts are not the only non-elected government institution with policy making power. The Federal Reserve Bo ard is a non-elected government body with substantial power to make economic policy re lated to inflation and employment. When assessing the legitimacy of judicial power it is important to remember that the U.S. is not a pure democracy. It is a constitutional demo cracy. The Constitution actually places a number of very important limits on majority rule. In fact, the Constitution (particularly the Bill of Rights) is a counter-majoritarian doc ument. The fact that courts interpret the Constitution means that courts sometime perform a counter-majoritarian role in the constitutional democracy. Much of the contro versy surrounding the role of the courts in the U.S. system of government and politics is about the legitimacy of courts making policy. Judicial policymaking or legislating from the bench is considered inappropriate in a political system where the elected branches of government are expected to have the primary policymaking power. The power problem for the courts is about the boundaries between the political system and the legal system, the separation of politics and law. Keeping law and politics separate is complicated by the fact that the judiciary is expected to have some degree of independence from the political system so that courts can perform one of their most important roles: enforcing ba sic rule of law values in a constitutional democracy. 5.2 | The Political History of the Supreme Court Judicial power is also controversial because co urts have historically taken sides in many of the most important and c ontroversial issues facing the nation. The Supreme Court has had four distinct eras based on the kinds of issues the Court decided during the era: the Founding Era (1790-1865); the Development Era (1865-1937); the Liberal Nationalism Era (1937); and the Conservative Count er-revolution (since 1970). Although the specific issues that the Court decided during these four eras changed, what has remained the same is that the Court has addressed ma ny of the major politic al controversies and issues of the day. The Supreme Court Timeline marks some of these eras and issues. The Supreme Court is usually referred to by the name of the Chief Justice who presided over it. 5.21 | The Founding Era (1790-1865) The C-SPAN presentation Legal Scholars Examine the Role of Courts in Democracy discusses the relationship between the courts and democracy: l-Scholars-Examine-the-Role-ofCourts-in-Democracy/10737430324-1/

PAGE 105

98|Chapter 5: The Judiciary During the Founding Era the Court was concerned with issues related to the way the new system of government actually worked, particularly issues related to the separation of powers and federalism. In fact, the Supreme Co urt took a side in the debates between the Federalists, who supported the national gov ernment, and the Anti-federalists, who supported state governments, by broadly readin g the powers of the national government. The Marshall Court (1801-1835) established the pow er of the national government in a series of rulings that broadly interprete d the powers of the national government. It established the power of judicial review in Marbury v. Madison (1803). Judicial review is the power of a court to review the actions of government officials to determine whether they are constitutional. In Marbury, the Court declared a part of the Judiciary Act of 1789 unconstitutional. The Marshall Court also ruled that Congress had complete power over interstate commerce in Gibbons v. Ogden This ruling meant that a state government could not regulate commerce among the states. The Marshall Court also established the precedent for broadly interpreting Congre ss power under the Necessary and Proper Clause in McCulloch v. Maryland (1819). Chief Justice Marshall was succeeded by Chief Justice Roger B. Taney. The Taney Court (1836) is remembered mainly for rulings that upheld the powers of the states rather than the national government. Ta ney wrote opinions that supported the idea of dual federalism, the idea that the national and state governments had power over different areas of public policy, and that ea ch level of government was supreme in its field. According to dual federalism, the na tional government is supreme in matters of foreign affairs and interstate commerce, for example, and the state governments are supreme in matters of public policy including interstate commerce, education, the regulation of morality, and crim inal justice. So the Marsha ll Court emphasized national supremacy, and the Taney Court emphasized du al federalism. The Taney Courts ruling in Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857) contributed to the sense that the Civil War was inevitable because the Court limited Congress power to limit the spread of slavery. In the years leading up to the Civil War, slavery was an issue that thre atened the union. In Dred Scott the Court struck down the Missouri Compromise of 1820 a law passed by Congress to limit the spread of sl avery in the territories. 5.22 | Development and Economic Regulation (1865-1937) This Supreme Court era is noted for cases challenging the governments power to regulate the economy. In response to problems caused by the Industrial Revolution, the government increased regulat ion of business during the Progressive Era (roughly 1890 to WWI) and the New Deal Era (1930s). The regulations in cluded anti-trust legislation, child labor laws, minimum wage and ma ximum hour laws, a nd workplace safety regulations. During this era the Court saw its role as protecting business from government regulation, and it used the power of judicial review to stri ke down laws that regulated business. The Court did not strike down a ll of these laws but in 1934 and 1935 it did declare unconstitutional many of the major prov isions of the Roosevelt Administrations New Deal. The conflict between the national political system that supported increased government regulation of business and social welfare policies that were intended to end the Great Depression and provide a greater measure of income security, and a Court that ruled many of these policies unconstitutional, came to a head in the latter 1930s. The

PAGE 106

Chapter 5: The Judiciary|99 Supreme Courts rulings limiting the governments power to regulate economic activity placed the Court in the middl e of the most controversial issues of that era. One reason for the New Deal era conflict between the political branches and the Court was an accident of history. President Franklin D. Roosevelt was unlucky in that he did not have the opportunity to appoint a me mber of the Supreme Court during his entire first term in office. Political change occurs regularly with the election calendar: every two years. But because the Justices are appoint ed to life terms, vacancies occur with retirements or death, so legal change oc curs irregularly. President Roosevelt and congressional Democrats saw the election of 19 32 as a critical election that gave them a mandate to govern. They became increasingly frustrated with Supreme Court rulings where a conservative majority (often by 63 or 5-4 margins) struck down major New Deal programs in 1935 and 1936. Roosevelt eventually proposed legislation to add another member to the Court fo r every sitting justice over the age of seventy, up to a maximum of six more memberswhich would ha ve increased the size of the Court from nine to 15 members. This proposal was very controversial, because it was obviously an attempt to get the Court to change its rulings by packing the court with new Justices who would support New Deal policies of eco nomic regulation. Although the Courts rulings striking down New D eal policies were unpopular, President Roosevelts court packing plan was considered an inappropriate attempt to exert political control over the Court. The proposal died in Congress. However, in 1937 the Court abruptly changed its rulings on economic regulation and began to uphold New Deal legislation. The Court announced that it would no longer be interested in hearing cases challeng ing the governments power to regulate the economy. The Court indicated th at it would henceforth c onsider questions about the governments power to pass economic regulati ons matters for the political branches of government to decide. The Court also announced that in the future it was going to take a special interest in cases involvi ng laws that affected the political liberti es of individuals. In effect, the Court announced that it would use judicial restraint when laws affected economic liberties but judicial activism when laws affected political liberties. The Court further explained that it was especially intere sted in protecting the rights of discrete and insular minorities. This 1937 change is called the constitutional revolution of 1937 because it was such an abrupt, major change in the Courts reading of the Constitutional and its understanding of its role in th e system of government and politics. 5.23 | The Era of Liberal Nationalism (1937-1970) In the middle years of the 20th Century, the Court participat ed in debates about civil liberties and civil rights by assuming the role of protector of individual liberties and promoter of equality. The Courts interest in civil liberties cases marks the beginning of the Courts third era. It began protecting ci vil liberties in cases involving freedom of expression (including freedom of religion, spee ch, and press); the rights of suspects and criminals in the criminal justice system; racial and ethnic minorities to equal protection of the laws; and the right to privacy. The Wa rren Court (1953-1969) is remembered for its judicial activism on behalf of civil liberties. Chief Justice Earl Warren presided over the Courts important civil liber ties cases supporting individual fr eedom and equality in both civil law and criminal law. In the 1950s and 1960s, the Courts civil li berties rulings

PAGE 107

100|Chapter 5: The Judiciary ordering school desegregation put the Court in the middle of debates about racial equality. The Warren Courts civil law rulings included the landmark school desegregation case Brown v. Board of Education (1954), and landmark right to privacy cases such as Griswold v. Connecticut (1965). In Griswold v. Connecticut the Court held that the U.S. Constitution included an implied right to priv acy that prohibited states from passing laws that made it a criminal offense to dissemi nate information about birth control devices and by implication, the implied right to privacy limited government power to regulate other aspects of sexual behavior. The Warren C ourt also issued rulings that affected the freedom of religion. In Engel v. Vitale (1962), the Court ruled th at it was unconstitutional for government officials to compose a prayer and require that it be recited in public schools. The prayer was Almighty God, we acknowledge our dependence upon Thee, and beg Thy blessings upon us, our teachers, and our country. In Abington School District v. Schempp (1963) the Court held that mandato ry Bible reading in public schools was unconstitutional. The Warren Courts criminal law rulings were no less controversial than its civil law rulings. The Court broadened the rights of suspects and convicted offenders in the state criminal justice systems. Gideon v. Wainwright (1963) broadened the right to the assistance of counsel by holding that anyone charged with a felony had a right to be provided an attorney if he or she could not afford to pay for one. Mapp v. Ohio (1961) held that the Exclusionary Rule applied to st ate courts. The Exclus ionary Rule prohibited the use of evidence seized in violation of th e Constitution in order to obtain a conviction. Miranda v. Arizona (1966) may be the most famous of the Warren Court rulings on criminal justice. It required police officers to notify suspect of their constitutional rights before questioning them. These rights include th e right to remain sile nt, the right to have the assistance of counsel, and notified that an ything said can be used in a court of law against them. These Warren Court rulings, and the Burger Courts ruling in Roe v. Wade (1973) that the right to priv acy included the right to an aborti on, put the Court in the middle of the culture warsthe political conflicts over value as opposed to economics. Judicial decisions about state laws defining marri age continue the tradition of judicial participation in the leadi ng controversies of the day. 5.24 | The Conservative Counter-Revolution One indication that the era of liberal nationalism has ended is the fact that todays Court has a different agenda than the Warren Cour t. Todays Court is conservative and the Justices are interested in different issues than the Warren Court. President Nixons election in 1968 marked the beginning of the rightward change in the countrys political direction. His appointment of f our Justices marked the beginning of the rightward change in the Courts legal direction. The 1968 pr esidential campaigns ma de crime a national issue. Candidate Nixon portrayed judges as be ing soft on crime and he pledged that as president he would appoint judges who wo uld get-tough-on-crime. President Nixon appointed four members of the Court, in cluding Chief Justice Warren Burger. The Burger Court (1969) changed the Courts ideological direction, most immediately in the area of criminal jus tice where President Nixons appoi ntment of four get-tough-oncrime Justices had an immediate impact on the Courts rulings. Crime policy is a good

PAGE 108

Chapter 5: The Judiciary|101 place to see the relationship be tween politics and the law b ecause crime is one of the basic responsibilities of governments everyw here. People expect government to protect individuals from threats to their lives and property. Americans expect the government to provide safe streets, subways, and parks, and to ensure that people are secure in their homes. Preventing crime, investigating cr imes, and arresting, prosecuting, and punishing those convicted of criminal acts is part of the national, state, and local government functions. The election of conservative Republican presidents (Nixon, Ford, Reagan, Bush 41 and Bush 43), and even conservative Demo cratic presidents (Carter and Clinton) solidified the Courts rightward movement. Because the Justices are appointed by political figures through a pol itical process (the Presiden t nominates a Justice and the Senate must confirm the nominee), it is not surprising that political changes are reflected on the Court. The selection of federal judges is an obvious contact point between law and politic, between the legal system and the political system. The Rehnquist Court (1986) was al so a conservative court. The conservative bloc of Justices had a working majority on the Court. In civil law, some of the Rehnquist Courts rulings on federalism re flected the conservati ve backlash against the liberal expansion of the powers of the federal government. Politically, conservatives advocated New Federalism during the Nixon Ad ministration. Legally, the conservatives on the Court revived the concept of federalism as a constitutional framework for allocating the powers of the national and state governments. Its rulings in U.S. v. Lopez (1995) and U.S. v. Morrison (2004), for example, limit ed Congresss use of the Commerce Clause power to regulate the posse ssion of guns near schools and violence against women. In Lopez the Court struck down the G un Free School Zones Act of 1990. In Morrison the Court struck down provisions of the Violence Against Women Act of 2000. The Roberts Court (2005present) has also established a record as a conservative Court. Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Samu el Alito were nominated in part because they had judicial records of supporting business interests. Since the late 1930s, business interests were overshadowed by all the attention paid to higher profil e, hot-button issues such as abortion, school prayer, affirmative action, and the death penalty. Business cases are now an important part of the Supreme Courts docket and the Court has issued a number of rulings that are favorable to business interests. For example, the Roberts Courts 2010 ruling striking down major parts of the federal laws regulating independent campaign contributions (Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission ) eased restrictions on corporate campaign contribut ions. The Roberts Court is also more supportive of the Accommodationist reading of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, which allows much more government support of religion than the Wall of Separation reading favored by the liberal Justices And on matters of national security, including the war on terror, Justices Roberts and Alito reflect the conservative Justices support for broadly interpreting presid ential power as Commander-in-Chief. 5.3 | The Increased Power of the Courts: Going from Third to First? In the U.S., the judiciary is called the third branch of government for two reasons First, the judiciary

PAGE 109

102|Chapter 5: The Judiciary Old Supreme Court Chambers is provided for in Articl e III of the Constitution. Second and more important, the legislative and executive branches were intend ed to be more powerful than the judiciary. The judiciary was intended to be the weakest of the thre e branches of government. Courts have always played an impor tant role in American society. In Democracy In America Alexis de Tocqueville (1835) famously said that There is hardly a political question in the United States whic h does not sooner or later turn into a judicial one. But the power of the judiciary has increased over time, and modern courts play a much more important role in government and politics than the Founders intended. The increase in judicial power is reflected in the fact that the courts were originally described as the least dangerous branch of govern ment (by Alexander Hamilton in Federalist No. 78 ) but now critics of the court a ttach the label imperial judici ary to the courts. As with Congress and the Presidency, the Supreme C ourt has changed over time as institutional norms and practices and customs became esta blished. Hamilton thought the judiciary was the least dangerous third branch because the courts had neither the power of the purse (Congress controlled the budget) nor the power of the sword (the executive branch enforced the laws). However, over time, th e Court has gained power in our political system. The following describes how that change occurred. 5.31 | The Early Years In the early years of the republ ic the Court initia lly lacked power or prestige. Early presidents had a hard time finding Justices who were willing to serve on the Court because no one really knew what the Court would do, it was not considered an important or prestigious instituti on, and one of the Justices duties (riding circuit to travel through the circuit courts) was very difficult during a period of this countrys history when frontier travel was difficult and uncomfortable. The Supreme Court first met in February 1790 at the Merchants Exchange Building in New York City, which then wa s the national capital. When Philadelphia became the capital city later in 1790 the Court followed Congress and the President there. After Washington, D.C., became the capital in 1800 the Court occupied various spaces in the U.S. Capitol building until 1935, when it moved into its own building. The Court became a more prestigious inst itution during the Marshall Court Era. In Marbury Chief Justice John Marshall argued that it was logical to r ead the Constitution to give the courts the power to interpret the laws. The Constitution is a law. In fact, the Constitution is the supreme law of the land. Therefore, the courts have the power to interpret the Constitution. Th is power of judicial review is a major source of the judiciarys power. It gives the courts the power to declare unconstitutional laws passed by Congress, executive orders or other actions of the President, administrative regulations enacted by bureaucracies, lower court judges, laws passed by state legislatures, or the actions of state governors, county commissioners, city officials, and school board policies. Courts have used judicial

PAGE 110

Chapter 5: The Judiciary|103 Statute of John Marshall in the foreground, shadowed, quotation from Marbury v. Madison (written by Marshall) engraved into the wall.UnitedStatesSupremeCourtBuilding. review to declare unconstitutional a federal income tax law, presidential regulations of the economy, state laws requiring that black children be educated separate from white children in public schools; public school policies supporting organized prayer; and laws defining marriage as a relationship between one man and one woman. The Marshall Court ended the practice of each judge issuing his or her own opinion in a case and began the tradition of having the Court announce a single decision for the Court. This change created the impre ssion that there was one Court with one view of what the Constitution meant, rather than a Court that merely consisted of individuals with differing points of view. Thus the Ma rshall Court enhanced the Courts prestige as an authoritative body with speci al competence to in terpret the C onstitution when disputes arose over its meaning. But the main reason for the expansion of the power of the courts is the power of judicial review. 5.32 | Judicial Review Judicial review is the power of courts to review the actions of government officials to determine whether they are constitutional. It is a power that all courts have, not just the Supreme Court, and it is a pow er to review the actions of any government official: laws passed by Congress; presidential actions or executive orders; regul ations promulgated by administrative agencies; laws passed by state legislatures; actions of governors; county commission decisions; school boa rd policies; city regulations ; and the rulings of lower courts. The Constitution does not explicitly grant the courts the power of judicial review. Judicial review was established as an implie d power of the courts in the landmark case Marbury v. Madison (1803), where the Court for the first time ruled that a law passed by Congress was unconstitutional. The case was a minor dispute. President John Adams signed a judicial appointment for William Marbury. His commission was signed but not delivered when a new President (Thomas Jefferson) took office. When the new administration did not give Marbury his appointment, Marbury used the Judiciary Act of 1789 to go to the Supreme Court asking for an order to deliver his commission as judge. Chief Justice John Marshalls ruling in Marbury v. Madison used syllogistic reasoning to explain why it was logical to r ead the Constitution as implying that courts have the power to review laws and declare them unconstitutional if they conflicted with the Constitution. Syllogistic logic is a form of reasoning that allows inferring true conclusions (the then statements) from given premises (the givens or if statements). Marshall structured the logical argume nt for judicial review as follows:

PAGE 111

104|Chapter 5: The Judiciary [If] the Constitution is a law, [and if] the courts interpret the laws, [then] the courts interpret the Constitution. Marshall further reasoned that courts have the power to declare a law unconstitutional: [If the] Constitution is the supreme law of the land, [and if] a law, in this case the Judiciary Act of 1789, conflicts w ith the Constitution, [then] that law is unconstitutional. Judicial review gives cour ts the power to review and declare unconstitutional laws passed by Congress, executive orders or other actions of the President, administrative regulations enacted by bureaucracies, lowe r court judges, laws passed by state legislatures, or the actions of state governors, county commi ssioners, city officials, and school board policies. Judges have used judi cial review to declar e unconstitutional a federal income tax law, presidential regulati ons of the economy, stat e laws requiring that black children be educated separate from white children in public schools, school board policies requiring the recitati on of organized prayer in pub lic schools, and laws making flag burning a crime. Some of the Founding Fathers, particul arly Federalists such as Alexander Hamilton, accepted the notion of judicial review. In Federalist No. 78 Hamilton wrote: A constitution is, in fact, and must be rega rded by the judges, as a fundamental law. It therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legisla tive body. If there should happen to be an irreconcilable variance between the two, th at which has the superior obligation and validity ought, of course, to be preferred; or, in other words, the Constitution ought to be preferred to the statute. The Antifederalists (e.g., Brutus in Antifederalist #XV) feared the judicial power would be exalted above all ot her, subject to n o controul, and superior even to Congress. Nevertheless, j udicial review has beco me a well-established power of the courts. 5.33 | Limits on Judicial Power Does judicial review make the courts more powerful than the legislative and executive branches of government because the courts can rule presidential and congressional actions unconstitutional? The courts do have the power to strike down presidential and congressional actions, which critics say makes the judiciary the most powerful, not the least powerful, branch of government. But there are limits on judicial power. The courts cannot directly enforce their rulings. Judges rely on individuals or other government officials to enforce their rulings. Judges ca nnot expect automatic compliance with their rulings. Opposition to desegregation of public sc hools after the 1954 Brown v. Board of Education was widespread. For example, in 1957 the Florida Legislature passed an Interposition Resolution that asserted that the U.S. Supreme Court did not have the authority to order states to desegregate public schools therefor e Florida government officials did not have to co mply with the Brown ruling.

PAGE 112

Chapter 5: The Judiciary|105 Interposition is a doctrine that asserts the power of a state to refuse to comply with a federal law or judicial decision th at the state considers unconstitutional. Compliance with the Courts rulings outlawing organized prayer in public schools has also been mixed. And police officer complian ce with Court rulings on search and seizure is not automatic. The courts depend on compliance by executive branch officials, such as school board members, teaching, and police officers. 5.34 | Two Concepts of Judicial Role: Restraint and Activism The legitimacy of judicial power is usually described in terms of two concepts of the appropriate rule for the j udiciary: judicial restrain t and judicial activism. Judicial restraint is defined as a belief that it is appropriate for courts to play a limited role in the government, that judges should be very hesitant to overturn decisi ons of the political branches of government, and that judges shoul d wherever possible defer to legislative and executive actions. Judicial activism is defined as a belief th at it is appropriate for courts to play a broad role in the governmentthat judges should be willing to enforce their view of what the law means regardless of political opposition in the legislative or executive branches. There are three main elements of judicial restraint. Deference to the Political Branches of G overnment. Judicial deference to legislative and executive actions is a hallm ark of judicial restraint. When judges are reluctant to overturn the decisions of the political branches of government they are exercising judicial restraint. Judges who bend over backwards to uphold government actions are exercisi ng judicial restraint. J udicial activists are less deferential to the political branches of government. Activist judges are more willing to rule that the acti ons of government officialswhether the president, the Congress, lower court judges, the bureaucracy, or state government officialsare unconstitutional. Uphold Precedent Precedent is a legal system where judges are expected to use past decisions as guides when deciding issu es that are before the court. Precedent means that judges should decide a case the same way that they have decided similar cases that have previously come before the court. When judges decide cases based on established precedent, they are exercising judicial restraint. Judges who rely on settled law are using judicial restraint. Activists are not as committed to uphold precedent. They are more willing to overturn precedents or create new ones that reflect changes in contemporary societal attitudes or values. Activist judges are less bound by what ha s been called the dead hand of the past. Only Legal Issues. Courts are institutions that are designed to settle legal disputes. Advocates of judicial restrain t believe that courts should only decide legal questions, that courts should not become involved with political, economic, social, or moral issues. One indicator of j udicial restraint is when a court limits its cases and rulings to legal disputes. It is not always clear, however, whether an issue is a legal or a politi cal issue. Cases that a ddress campaigns, voting, and elections, for instance, involve both law a nd politics because voting is considered

PAGE 113

106|Chapter 5: The Judiciary a right, rather than merely a political privilege. Judicial activists are less concerned about getting the courts involve d with cases or i ssues that affect politics, economics, or social issues. They are willing to issue rulings that affect politics because they dont necessarily se e a bright dividing li ne between politics and law. 5.35 | Ideology and Roles It is important to note that the above defin itions of restraint and activism do not mention ideology. Judicial restraint and activism are not intrinsically conservative or liberal even though restraint is often considered conservative and activism is often considered liberal. Sometimes the Supreme Courts activism is conservative. The Marshall Court was a conservative activist court. During the 1930s th e Court was a conservative activist court. In fact, during most of the Supreme Court s history it activism has been primarily politically conservative. During the period 1937-1970 the Courts activism was generally liberalwhich is why activism is today most of ten associated with liberalism. However, the Court has once again become a primarily conservative activist Court. The Rehnquist Court has been a conservative activist C ourt using federalism and the separation of powers to strike down federal legislation su ch as the Violence Against Women Act and the Gun Free School Zones Act and provision s of the Brady Handgun Control Act. And with its ruling in Bush v. Gore (2000), the Rehnquist Court intervened in the 2000 presidential election dispute in Florida to ensure that George W. Bush became President despite receiving fewer votes than Al Gore. The Roberts Court has continued the trend toward conservative activism. Its rulings have most notably ignored established precedent to overturn existing campaign finance laws an d to create a new indi vidual right to keep and bear arms. 5.4 | Courts as Government Institutions A court can be defined as a government body designed for settling legal disputes according to law. In the U.S. courts have two primary functions: dispute resolution and law interpretation Dispute Resolution The dispute resolution function of courts is to settle disputes according to law. This is a universal function associated with courts. Courts provide a place and a method for peaceably se ttling the kinds of disputes or conflicts that inevitably arise in a society. These disputes or conflicts could be settled in ot her ways. They could be settled by violence, vendettas, feuds, duels, fi ghts, war, vigilantism, or political power. One justice problem with these methods of dispute resolution is that the physically strong, or the more numerous, or the more politically powerful will generally prevail over the physically weaker, the less numerous, or the less politically powerful. These alternative methods of dispute resolution tend to work according to the old maxim: Might makes right. The modern preference for se ttling disputes peaceably according to law rather than violence or political power has made the dispute resolution function of courts a non-controversial function because th ey are associated with justice.

PAGE 114

Chapter 5: The Judiciary|107 Dispute resolution is the primary function of trial courts. A trial is a fact-finding process for determining who did what to whom. In a civil trial, the court might determine whether one individual (the re spondent) did violate the term s of a contract to provide another individual (the plaintiff) with speci fied goods or services, or whether a doctors treatment of a patient constituted medical malpractice, or whether a manufacturer violated product liability laws. In a criminal trial, the court might determine whether an individual (the defendant) did what the gove rnment (the prosecution) has accused him of doing. These are all examples of the dispute resolution function of courts. The dispute resolution function of courts is familiar to most people as a courtroom trial where the lawyers who represent the two sides in a case try to convince a neutral third party (usually a jury) that they are right. In one sense, a trial is nothing more than a decision making process, a set of ru les for making a decision. But a trial is a distinctive decision making process because it relies so heavily on very elaborate procedural rules. The rules of evidence (wha t physical or testimonial evidence can and cannot be introduced) are very complicated. Th e rules of evidence ar e important because the decision (the trial verdict) is supposed to be based solely on the evidence introduced at trial. Trials have captured the political a nd cultural imagination so much so that famous trials are an important part of the political culture of many countries including the U.S. Law Interpretation The second function of courts is law interpretation. Law interpretation is deciding what the law mean s when there is a disagreement about what a law means, conflicting provisi ons of a law, or even conf licts between two laws. An example of law interpretation is when courts decide whether a police officers search of a persons car constitute s a violation of the Fourth Amendments prohibition against unreasonable search and seizure. Courts are asked to determine the meaning of unreasonable. Another example of law inte rpretation is when courts decide whether the death penalty (or imposing the death penalty on minors or mentally handicapped persons with an I.Q. below 70) is uncons titutional because it violates the Eighth Amendment prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment. Law interpretation is primarily the function of appellate courts Appeals courts do not conduct trials to determine facts; they decide the correct interpretation of the law when a party appeals the decision of a trial court. Law interpretation is a much more controversial function than dispute reso lution because it involves judges making decisions about what the law means. The Supreme Court makes legal policy when it decides whether police practices related to s earch and seizure or que stioning suspects are consistent with the Fourth Amendment wa rrant requirements or the Fifth Amendment due process of law. It makes legal policy when it decides whether the death penalty constitutes cruel or unusual punishment. It ma kes policy when it decides whether laws restricting abortion violate the right to privacy. It makes policy when it reads the Fourteenth Amendment Equal Protection Clause to require one pers on, one vote. It also makes policy when it decides whether the trad itional definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman deprives gays a nd lesbians of the Equal Protection of the laws. The law interpretation function is often political and often cont roversial because it gets the courts involve d with making policy. The dispute resolution function is not very controversial. There is broad public support for the idea of government creating co urts to peaceably settle conflicts according

PAGE 115

108|Chapter 5: The Judiciary The judicial Power of the United States, sh all be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behavior, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation which shall not be diminish ed during their Con tinuance in Office. to law. Law interpretation is the controversia l function of courts be cause it gets courts involved with policy making. 5.5 | The U.S. Court System 5.51| The Organization of the Federal Court System The U.S. has a federal system of government that consists of one national government and fifty state governments. It is sometimes said that the U.S. has two court systems: the federal court system and the state court systems. But it can also be said that the U.S. has 51 courts systems and 51 systems of law becau se each state has substantial autonomy, as an aspect of state s overeignty, to create its own court system and its own system of criminal and civil laws. The Federal Court System consists of one Supreme Court, 13 Courts of Appeals, 94 District Courts, and some special or legislative courts (including a court of claims, a court of veterans appeals, and Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Courts). 5.52 | The Supreme Court of the United States The Supreme Court (SCOTUS) is the highest c ourt in the United States. It is also the head of the judicial branch of the federal government and as such has administrative and legal responsibilities for managing the entir e federal court system. The Supreme Court consists of nine Justices: the Chief Justice a nd eight Associate Justices. The Justices are nominated by the President and confirmed with the advice and consent of the Senate to serve terms that last a lifetime or during good behavior. Federal judges can be removed only by resignation, or by impeach ment and subsequent conviction. The Supreme Court is the only court es tablished by the Constitution. All other federal courts are created by Congress. Article III of the Constitution provides that:

PAGE 116

Chapter 5: The Judiciary|109 5.53 | The Supreme Court Jurisdiction The term jurisdiction refers to a courts authority to hear a case. The Supreme Courts jurisdiction is provided in the Const itution, statutes, and case law precedents. Constitutional Article III provides that judicial powe r shall extend to all Casesarising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties. The Court has both original and appellate ju risdiction, but the Court is primarily an appellate court. The Courts original jurisdiction (that is its authority to sit as a body hearing a case for the first time, as a kind of trial court) is limited to cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consul s, and those in which a State shall be Party The Founders gave the Supreme Court original jurisdic tion over cases where states are parties in order to remove the case from the geogr aphic jurisdiction of a state. They believed it served the in terests of justice to have a le gal dispute between two states be decided by a federal court that was not physic ally located in a state. In all other cases, the Court has appellate jurisdiction; that is it reviews the decisions of lower courts. Statutory. Congress also has statutory authority to determine the jurisdiction of federal courts. The Federal Judicial Center lists Landmark Judicial Legislation related to the organization and jurisdiction of the federal c ourts from the Judiciary Act of 1789 to the creation of the federal circuit in 1982. Congress has attempted to prohibit the courts from hearing controversia l issues by passing court stripping laws that prohibit federal courts from hearing cases involving flag burning or school prayer for instance. The Detainee Treatment Act limited the jurisdiction of courts to hear cases invo lving habeas corpus application of a Guantanamo Bay detainee.1 The Constitution specifies that the Supreme Court may exercise original jurisdiction in cases affecting ambassadors and other diplomats, and in cases in which a state is a party. In all other cases, however, the Supreme Court has only appell ate jurisdiction. The Supreme Court considers cases based on its original jurisdiction very rarely; almost all cases are brought to the Supreme Court on appeal. In practice, the only original juri sdiction cases heard by th e Court are disputes between two or more states. The power of the Supreme Court to consider appeals from state courts, rather than just federal courts, was created by the Judiciary Act of 1789 Under Article III, federal courts may only entertain cases or controversies which means federal courts are not supposed to hear hypothetical disputes. Case Law Precedents The Supreme Court also has authority to determine the jurisdiction of the federal courts. Its case la w rulings and its administrative rules describe the kinds of cases or issues that federal cour ts hear. The Courts Ru le 10 provides that a petition for certiorari should be granted only for compelling reasons. One such reason is to resolve lower court conflicts. A lower co urt conflict occurs when different courts interpret the same law differently. An exam ple of lower court conflict is the rulings upholding and striking down the Affordable Care Act. Other compelling reasons to accept an appeal are to correct a clear departure from judicial procedures or to address an important question of law. A writ of certiorari is a request to a higher court to review the decision of a lower court. The Court receiv es around 7,000 petitions each year, but issues only 75 or so decisions each year, so the C ourt has an elaborate screening process for

PAGE 117

110|Chapter 5: The Judiciary determining which writs will be accepted. After the Court grants the writ of certiorari, the parties file written briefs and the case is scheduled for oral argument. If the parties consent and the Court approves, interested individuals or organizations may file amicus curiae or friend of the court briefs which provide the Cour t with additional information about the issues presented in a case. 5.54 | The Supreme Court Term The Supreme Court meets in the United Stat es Supreme Court bu ilding in Washington D.C. Its annual term starts on the first M onday in October and finishes sometime during the following June or July. Each term consists of alternating two week intervals. During the first interval, the court is in session, or sitting, and hears cases. During the second interval, the court is recessed to consider and write opinions on cases it has heard. The Court holds two-week oral argument sessions each month from October through April. Each side has half an hour to present its argumentbut the Justices often interrupt them as you can tell when listening to the Oyez audio recordings. After oral argument, the Justices schedul e conferences to deliberate and then take a preliminary vote. Cases are decided by majori ty vote of the Justices. The most senior Justice in the majority assigns the initial dr aft of the Courts opinion to a Justice voting with the majority. Drafts of the Courts op inion, as well as any concurring or dissenting opinions, circulate among the Justices until th e Court is prepared to announce the ruling.2 5.6 | The Selection of Federal Judges Article II grants the Presid ent power to nominate federal judges, whose appointments must be confirmed by the Senate. The individual Justices and the Court as an institution are not political like Congre ss and the President. Partisan ship, for example, is less apparent. But individual Justices and the Cour t are described in political terms primarily as conservative, moderate, or liberal rather than as member s of a political party. Media accounts of the Court refer to the right wing, the left wing, and th e swing or moderate Justices. Presidents nominate individuals who share their id eological views, and Senators also consider ideology when considering whether to ratify a nominee. Presidents generally get Justices who vote the way they were expected to vote but there are some prominent examples of Justices voting contrary to the expect ations of the President who nominated them: Oliver Wendell Holmes di sappointed President Theodore Roosevelt; Chief Justice Earl Warren disappointed Presid ent Eisenhower who expected Warren to be a traditional conservative but he presided over the most liberal Court in the Court's history; Justice Harry Blackmun became more liberal that President Nixon expected him to be; and Justice David Souter s voting record was more li beral than President George H. W. Bush expected. The Constitution does not provide any qualifications for federal judges. A member of the Court does not even have to be a lawyer. The President may nominate anyone to serve and the Senate can reject a nominee for any reason. But most members of the Court have been graduates of prestigious law schools and in recent years, individuals who have had prior judicial experience.

PAGE 118

Chapter 5: The Judiciary|111 The Supreme Court of the United States, 2010 5.61 | Demographics In addition to political factors such as party and ideology, a nd legal factors such as legal training, the Courts membership is examined in terms of demographic factors such as race, ethnicity, age, gender, and religion. Th e Court is not a repres entative institution. For the first 180 years, the Cour ts membership almost exclusiv ely white male Protestant. In 1967 Thurgood Marshall became the first Bl ack member of the Court. In 1981, Sandra Day OConnor became the first female memb er of the Court. But it is interesting to note that the liberal Marshall was replac ed by a conservative, Clarence Thomas, and the two female members of the Court did not share an ideological perspective. Justice Brandeis became the first Jewish Justice in 1916. In 2006 Samuel Alito became the fifth sitting Catholic Justice, which gave the Court a Catholic majority. 5.62 | Senate Hearings As the courts have played a broader role in our system of government and politics, the confirmation process has attracted more at tention from interest groups, the media, political parties, and the gene ral public. One form of participation in the confirmation process is lobbying senators to vote to conf irm or to reject a nominee. The Senate Judiciary Committee conducts hearings, ques tioning nominees to determine their suitability. At the close of confirmation hearings, the Committee votes on whether the nomination should go to the full Senate with a positive, negative or neutral report. The practice of a judicial nominee be ing questioned by the Senate Judiciary Committee began in the 1920s as efforts by the nominees to respond to critics or to

PAGE 119

112|Chapter 5: The Judiciary answer specific concerns. The modern Senate practice of questioning nominees on their judicial views began in the 1950s, after the Suprem e Court had become a controversial institution after the Brown v. Board of Education decision and other co ntroversial rulings. After the Senate Judiciary Committee hearings and vote, the whole Senate considers the nominee. A simple majority vote is required to confirm or to reje ct a nominee. Although the Senate can reject a nominee for any reas on, even reasons not rela ted to professional qualifications, it is by tradition that a vote against a nominee is for cause. It is assumed that the Presidents nominee will be conf irmed unless there are good reasons for voting against the nominee. And so rejections are re latively rare. The most recent rejection of a nominee by vote of the full Senate came in 1987, when the Senate refused to confirm Robert Bork. A President who thinks that his nominee has little chance of being confirmed is likely to withdraw the nomination. 5.63 | Vacancies The Constitution provides that Justices sha ll hold their Offices during good Behavior. A Justice may be removed by impeachment a nd conviction by congressional vote. Only one Justice (Samuel Chase in 1805) has been impeached by the House and he was acquitted by the Senate. His impeachment was part of the eras inte nse partisan political struggles between the Federalists and Je ffersonian-Republicans. As a result, impeachment gained a bad reputation as a part isan measure to inappropriately control the Court rather than as a legitimate way to hold judges accountable as public officials. Court vacancies do not occur regularly. Th ere are times when retirement, death, or resignations produce vacancies in fairly quick succession. In the early 1970s, for example, Hugo Black and John Marshall Harlan II retired within a week of each other because of health problems. There are othe r times when a great length of time passes between nominations. Eleven years passed between Stephen Breyers nomination in 1994 Justice OConnors retirement in 2005. Only four Presidents have been unable to appoint a Justice: William H. Harrison, Zachary Taylor, Andrew Johnson, and Jimmy Carter. The Chief Justice can give retired Suprem e Court Justices temporary assignments to sit with U.S. Courts of Appeals. These assignments are similar to the senior status, the semi-retired status of other federal court judges. Justices typically st rategically plan their decisions to leave the bench so that their successor will be appointed by a President who is most likely to nominate a person who will share their partisan or ideological views of the role of the Court. This is possible because the Justices have lifetime appointments. They decide when to retire, usually because of age and infirmity. 5.64 | The Size of the Supreme Court The Constitution does not specify the size of the Supreme Court. Congress determines the number of Justices. The Judiciary Act of 1789 set the number of Justices at six. President Washington appointed six Justicesbut the first session of the Supreme Court in January 1790 was adjourned because of a lack of a quorum. The size of the Court was expanded to seven members in 1807, nine in 1837, and ten in 1863. In Judicial Circuits Act of 1866 provided that the next three C ourt vacancies would not be filled. The Act was passed to deny President Johnson the opportunity to appoint Justices. The Circuit

PAGE 120

Chapter 5: The Judiciary|113 Judges Act of 1869 set the number at nine again where it has remained ever since. In February of 1937 President Franklin D. Roos evelt proposed the Judi ciary Reorganization Bill to expand the Court by allowing an addi tional Justice for every sitting Justice who reached the age of seventy but did not retire (up to a maximum Court size of fifteen). The Bill failed because members of Congress saw it as a court packing plan. Roosevelt was in office so long that was able to appoint ei ght Justices and promot e one Associate Justice to Chief Justice. 5.7 | Deciding Cases: Is it Law or Politics? One of the most frequently asked questions about the courts is whether judges decide cases based on law or politics. This question goes to the heart of the legitimacy problem. To answer the question lets look first at the Supreme Court as an institution. The Supreme Court has almost complete control ov er the cases that it hears. The Supreme Court controls its docket It decides only 80-90 of the approximately 10,000 cases it is asked to decide each year. This means that the Court decides which issues to decide and which issues not to decide. This is, in a sense, political power. The role of law and politics in an indivi dual Justices decision making is of more direct interest. Legal scholars identify a vari ety of influences or factors that explain judicial decisions. But there are two general m odels of judicial decision making: a legal model and a political (or extralegal) model. The legal model of deciding cases explains judicial decisions as based on legal factors (the law and the facts of the case). The political model explains decisions as based on behavioral factors (d emographics such as race, gender, religion, ethnicity, age), attitu dinal factors (political, ideological, or partisan), or public opinion. The legal methods include the plain meaning of the words, the intentions of the framers, and precedent. The most political method is interpretation, where judges decide cases based on their own be liefs about what the la w is or should be, or contemporary societal e xpectations of justice. 5.71 | Understanding the Methods of Deciding Cases In a system of government based on the rule of law, it makes sense to expect that judges would decide cases based on the written law, whether it is the Constitution, a statue, or an administrative regulation. The following is a lo gical order in which judges decide cases. 1. Plain Meaning of Words (What the law says) 2. Intentions of Framers (What the words mean) 3. Precedent (Stare decisis) 4. Interpretation Method Most Legal Most Political

PAGE 121

114|Chapter 5: The Judiciary 5.72 | Plain Meaning of the Words This method of deciding a case entails a judge reading the law to determine whether case can be decided by the plain meaning of the words. Sometimes the meaning of the law is plain. The Constitution requires that a President be 35 years old and a native born citizen. But some provisions of the Cons titution are ambiguous. The Fifth Amendment provides that No person shall be... deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law The Eighth Amendment pr ohibits cruel and unusual punishments. It is impossible to read the phrases due process or cruel and unusual punishment and arrive at a plain meaning of the words. J udges must use other methods to determine the meaning of these general provisions of the Constitution. Statutes can present a similar prob lem. The Communication Decency Act of 1996, for instance, made it a felony to knowingly transmit obscene or indecent messages to a person under age 18. It is easy to determine whether a person who was sent a message was under age 18; it is virtua lly impossible to define with any precision the meaning of indecent, therefore the mean ing of the word requires interpretation. 5.73 | Intentions of the Framers If the plain meaning of the words (what the words say) is not clear, then a judge can rely on another method of deciding a case: the intentions of thos e who wrote the law. This method relies on determining the intentions of the frames, what the individuals who wrote the law intended the words to mean. In order to determine what the words of the Constitution mean, a judge could examine the Records of the Consti tutional Convention, the writings or letters of the delegates to the Constitutional Convention of 1787, the Federalist Papers (a series of essays by James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and John Jay supporting the adoption of the new Constitution), or the writings of the Antifederalists (authors who opposed the ratificatio n of the new constitution). In order to determine the meaning of the words in a constitutional amendment, a judge might examine the Congressional Record for evidence of the intentions of the framers. The congressional debates surrounding the adopti on of the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments, for example, can provide a better understandi ng of the purposes of these three post-Civil War Amendments. 5.74 | Precedent The U.S. legal system is based on precedent or stare decisis Stare decisis is Latin for let the previous decision stand. The syst em of precedent means a judge is expected to decide a current issue the way a previous issue was decided. Although precedent may seem like a legalistic way to decide cas es, it is actually based on a common sense expectation of justice: an expectation that an individual will be treated the way other similarly situated individuals were treated. In this sense, precedent is a basic element of fairness. Precedent is a system where the past guides the present. But courts cannot always decide a case by looking backward at how other courts decided a question or legal issue. Sometimes a judge may think it is inappropriate to decide a current question the same

PAGE 122

Chapter 5: The Judiciary|115 The Florida State Court System 1 Supreme Court 5 District Court of Appeals 20 Circuit Courts 67 County Courtsway it was decided in the past Attitudes toward equality and the treatment of women for example may have changed. Or attitudes toward corporal punishment may have changed. Rigidly adhering to preceden t does not readily allow for legal change. And sometimes courts are presented with new issues for whic h there is no clearly es tablished precedent. Advances in science and techno logy, for instance, presented the courts with new issues such as patenting new life forms created in the laboratory or the property rights to discoveries from the Human Genome Project. When the plain meaning of the words, the intentions of the framers, and precedent do not determine the outcome of a case, then judges sometimes turn to another method: interpretation. 5.75 | Interpretation Interpretation is defined as a judge deciding a case based on her or his own understanding of what the law s hould mean, or modern societys expectations of what the law should mean. Take, for example, the problem of deciding what the Eigh th Amendments prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment means. Should it refer to what people thought was cruel in the 18th Century, or should the sta ndards of modern or civilized society be used to inte rpret what punishment is prohibited? Interpretation is contro versial because it gives judges a great deal of freedom to decide what the law mean s. Interpretation is also called political decision-making, legislating from the bench, or activism because judges determine what the law means rather than those who wrote the law. This is sometimes called legislating from the bench, or judicial activism. Judicial restraint usually means judicial deference to th e other branches of government, upholding precedent, and deciding only legal (not economic, social, or political) issues. 5.7 | The 50 State Court System The U.S. system of federalism gives each state substantive power to establish its own court systems and its own system of civil and criminal laws. Therefore the U.S. does not have two court systems (one federal and one state). It has fifty-one systems: one federa l and 50 separate state court systems. The Florida Supreme Court has responsibility for the administration or management of the entire state court system. These responsibilities include budgeting and allocation of judici al resources. The Supreme Court also has to hear Think about it! Should judges make policy? What does Justice Antonin Scalia say about reading the law? ur/bb/law/julydec12/scalia_08-09.html

PAGE 123

116|Chapter 5: The Judiciary appeals from death penalty sentences, cases in which a defendant receives capital punishment. 5.8 | Additional Resources 5.81 | Internet Resources Landmark Supreme Court cases are available at A gallery of famous trials (e.g., Socrates, Galileo, the Salem Witch Trials, John Peter Zenger, and the Oklahoma City Bomber) are available at htt:// rojects/ftrials/ftrials.htm Information about the organization and functions of the federal court system, including a court locator to find the federal courts in your area or information about serving as a juror, is available at The full text and summaries of Supreme Cour t opinions, as well as audio recordings of the oral arguments before the U.S. Suprem e Court are available at the Oyez Project: Videos of the Justices explaining their view s on how they see their individual job as Justices and the Courts role as an institution in their own words are available at the CSPAN Web site: Information about the 50 state court systems is available at The National Center for State Courts: For Information about Floridas death row, a virtual tour of a prison cell, or other information about convicted offenders on the death row roster is available at the My Florida Web site (click Government, Execu tive Branch, Department of Corrections): The link to death row fact sheets is Additional information about the Supreme Court is available at and ecourt/educators/lp4c.html Demographic information about the Suprem e Court Justices is available at 5.82 | In the Library Ball, Howard. Supreme Court and the Intimate Lives of Americans: Birth, Sex, Marriage, Childrearing, and Death. New York University Press, 2004.

PAGE 124

Chapter 5: The Judiciary|117 Bugliosi, Vincent et. al. The Betrayal of America: How the Supreme Court Undermined Our Constitution and Chose Our President. Thunders Mouth Press, 2001. Cooper, Philip. Battles on the Bench: Conflict In side the Supreme Court. University Press of Kansas, 1999. Dworkin, Ronald (ed). Badly Flawed Election: Debating Bush v. Gore, the Supreme Court, American Democracy. The New Press, 2002. Garbus, Martin. Courting Di saster. Times Books, 2002. Gregory, Leland H. Presumed Ignorant! Over 400 Cases of Legal Looniness, Daffy Defendants, and Bloopers from the Benc h. Bantam Books, 1998. Hall, Kermit (ed). Conscience and Belief: The S upreme Court and Religion. Garland Publishers, 2000. Hammond, Thomas H., Chris W. Bonneau, and Re ginald S. Sheehan. Strategic Behavior and Policy Choice On The U.S. Supreme Court. Stanford University Press, 2005. Hansford, Thomas G. and James F., II Spriggs. The Politics of Precedent on the U.S. Supreme Court. Princeton University Press, 2006. Hitchcock, James and Robert P. George (ed). The Supreme Court and Religion in American Life: From Higher Law to Sectarian Scruples (New Forum Books Series), Vol. 2. Princeton University Press, 2004. Lazarus, Edward. Closed Chambers: The First Eyewitness Account of the Epic Struggles Inside the Supreme Court. Times Books, 1998. Lipkin,, Robert. Constitutional Revolutions: Pragmatism and the Role of Judicial Review in American Constitutionalism. Duke University Press, 2000. Lopeman, Charles S. The Activist Advocate: Po licy Making in State Supreme Courts. Praeger, 1999. McCloskey, Robert and Sanford Levinson. The American Supreme Court, 3/e. University of Chicago Press, 2000. Mourtada-Sabbah, Nada. The Political Question Doctrine and the Supreme Court of the United States. Lexington Books, 2007. Noonan, John T. Narrowing the Nations Power: The Supreme Court Sides with the States. University of California Press, 2002. Peppers, Todd C. Courtiers of th e Marble Palace: The Rise and Influence of the Supreme Court Law Clerk. Stanford University Press, 2006. Raskin, Jamin B. Overruling Democracy: The Supreme Court Versus the American People. Taylor and Francis, Inc., 2004. Rehnquist, William H. The Supreme Court. Knopf, 2001. Schwartz, Herman. The Rehnquist Court. Hill and Wang, 2002. Starr, Kenneth. First Among Equals: The Supr eme Court in American Life. Warner, 2002. Toobin, Jeffery. The Nine: Inside the Secret World of the Supreme Court. Anchor, 2008. Yarbrough, Tinsley. The Rehnquist Court and the Constitution. Oxford University Press, 2001.

PAGE 125

118|Chapter 5: The Judiciary 5.84 | Discussion Questions 1. Discuss the importance of the Marshall Court. 2. Explain stare decisis and the role it plays in the American judicial system. What did William Rehnquist mean when he called stare decisis a cornerstone of our legal system but said that it has less power in constitutional cases? Do you agree with him? 3. Describe the racial, ethnic, and gender makeup of the federal courts. Does it matter that some groups are underrepresented and other groups are overrepresented? Why? 4. Discuss the criteria for nominating Supreme Court justices and the process by which the nominees are confirmed. How has the process changed in recent years? 5. Discuss the advantages and disadvantages of judicial activism and judicial restraint. 6. Compare and contrast the attitudinal, behavioral, and strategic models of judicial decision making. Explain which of these models most accurately captures how judges make their decisions. 7. What factors affect the impl ementation of court rulings? Should courts be given additional power to implement decisions? 5.83| Terms Legitimacy Judicial restraint Judicial activism Judicial review dispute resolution law interpretation precedent

PAGE 126

Chapter 5: The Judiciary|119 1 etainee-treatment-act-of-2005-white.php 2 The Courts annual case schedule and docket are available at

PAGE 127

Chapter Six FEDERALISM CHAPTER 6: Federalism

PAGE 128

Chapter 6: Federalism|121 6.0 | Why Federalism? What is federalism? Why have a federal sy stem of government? How does the U.S. system of federalism work today? These are some of the questions that will be answered in this chapter. The chapter Defines federalism. Explains the logic of the U. S. system of federalism. Describes how the U.S. system of federalism works today, and Examines the power problem with federalism. The general public does not think about federa lism very much a nd therefore does not have much to say one way or another about federalism itself.1 The average voter has stronger opinions about crimin al justice policy, education, abortion, immigration, or national security policy than opinions about federalism Federalism tends to be considered a technical matter of interest to gov ernment officials or political insiders more than the general public. Americans do, how ever, have strong opinions about big governmentand opinions about big government ar e often directly related to federalism because big government is a euphemism fo r the federal government of Washington. In fact, political opinion about public polices related to crime, education, abortion, the environment, health care, and immigration is usually related to opinions about federalism because they include opinions about whethe r the policies should be state or national government policies. Federalism is a two-tiered system of government in which power is divided between a national (or central) government and subnational un its (states, provinces, or regional governments). Therefore federalism is a geographic division of power. In the U.S., power is distributed be tween the national government and state governments. The number of states has grown from the original 13 to 50 today with th e addition of Hawaii in 1959. In other countries wi th federal systems (e.g., Argentina, Australia, Canada, Germany, and India) the regional governments are called provinces. Constitutional federalism means that neither the national nor the state governments can abolish one another because both levels of government ar e the creatures of the constitution. A state such Alabama or Vermont or Wyoming is not a creature of the national government or a mere local administrative unit of the national government. In the U.S. system of federalism, both the national and state govern ments are sovereign political entities. Federalism is based on the concept of dua l sovereignty: both th e national and state governments have sovereignty. Sovereignty is defined as having the ultimate or highest authority. Is it possible to ha ve two sovereigns with authority over the same geographic area and people? The idea of dual sovereigns does seem to conflict with the concept of sovereignty as ultimate government authority. In fact, this is the source of the power problem with federalism. The image below de picts political fighti ng over federalism in Australia, which is analogous to the 50 stat es fighting with one other in the U.S. The power problem with federal systems of government is the need to strike the right balance of power betw een the state governments and the federal government. The Constitution provides for a federal system but with a few notable exceptions, such as the power to coin money and the power to regulate interstate commerce, which are exclusively federal powers, the Constitution doe s not specify what powers each has. As a

PAGE 129

122|Chapter 6: Federalism result, American politics has historically included debates about which level of government should do what, and whether the federal government is getting too big. Finding the right balance of powers is both a legal (or constitutional) matter and a political matter. It is about law and politic s. In fact, federalism is a good example of the challenge of adapting a Constitution that is more than 200 years old to modern times, the challenge of maintaining continui ty with the federal system established by the Constitution while accommodating majo r economic, political, technological, scientific, and social changes. Federalism is not the most common type of political system in the world. Most of the worlds approximately 190 countries have unitary systems of government (that is one unit), not federal systems. So why does the U.S. have a federal system? The answer to this questi on is provided in the very origins of the word federalism The word federalism comes from the Latin foedus or covenant, where individuals or groups agree to join a political union with a government body to coordinate their interests and represent them. In the American political experience, the colonists had strong attachme nts to their colonial governments, just as people now have attachments to their st ate governments. The colonists were wary of giving too much power to a central government. Federalism was a way for government power to be divided between the states and a national government as part of the system of checks and balances. Federalism serves three main purposes. First, it is part of the system of institutional checks and balances that was designed to control government power by dividing it between two levels of governme nt. Second, creates a political system where interests can be represented in th e national government. Members of Congress represent states and distri cts within states. Third, fe deralism creates a governance system where the states can serve as la boratories of experimentation. If one or more states try a policy (e.g., education reform or health ca re reform) that works, the successful policy experiment can be adopted by other states. If one states policy experiment fails then the costs are limite d to one stateunlike what happens when the national government adopts a policy that fails. "The question of the relation of the States to the Federal Government is the cardinal question of our constitutional system. At every turn of our national development, we have been brought face to face with it, and no definition either of statesmen or of judges has ever quieted or decided it." Woodrow Wilson, 28th President of the United States

PAGE 130

Chapter 6: Federalism|123 6.1 | Comparing Systems of Government One way to better understand federalism is to co mpare it with other types of government. There are three basic types of systems of government: unitary systems, confederal systems, and federal systems. 6.11 | Unitary Systems A unitary system is, as the term suggests, a polit ical system with one level of government. Power concentrated in one centr al government. The central government has sovereignty or the highest governing authorit y. The central government may create local or regional units to help gove rn but these units are creatures of the national or unitary government. They are created by the national go vernment and they can be abolished by the national governmentand th e national government also can determine how much power the local units have because th e local units do not have sovereignty. In France, for example, the national gove rnment can abolish local governments or change their boundaries. This kind of nati onal control over stat e governments does not exist in the United States, because the Constitution created a federal system where both the federal (national) government and th e state governments have independent constitutional status. The Constitution provi des for both a national government and state governments. The American states, however, ar e unitary systems. The states can create, alter, or abolish local governments such as cities, counties, school districts, port authorities, as well as the other kinds of special govern ments that states create. Canada has a federal system that divi des power between the federal parliament and provincial governments. Under the Constitution Act, Section 91 of the Canadian Constitution provides for federal legislative au thority and Section 92 provides for provincial powers. One differen ce between Canadian and U.S. federalism is that the Canadian system provides that the provincia l governments have specifically delegated powers and all the national gov ernment retains all residual powers. In the U.S. the national government has specifica lly delegated powers and the states retain all residual powers. All federal systems have political c onflicts over which level of government has power over which areas of policy. Areas of Ca nadian conflict include legislation with respect to regulation of th e economy, taxation, and natura l resources. The actual distribution of powers evolves over time. The Australian system of federalism resembles the U.S. system in terms of the division of power between the national and state governments but Australia has a parliamentar y system rather than the separation of powers. 6.12 | Confederal Systems A confederal system (or a confederation) is a political system where the constituent units (the states, provinces, or regional government s) are more powerful than the central (or national) government. Power is decentralized. The central government is comparatively weak, with fewer powers and governi ng responsibilities than the units.

PAGE 131

Articles of Confederation To all to whom these Presents shall come, we the undersigned Delegates of the States affixed to our Names send greeting. Articles of Confederation and perpetual Union between the states of New Hampshire, Massachusetts-bay Rhode Island and Providen ce Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia. I.The Stile of this Confederacy shall be The United States of America. II.Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this Confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled. III.The said States hereby severally enter into a firm league of friendship with each other, for their common defense, the security of their liber ties, and their mutual and general welfare, binding themselves to assist each other, agains t all force offered to, or attacks made upon them, or any of them, on account of religion, sovereignty, trade, or any other pretense whatever. X. [Authorizes a committee of the states to carry out the powers of Congress when Congress is in recess.] 6.13 | American Federalism The Founders decided to create a federal syst em rather than a unitary or confederal system because of their political experien ce. The Revolutionary War was fought against the British monarchy, a unitary system w ith power concentrat ed in the national government. And the first U.S. form of govern ment, the Articles of Confederation, was a confederal system that was widely viewed as flawed because it left the national government with too little power to addr ess the problems facing the new nation. They considered federalism a form of government that was between the extreme centralization of a unitary system and the extreme decentraliz ation of a confederation. 6.2 | The Articles of Confederation The first U.S. government after the colonial era was a confederation: The Articles of Confederation. Congress adopted The Arti cles of Confedera tion in 1777 and they became effective upon ratification by the stat es in 1781. The following are some of the most important provisions of the Articles of Confederation The above language from the Articles of C onfederation describes a union where most power resides with the constituen t units, the states. It specifi cally refers to the political system as a union of states that join together in a league of friendship. It stipulates that each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence. Article X authorizes a committee of the states to act for Congress wh en Congress is in recess. The language of

PAGE 132

Chapter 6: Federalism|125 the Articles suggests that the each state that joined the Confedera tion remained free to decide whether to leave the Confedera tion. Slavery and the nature of the union, specifically whether states could leave it, we re the two main causes of the Civil War. 6.21 | The Second Confederation Eleven southern states believed that sece ssion was one of the powers retained by the states as sovereign and independent entities in the federal system created by the Constitution. The Constitution created a federa l system, but it did not define whether states could leave the union. Political divor ce was not mentioned. The North argued that the union was permanentthat once a state decided to join the United States the marriage was permanent. The South argued that the states retained the power to decide to leave the union. Their view of federalism left mo re power in the hands of the states which were united as these United States, a term that reflects their belief that federalism left considerable power with the states. The Confederate States of America (1861-1865), or the Confederacy, was the government formed by eleven southern st ates. The United States of America (The Union) believed that secessi on was illegal and refused to recognize the Confederacy as a legal political entity. The North considered the South a region in rebellion. The end of the Civil War in the spring of 1865 began a decade-long process known as Reconstruction This second civil war involved extensive efforts to exert federal control over the states of the confederacy. Political resistance against federal authority was quite strong, and the struggle for the civi l rights of newly freed slaves and Black citizens continued into the 20th Century as part of the civil rights movement. Determining the appropriate balance of power between the national a nd state governments remains a controversial political and legal issue. 6.3 | Federalism and the Constitution The Constitution created a federal government with more power than the national government had under the Articles of Confederation. Specific powers were delegated to the national government. Article I, Section 8 of the Constitu tion lists powers granted to Congress. The list of powers delegated to Congress includes the pow er to coin money, tax, regulate intersta te commerce, and raise and support armies. The Constitution also took some powers that had belonged to the states under the Articles of Confederation and gave them to the federal g overnment. The states were specifically prohibited from coining money and regulating interstate commerce because the Foundersprincipally the Federalistsbelie ved that the nationa l government had to direct the nations economic development. Then there is the infamous Supremacy Clause, which provides that fe deral laws shall be the s upreme Law of the Land. The Supremacy Clause does not prohibit states from having laws that differ from the federal laws, but it does prohibit stat es from passing laws that c onflict with federal laws. All other powersthose not delegated to the national government, or prohibited to the stateswere to be reserved (or left with) the states or the people. These are the reserved powers. The reserved powers are dictated by the 10th Amendment: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constituti on, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the states respectivel y, or to the people. The language of the 10th

PAGE 133

Federal Powers include foreign affairs, interstate commerce, war. Amendment reflects the fact that there was some uncertainty about exactly which powers the Constitution delegated to a stronger national government. The Anti-Federalists worried that the new Constitution betrayed the Revolutionary War cause of fighting against a monarchy or strong central govern ment. The Constitution did significantly increase the power of the national government. The 10th Amendment reassured the Antifederalists that the states reta ined their traditional powers. The first U.S. government after the colonial era was a confederation: The Articles of Confederation. Congress adopted The Arti cles of Confedera tion in 1777 and they became effective upon ratification by the stat es in 1781. The following are some of the most issues related to federalism. The Constitution does not define or explain federalism because the states were pre-existing units of government. The Constituti on also did not define the nature of the union, whether the union was permanent or st ates could decide to secede. The Constitution also did not provide specifics on the actual division of power between the national and state governments. The balance of power between the national and state governments was left to be determined by polit ics and by subsequent generations. In fact, State Powers include intrastate commerce, public safety and welfare, creating local governments. Shared Powers include taxation, law and order, economics, education

PAGE 134

Chapter 6: Federalism|127 the balance of power between the national and state governments has historically been determined more by politics than by the actu al language of the Constitution. This is apparent in the way that federalism has been an important aspect of political events throughout the history of the United States. Fede ralism was a central element of the Civil War; the Civil Rights movements; the expansion of the rights of susp ects and prisoners in the criminal justice system; the controversy over the right to privacy as it applies to abortion policy; and most recently, federalism has been an underlying issue involving the controversy over the de finition of marriage. 6.4 | Why Federalism? Federalism is part of the Madisonian syst em of institutional checks and balances. In Federalist No 51 Hamilton explained how dividing power between two levels of government in a compound republic checked government power: In a single republic, all the power surrendered by the people is submitted to the administration of a single government; and the usurpations are guarded against by a division of the government into distinct and separate departments. In the compound republic of America, the power surrendered by the people is first divided between two distinct governments, and then the portion a llotted to each subdivided among distinct and separate departments. Hence a double security arises to the rights of the people. The different governments will control each ot her at the same time that each will be controlled by itself. Hamilton was an ardent Federalist. He believed that one of the lessons of history was that threats to good public order came from a government that was too strong to hold government officials accountable and from government that was too weak to create or maintain good public order. Hamilton believed that federalism solved some of the problems of a weak national government under the Articles of Confederation, weaknesses that were exposed by Shays Rebellion and other domestic disturbances by creating a stronger national government. Federalists also supported a strong national government to direct economic development. In Federalist Number Nine Hamilton wrote: A FIRM Union will be of the utmost moment to the peace and liberty of the States, as a barrier against domestic faction and insurrection. It is impossible to read the history of the petty republics of Greece and Italy without feeling sensations of horror and disgust at the distractions with which they were continually agitated, and at the rapid succession of revolutions by which they were kept in a state

PAGE 135

of perpetual vibration between the extremes of tyranny and anarchy....[The critics of republican government] have decried all free government as inconsistent with the order of society.The science of politics, however, like most other sciences, has received great im provement. The efficacy of various principles is now well understood, which were either not known at all, or imperfectly known to the ancients. The regular distribution of power into distinct departments; the introduction of legislative balances and checks; the institution of courts composed of judges holding their offices duri ng good behavior; the representation of the people in the legislature by deputies of their own election: these are wholly new discoveries, or have made their principal progress towards perfection in modern times. Hamiltons call for a national governm ent with enough power to create and maintain good public order as well as to promote economic development stands in sharp contrast with the Anti-federalists. The Anti-federalists were a loosely-organized group of individuals who advocated for what would toda y be called states rights. They believed that the powers of the nationa l government should be limited a nd that the states should be the primary political unit within the American system of federalism. 6.5 | The Political Effects of Federalism Federalism has two principal effects on gove rnment and politics. First, it creates a large number of governments. Second, co mplicates government and politics. 6.51 | The Surprisingly Large Number of Governments Although federalism is a two-tiered system of government, the U.S. actually has a large number of governments: one national governme nt; 50 state governme nts; and thousands of local governments. Think About It! Do you agree with Hamiltons analys is of the threats to freedom in Federalist No.8, The Consequences of Hostilities Between the States?

PAGE 136

Chapter 6: Federalism|129 The Number of Governments in the United States Type Number Federal Government 1 States 50 Counties 3,043 Municipalities 19,372 Townships or Towns 16,629 School districts 13,726 Special Districts* Mosquito Control Child Protective Services Port Authority Airport Beach Taxing Health Care F.I.N.D (Florida Inland Navigation District) TOTAL NUMBER OF GOVERNMENT UNITS: *Examples of Special Districts in Palm Beach County, Florida 34,683 87,504 Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Statistical Abstract of the United States, 2003 (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 2003), 261 Think About It! Whats in a name? Does it matter whether a municipality is a city or a town? Yes, it does. Niagara Falls in Danger of Losing Status as City, Aid 3653935/niagara-falls-in-dangerof-losing-city-status-aid Act on it! One good thing about having a large number of governments is the increased access to government. Contact a local government official and ask a question about a public policy issue of interest to you.

PAGE 137

6.52 | Complicated Government and Politics Federalism also complicates American govern ment and politics. In unitary political systems, political debates focus on the substa nce of public policy. The debates focus on what public policy should be concerning foreign affairs, economics, crime, education, the environment, moral regulatory policy, or re ligion. All countries de bate public policy on these controversial issues. In the U.S., federalism means th at political debates are about what public policy should be and about who should be making public policy. We debate whether abortion should be legal, whether th ere a right to die, whether global warming exists and what public policy should be, wh ether the death penalty should be used for sentencing, whether organized prayer be allo wed in public schools. We also debate who should be making the policy, whether the national or state governments should be making public policy. The U.S. system of fede ralism makes American politics doubly complicated: we debate what polic y should be and who should make it. Federalism has means that politics includes running debates about the proper distribution of power over publ ic policy. Federalism and the distribution of power between the national and state governments have been part of many of the nations most important political events: the Civil War; Progr essive Era debates abou t social policy; the Great Depression of the 1930s; and the 20th Century Civil Rights movements. Federalism is also one of the issues that inspired the modern conservative movement in the latter 1960s as a reaction against the New Deal a nd Great Society expansions of national government power over domestic policies. Debates about federalism are actually debates about one aspect of the power problem : how much power to centralize in th e national government and how much power to leave decentralized with the stat es. The Constitution does not solve the power problem in the sense that it does not specif y, except for certain areas such as coining money and regulating interstate commerce, wh ether the national government or the state governments have power to act in an area of public policy. The federalism dimension of the power problem has been dynamic. The actual distribution of power between the national and state governments changes depending on conditions and circumstances.

PAGE 138

Chapter 6: Federalism|131 Crises usually result in centralization of power in the national government. Shays Rebellion, the Great Depression; World War II a nd the Cold War, and terrorist threats to national security were all crises that re sulted in increased power for the national government. 6.6 | Federalism is Dynamic The balance of power between the national and state governments is dynamic. It is always changi ng, with the balanc e someti mes tilting toward the national government and sometimes tilting toward the states. But modern federalism does not work the way the Founders intended. The Founders created a political system where most government power wa s left in the hands of the states and the national governments powers were limited. It was a state-centered system. Over time, however, the powers of the national governme nt expanded, and expa nded relative to the states. The following describes the majo r historical changes in federalism. 6.61 | Dual Federalism The first era of federalism is described as dual federalism. Dual federalism is a theory of federalism that describes both the federa l government and the state governments as coequal sovereigns. Each is sovereign in its respective areas of policymaking. The Supreme Court endorsed this understandi ng of federalism in an early case Cooley v. Board of Port Wardens (1851). The question in this case was whether a state government could require that ships entering or leaving the Philadelphia harbor hire a local pilot. The Constitution gives the national government excl usive power to regulate commerce among the states. The Philadelphia Port traffic involved more than one state, so it was interstate commerce. The Court developed the Cooley Doctrine to decide whether a matter was for local or national regulation. According to the Cooley Doctrine, subjects that are in their nature national, or admit only of one uniform syst em, or plan of regulation, may justly be said to...require exclusive legisl ation by Congress. Subjects that are not national and require local diversity of regul ation are left to the states. The Cooley Doctrine assumes that the national and st ate governments have separate areas of responsibility. For example, the national government woul d have exclusive power over interstate commerce, national security, and foreign affairs, while the state governments would have exclusive power over schools, law enforcement, and road building. The Cooley Doctrine still serves as a guide for determining whether the national or state governments have power to regulate, but it does not provide specific answers to questions about whether something required a single, uniform system of regulation. In The PEW Center on the States provides data on economic mobility in the states. h/data-visualizations/economicmobility-of-the-statesinteractive-85899381539

PAGE 139

fact, as both the national and state government s shared responsibility over more areas of public policy, debates about highway speed limits, legal drinking ages, educational policy, the regulation of airpor ts, and immigration issues have challenged the idea that each level of government is supreme in it respective field. 6.62 | Cooperative Federalism Cooperative federalism describes the national and state governments as sharing power over areas of public policy. Dual federalism is an outdated concept in the sense that there are so few areas of public policy that are exclusively either state or national, and so many areas of public policy where the federal government now acts. For example, all levels of government are involved in education, ec onomics, transportation, crime, and environmental policy. The term intergovernmental relations is useful for understanding how modern federalism works because it cap tures how the national, state, and local governments interact with one another to make and administer policy. One way to better understand the forces of change in the American political system is to examine economics. Economic ch anges have prompted the expansion of the federal government. The Industrial Revolution in the mid-19th Century fundamentally changed the American economy. The emergen ce of large national corporations created support for national government action to regulat e these new centers of private power. During the Progressive Era (1890s until the Wo rld War I) the national government began to regulate industries such as the railroad s, steel, banking, and mining. The federal government also passed social welfare legi slation including ch ild labor laws and minimum wage and maximum hour laws. In fact, today the federal government redistributes resources from wealthier stat es to poorer states. In todays economy, population mobility, the ability to relocate to states where the jobs are is an important economic indicator. 6.63 | Expansion of Federal Power One measure of big government is the in creased size and influence of the national government relative to the state governments. As the country changed from a local economy to a national economy, where businesse s made and sold products and services across the country, public opinion shifted towa rd seeing the national government as the appropriate level of government to regulate business. During the 20th Century the power of the national government continued to expand re lative to the states. The modern era of the U.S. political system began in the 1930s partly in response to an economic crisis. The

PAGE 140

Chapter 6: Federalism|133 Great Depression created popular support for national governmen t activism to remedy the problem of the economic depression. The trend toward centralizing power and responsibility for maintaining material prosperity has accelerated with the further development of a global economy, where bus inesses buy and sell in a world economy. A second source of expansion of federal pow er is civil rights. The Civil War Amendmentsthe 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendmentsexpanded the federal governments role in promoting racial equality. The F ourteenth Amendment, which was ratified in 1868, prohibits a state from denying to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. This Amendment wa s intended to protect the rights of newly freed slaves from state laws that discriminated against them on account of race. The Fourteenth Amendment gave C ongress power to pass appropriat e legislation to enforce the provisions of the Amendment. Congress used this power to pass civil rights legislation such as the Civil Rights Act of 1875 which outlawed racial discrimination in public accommodations. However, in the Civil Rights Cases (1883), the Supreme Court declared the law unconstitutional beca use it regulated private behaviort he decisions of owners of hotels and restaurants not to serve Black customers. According to the Court, the Fourteenth Amendment, which was the basis for the Act, prohibi ted state action. The Courts landmark ruling in Plessy v. Ferguson (1896) also limited the scope of federal civil rights laws by upholding state laws that required racial segregation. The Civil Rights Movement of the 1950s and 1960s also relied on federal efforts to secure the civil rights of individuals who were the victims of discrimination. Some of these e fforts relied on Congress, which passed laws such as the 1964 Civil Rights Act and the 1965 Voting Rights Act. Some of the efforts relied on the United States Supreme Court. Decisions in landmark cases such as Brown v. Board of Education (1954) made state ac tions supporting racial discrimination in public schools unconstituti onal. In many parts of the coun try the use of federal power to enforce equal protection of th e laws prompted strong resistance. The constitutional argument against this use of federal power to promote equality, particularly racial equality, was the states rights argument.

PAGE 141

Federalism was part of the background of the civil rights movement. The U.S. Supreme Court rulings in cases such as Brown v. Board of Education in which they outlawed racial segregation in public schools, prompted a politic al backlash in the states, particularly in the South. The principal reason for the backlash was opposition to integration. However, there was also a strong states rights opposition to integration. States rights can be defined as a belief that a policy is the responsibility of a state government not the national or federal government. Florida was one of the southern states that cited states rights reasons for opposing court-ordered desegregation. In 1957, the Florida Legislature passed an Interposition Resolution in response to Brown v. Board of Education Interposition is a political doctrine that a state can interpose itself between the people of the state and the federal government when the federal government exceeds its authority. The Interposition Resolution declared that the U.S. Supreme Court exceeded its power when it declared racially segregated public schools unconstitutional. Advocates of states rights opposed the use of federal power to achieve greater racial equality in state politic s, government, and society. George Wallace is an important political figure in the states rights move ment. He was a precursor of the modern conservative movements criticism of bi g government, by which he meant a federal government with the power to order states to change their laws regarding race relations. He is a good example of how thinking about fe deralism is interwoven with thinking about civil rights in the U.S. Wallace was a for ceful and articulate spokesperson for the conservative belief that the federal governments powers were limited to those specifically enumerated. He gave impassioned campaign speeches defending states rights against a civil rights movement that re lied heavily on outside agitators to bring about change. The outsiders were the federal government in general and the courts in particular. Think About It! Listen to one of Governor Ge orge Wallaces states rights speech against the civil rights movement: ure=endscreen&NR=1

PAGE 142

Chapter 6: Federalism|135 A third reason for the expansi on of federal power is crim inal justice policy. The development of a national economy made st ate borders less relevant for legitimate business and economic activity because goods were no longer made, marketed, and sold entirely within one state. Illegitimate businesses were also organized nationally. Organized crime, in particular, did not operate exclusively within a single state. The rise of organized crime presented a challenge to law enforcement which was historically state and local law enforcement. The rise of nationa lly organized criminal enterprises provided one of the justifications for the creation of th e Federal Bureau of I nvestigation (FBI). The FBI has jurisdiction across the country, unlik e local law enforcement whose jurisdiction (or legal authority) is geographically limited. Historically, criminal justice has been one of the areas of public policy re served to the states under the U.S. system of federalism. The rise of organized crime, the war on cr ime, and the war on drugs made crime and policing a national political i ssue to be addressed by the federal government. Congress responded by passing more and more anti-crime legislationa trend toward federalizing crime that continued throughout the 20th Century and into the 21st Century. Think about it! Why does the U.S. have a federal law enforcement agency? The FBI tells the story of its creation and expansion in A Brief History of the FBI. A fourth reason for the expansion of fede ral power is national security, national defense, and foreign policy. World War II a nd the Cold War increased the power of the national government. Threats to national secur ity have historically been considered the primary responsibility of the federal government. The war on te rror has continued to shift power to the national government relative to the states. For instance, the federal government increasingly uses the resources and information on local governments to find and track terrorist suspects. Terrorism is often an international threatits support networks, funding, and training involve other countries, and terrorists seek to move easily across national borderstherefore the threat of terrorism typically increases the power to the federal government. The economy, civil rights, na tional security, and crime are not the only reasons for the expansion of federal power. In envi ronmental policy, Congress has passed major legislation such as the Clean Air Act and the Clean Water Act and established bureaucratic agencies the Environmental Prot ection Agency to implement the new federal environmental policies. In educational policy, Congress passed the No Child Left Behind Act. The Act increased the federal governments role in an area of public policy that was traditionally left to the states. In health care, President Obama signed the Patient Protection and Affordable Hea lth Care Act on March 23, 2010. Twenty-eight states filed lawsuits claiming that parts of the Ac t, which critics called Obamacare, were unconstitutional because they exceeded the federal governments power. The Supreme Court upheld most provisions of the Act, including the mandate that individuals buy health insurance or pay a penalty/tax, in National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius (2012), but ruled that state sovereignty protected the states from certain provisions of the law that requi red states to adopt certain health care policies or lose federal Medicaid funding.

PAGE 143

6.7 | The Conservative Backlash: New Federalism Beginning in the latter 1960s, conservatives began criticizing the expa nsion of the federal government and the idea of cooperative federalism. Their criticism of big government included calls for returning some power to th e states. Their advocacy of states rights was intended primarily as a check on the expans ion of the national governments power in domestic affairs. The Nixon ad ministrations policies to su pport returning some powers to the states were called New Federalism The political support for New Federalism was also reflected in changes in the Supreme Courts rulings. The Court began to limit the powers of the fe deral government. From 1938 until 1995, the Court did not invalidate any federal statute on the grounds that the law exceeded Congress power under the Interstate Commerce Clause. But in United States v. Lopez (1995), the Court ruled that some provisions of the Gun-Free School Zones Act, a federal law enacted in 1990 to curb gun violence, exceeded Congresss commerce powers and infringed on the states re served powers to provide safe schools. A conservative majority on the Rehnquist Court issued a number of important rulings that enforce constitutional provisions that limit cong ressional power in fields of public policy where the states have power to act. These rulings are based on the political conservative belief that federalism is a legal arrangement that protects the states and is part of the system of checks and balances that protects individual freedom. The challenge is to adapt a more than 200 year old system of federalism to a modern environment that has experienced a great deal of political, economic, technological, and social change. Take, for example, economic change. The U.S. economy has changed from local to state to national and now, with globalism, international trade. How does a global economy affect th e distribution of power between the national and state governments? How has the U.S. assumption of the role as the worlds policeman, the Cold War, and the war on terror affected the distribution of power between the national and state governments? These economic and national security developments have increased federal power an increase that sometimes, but not alwa ys, means a decrease in state powers. Federalism is one aspect of the conservative backlash against the liberal centralization of power that occurred duri ng the New Deal and Gr eat Society eras. The backlash has not been inspired by opposition to big government in general. Conservatives supported big government for na tional security purposes, getting tough on crime, and moral regulatory purposes (e.g., sexual behavior, marriage, obscenity and indecency, and the definition of marriage) Even in economic policy, business groups with ties to conservative a nd Republican politics such as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the National Association of Manufacturers lobbied for the passage of federal laws that explicitly preempt state to rt laws. Tort laws govern wrongf ul injury lawsuits such as product liability and medical malpractice liti gation. The states traditionally had primary responsibility for tort laws as part of their reserved powers. The tort reform movement, of which the Chamber of Commerce and the Na tional Association of Manufacturers are Think about it! Do we still need states? In a global economy, are political boundaries such as states merely an additional business expense?

PAGE 144

Chapter 6: Federalism|137 prominent supporters, advocates taking cases out of the state courts and into the federal courts. This is evidence that liberal and c onservative attitudes toward federalism tend to be strategic rather than princi pled. A principled position is one that is taken regardless of whether it produces a preferred outcome. A strate gic position is one that is taken because it produces a preferred outcome. Liberals tend to think that policies should be decided in the states when they think the state pol itical systems will produce liberal policy outcomes. Conservatives tend to think that po licies should be decided in the states when they think the state political systems will produce conser vative policy outcomes. If a liberal (or a conservative) thinks the federal government will produce a preferred policy outcome, they are likely to think that th e policy should be de cided by the federal government rather than the states. 6.71 | Immigration Policy Immigration is one of the issues that illust rate the potential conflict between national and state policy. Controlling undocumented immigran ts is a pressing issue in some states, particularly states bordering Mexico and states with large numbers of undocumented immigrants. The key constitutional doctrine for understanding whether states have the power to act in an area or policy field is preemption Federal law can preempt or trump state law. The preemption doctrine is based on the Supremacy Clause Article VI of the Constitution, which provides that the Constitu tion, federal laws, and treaties shall be the supreme Law of the Land. The Supremacy Clause guarantees national union. When deciding whether a state law conflicts with a federal law the C ourt does a preemption analysis consisting of three questions. Di d Congress expressly state that federal law preempted state law? Does the state law co nflict with federal la w? Has Congress so extensively regulated the area of policy to have occupied the field? If Congress has enacted a comprehensive and unified federal pol icy in a field, then Congress has assumed responsibility for that field and left little or no room for state action. States can experiment with health care reform, educat ion reform, and many other reforms in other areas of public policy. Immigration policy is a special case because it has national security implications. Illegal immigration became a political issu e when some states thought the federal government was unwilling or unable to enfo rce immigration laws. States adopted a variety of laws that were intended to discourage illegal entry and to discourage employment of illegal immigrants or undocum ented aliens. Arizona, which shares a border with Mexico, is one such state. In 2010 it passed SB1070 an immigration control law that, among things, required Arizona police officers to de termine the citizenship or immigration status of a person who was lawful ly detained. SB1070 served as a model for other states including Alabama, Georgia, Indi ana, South Carolina, and Utah. The Arizona law was challenged on the grounds that it was preempted by federal law. In Arizona v. U.S (2012), the Supreme Court upheld one prov ision of the law and struck down three provisions. The stated purpose of SB1070 was to use state resources to help the federal government enforce its immigration laws. The law 1) required law enforcement officers to check the immigration status of persons w ho they have a reasonable suspicion are in the country illegally; 2) required the warra ntless arrest of individuals that law enforcement official have probable cause to believe have committed a crime for which

PAGE 145

the person could be deported; 3) made it a crime to not carry immigration papers in the state; and 4) made it a crime for illegal immigran ts to seek a job or to work in the state. The Court upheld provision number one but struck down the other three. The Court explained that the federal governmen ts broad power over immigration and alien status is based on 1) its enumerated power in Art I, Sect. 8 cl. 4 to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization; 2) its inherent sovereign power to control and conduct foreign relations; and 3) the Supremacy clause. The fact that Congress has created a single sovereign responsible for maintaining a comprehensive and unified system to keep track of aliens within the nation limits state sovereignty to legislate in a policy field that Congress has occupied. The dissenting Justices argued that the states have their own inherent sovereignt y and can legislate on immigration matters of great concern to them. 6.8 | Summary This chapter described federalism, explained the origins of the U.S. system of federalism, and described its de velopment over time. The division of powers between the national and state government s has been controve rsial throughout the nations history. Federalism has proven to be a dynamic form of government in the sense that the actual distributi on of power between the nati onal and state governments has varied a great deal over time. The Constitution provides for a federal system but, with the notable exception of foreign affairs a nd interstate commerce, it does not specify exactly what each level of government has power to do. As a result, the actual balance of power between the national and state governments changes. In this sense, federalism is dynamic. The federal governments power has increased, and it has increased relative to the state governments for a variety of reas ons, including the development of a global economy. Because of the central role federalism plays in the system of checks and balances, changes in federalism raise important questions about where to strike the right balance between state and federal power. 6.9 | Additional Resources 6.91 | Internet Resources One valuable resource for information about th e states is the PEW Center On the States which describes and analyzes state policy trends, for example. See The Tenth Amendment Center provides a contemporary view on states rights: The Urban Institutes publication Assessing the New Federalism is an informative look at the place for cities in the U.S. system of federalism: r/anf/index.cfm Think About It! What should public policy regarding undocumented aliens be? Who should make the policy?

PAGE 146

Chapter 6: Federalism|139 Publius: The Journal of Federalism is an academic journal dedicated to the investigation of issues related to federalism: The National Council of State Legislators provi des a variety of information about state legislatures, including ideas about the re lationship between the state and federal governments: 6.92 | In The Library Berman, David. 2003. Local Governments and the States: Autonomy, Politics, and Policy. ME Sharpe. Burgess, Michael. 2006. Comparative Federalis m: Theory and Practice. Routledge, 2006. Butler, Henry N. 1996. Using Federalism to Im prove Environmental Po licy (AEI Studies in Regulation and Federalism). American Enterprise Institute Press, 1996. Cornell, Saul. The Other Founders: Anti-Fede ralism and the Dissenting Tradition in America, 1788-1828. University of North Carolina Press, 1999. Doernberg, Donald. 2005. Sovereign Immunity And/Or the Rule of Law: The New Federalism. Carolina Academic Press. Donahue, John.1997. Disunited States. Basic Books. Elkins, Stanley and Eric McKitrick. 1995. The Age of Federalism: The Early American Republic, 1788-1800. Oxford University Press. Gerston, Larry N. 2007. American Federalis m: A Concise Introduction. M.E. Sharpe. Karmis, Dimitrios. 2005. Theories of Federalism: A Reader. London: Palgrave Macmillan. Nagel, Robert F. 2002. The Implosion of Ameri can Federalism. Oxford University Press, 2002. Noonan, Jr. John T. 2002. Narrowing the Nation s Power: The Supreme Court Sides with the States. University of California Press, 2002. Remington, Micheal C. 2002. Federalism and the Constitution: Limits on Congressional Power and Significant Events, 1776 2000. Schrag, Peter. 1999. Paradise Lost: Calif ornias Experience, Americas Future. University of California Press. Tarr, G. Alan, Robert F. Williams, Jose f Marko (eds.). 2004. Federalism, Subnational Constitutions, and Minority Rights. Praeger. Twight, Charlotte. 2002. Dependent on D.C.: The Rise of Federal Control Over Ordinary Lives. Palgrave. Zimmerman, Joseph. 2002. Interstate Cooperation: Compacts and Administrative Agreements. Praeger.

PAGE 147

TERMS: Federalism Unitary system Confederation Delegated powers Reserved powers The power problem Dual federalism Cooley Doctrine Cooperative federalism States rights Interposition 6.93 | Study Questions Why have a federal system of government? Discuss the allocation of federal and state powers. Explain how the allocation of federal and state powers has changed over time. Describe four areas where federal powers have grown into areas traditionally reserved for the states. Discuss the current state of federalism in the United States. What role did the civil rights movement play in the expansion of federal powers? How is federalism dynamic? Why did the Federalists believe that a strong federal government was necessary? 1 Larry N. Gerston. 2007. American Federalism: A Co ncise Introduction. New York: M.E. Sharpe, Inc., p.87.

PAGE 148

CHAPTER 7: The Media, Government, and Politics

PAGE 149

142 | Chapter 7: The Media, Government, and Politics 7.0 | The Media and Democracy The media play an important role in a ll modern democracies. A free press is a strong indicator of whether a political sy stem is democratic. In fact, freedom of the press is considered an essential condition for modern democratic government. Freedom of the press is vital for democracy because selfgovernment requires an informed and educated citizenry. The educative role is one of the reasons why the press is the only business that is given constitutional protection (the First Amendment guarantees freedom of the press). But education is not the media s only function. In the U.S. system of government, the media are also expected to play a watchdog role The institutional media are expected to pl ay an important role in checking government power by investigating a nd reporting on government and public affairs. The modern mass media have also played a socialization role by presenting the same information and por traying cultural values to national audiences. The importance of these roles in a democracy explains why the power of the press (or media) has been such a controversial issue throughout the nations history. The power problem with the media is that a free press is not necessarily a fair press. How the press uses its substantial, and growing, power is controversial. Media biasw hether ideological or partisanis a familiar theme in American politics because of the central role the media play in government and politics. This chap ter examines the medias role in American democracy. The media are unusual in that they are mostly private companies whose primary purpose is to make money, but they also are expected to serve a public function. Media companies ex ist to make moneywhich they do by providing entertainment, information (n ews), and advertising. The educative and watchdog functions of the media ar e not the primary roles of media companies. The history of the medi a reveals major changes in media technology and function. During the f ounding era, the press was not just political; it was an overtly partisan press. Handbills and flyers and papers were distributed to convince readers to support a person or a party. The emergence of powerful cor porations in the railroad, banking, manufacturing, and oil sectors of the economy prompted calls for big government to act as a countervailing force to big business. The media played an investigative, watchdog role by alerting the public to bus iness influence or abuses of power. In the modern era of government and politics, both campaigns and government rely heavily on public co mmunications. The media provide the public with almost constant informati on about government and politics. But the relationship between the media a nd democracy has changed. During the founding era, the press was very partisan or closely aligned with political movements and parties. Today the ma instream media are often less obviously committed to one side in public debates, but questions remain about how the large corporate media conglomerates are using their power in an information age. The concerns about the power of the press, about media biases, remain. Were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter. Thomas Jefferson The man who reads nothing at all is better educated than the man who reads nothing but newspapers. The press is the tox in of the nation. Thomas Jefferson Why should a government which believes it is doing right allow itself to be criticized. It would not allow opposition by lethal weapons. Ideas are much more fatal things than guns. Nikolai Lenin (1920) Im as mad as hell, and I am not going to take this anymore. UBS Evening News Anchor Howard Beale in the film Network (USA 1976)

PAGE 150

Chapter 7 |The Media, Politics, and Government 143 7.1 | The Love-Hate Relationship Despite the common assumption that the media are essential for democratic government, Americans have always been ambivalent about the press. Thomas Jeffersons comments on the newspapers of his day reflect the attitudes of the politicians of his day and today. Which of Jeffersons st atements about the press quoted above do you think were made before he became pr esident and was made after he became president? Attitudes toward the role of the press may depend on whether you are in office or not. The love-hate relationship is nothing new. In Jeffersons day, the press was intensely partisan and played an open, active role in politics. 7.2 | The Founding Era The print press certainly played an important role in the foun ding of the American republic The Trial of John Peter Zenger is an example of one of the famous American trials illustrating the importance of freedom of the press as a way to hold government officials accountable. In 1735, the editor and publisher of a newspaper called The New York Weekly Journal was tried on charges of sedition a nd libel for publishing articles that criticized William Cosby, the governor of the New York colony. The trial was an important event because it presented a cha llenge to the governments power to limit freedom of expression in order to maintain what the government considered good public order. The outcome of the cas e strengthened the colonists co mmitment to two ideas: the idea that freedom of the press and trial by jury were important checks on the power of government. 7.21 | The First Amendment The language of the First Amendment acknow ledges the importance of freedom of the press: Congress shall make no law....abri dging the freedom.of the press.... The First Amendment establishes the unique role of the pr ess as only business that is specifically protected by the Constitution. This special status is one reason why the press is sometimes called the fourth estatea referenc e to the fact that th e press is, along with congress, the president, and the judiciary, one of our political institutions. But just as Americans love to hate government, th ey love to hate the press. 7.22 | The Hate Relationship The Partisan Press Freedom of the press played an important role in the founding of the republic, but criticism of the press is almost as old as the republic. The early press focused on scandals and salacious stories in order to sell papers. Then, as now, scandals

PAGE 151

144 | Chapter 7: The Media, Government, and Politics sold papers. The early press was sometimes called the penny press because the papers were very cheap. The penny press was political rather than professional. In the early days of the republic, the press was both political and partisan. A paper was identified with a particular point of view: it ope nly and explicitly a nd strongly either s upported or opposed a political party; it took st rong stands on political issu es, candidates, or government officials. There was less news reporting and more of what we today would call editorial or analysis. Neither the reading public nor pub lic officials expected a newspaper to strive for objectivity or neutralityo r to use the phrase popularized by Fox News, Fair and Balanced reporting. 7.23 | Libel Laws In the early days of the republic, the free press was not expected to be a fair press. Newspapers became early targets of political criticism because the free press was not a fair press. Influential or prominent indi viduals and powerful government officials were often upset by what their critics in the press printed about th em. Their response to what they considered bad press included support fo r the passage of laws against libel and slander. Libel and slander are false spoken or written statements that injure a person. The injury can be economic or reputational. The Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798 are examples of early federal laws that limited freedom of the press despite the ab solutist language of the First Amendment prohibiting congress from passing any law restricting freedom of speech or press. The Act made it a crime (seditious libel) to publish fa lse or scandalous statements that tend to bring government into disrepute. The la ws were passed by a Congress controlled by Federalists who did not appr eciate what their political opponentsincluding Thomas Jefferson and other Anti-federalistswere saying about them. When Jefferson became president and the Democratic-Republican Part y became the dominant political party, the Sedition Act of 1798 was repealed. These early controversies involving the role of the press in American politics illustrate that early American attitudes towa rd the media were complicated. There was strong support for a free press able to criticize public officials, but st rong criticism of the press for not being fair. 7.24 | The Commercial Media In the 1830s, the partisan press changed to a commercial press with the emergence of came to be called the penny press. Advances in printing technology allowed newspapers to be produced at a far cheaper rate (one cen t rather than 6 cents). The reduced cost of producing newspapers made news profita ble. Papers made money by printing sensationalized accounts of crimes a nd disasters and scandals. This was yellow journalism a pejorative reference to journa lism that features scandal-mongering, sensationalism, jingoism, or other unethical or unprofessional practices and coverage. 7.25 | Pulitzer, Hearst and the Spanish-American War

PAGE 152

Chapter 7 |The Media, Politics, and Government 145 The circulation battles over the New York ne wspaper audience between Joseph Pulitzer's New York World and William Randolph Hearst's New York Journal lead to increases in the sensationalism of the press. As a part of the battle for dominance for the New York media market, both newspapers sensationalized increasing tensions with Spanishcontrolled Cuba. When the U.S. Naval ship The Maine exploded in a Cuban harbor, Hearst and Pulitzer both sensationalized the Spanish involvement in the explosion. The U.S. soon went to war with Spain and the Sp anish-American war is considered the first press-driven war. 7.25 | Muckraking Muckraker journalism emerged in the latter part of the 19th Century as an early form of investigative reporting. A muckraker is a journalist who di gs around in the muck to expose corruption. The Industrial Revolution and the governments laissez faire policies toward corporations prompted journalists to expose public and private crime, fraud, waste, threats to public health and sa fety, graft, and illega l financial dealings. 7.26 | The Professional Press Starting around 1900, the press began to be more professiona l. Joseph Pulitzer started a school of journali sm at Columbia Universit y. Journalism schools trained journalists to be objective, to separate facts from of opinion, to avoi d biased coverage of public affairs. The byline, or putting the name of newspaper reporters on stories, allowed Pulitzers coverage of the explosion Hearsts coverage of the explosion

PAGE 153

146 | Chapter 7: The Media, Government, and Politics the public to hold report ers accountable for their work. During the 20th Century, the institutional print media, including the major national newspapers, and then the institutional broadcast media, added pres tige to professional journalism and news reporting on public affairs. The idea of an objective press was based on a belief that facts were distinct from values: objective journalists should have faith in facts and skepticism toward values ; objective journalists should segregate facts and opinions/values.1 This professional ethic encouraged journalists to consider the reporte r separate from the news they reported and take pride in presenting the news (the facts) as objectively or neutrally as possible. The ideal of an objective professional press encouraged the view that the institutional press should function as a virtual fourth branch of government describing the world of government and politics. It also created th e idea that news repor ters would assume a critical role as watchdog journalists who investigate a nd publicize wrongdoing. Two of the most significant instances of the press performing the watchdog role are The New York Times reporting on the Pentagon Papers in 1971 and the Washington Post reporting on the Watergate Scandal in 1972. These stories contributed to President Nixons famous hostility toward the press. Listen to the following audio recording of a December 14, 1972 conversation where President Nixon gave hi s Secretary of State, Henry Kissinger, advice about press relations after discussing how to handle press coverage of the Vietnam War. What does it reveal about a pres idents attitudes toward the press? 7.3 | The Mass Media The modern mass media are widely criticized by government official s, politicians, and the general public. The fictional characte r Howard Beale, the UBS network evening news anchor in the 1976 film Network captured the criticism of the medias power in a famous, award winning rant durin g a television broadcast. Beal e tells viewers to go to a window, open it, and shout out as loud as you ca n: Im mad as hell and Im not going to take it anymore! The Beale characters outburs t resonated with public frustration with an increasingly powerful media in an era when three broadcast netw orksABC, CBS, and NBCdominated the airwaves. The media toda y seem to be everywhere, a pervasive force in modern society. With the proliferation of media ou tlets, as the internet joined newspapers and television and radio, worries about media power have changed. There is less worry that three corporate media compan ies control access to information. There is Think About It! In the Nixon Tape Nixon, Kissinger on Christmas Bombing President Nixon says to Kissinger: Also, never forget. The press is the en emy. The press is the enemy. The press is the enemy. The establishment is the enemy. The professors are the enemy. The professors are the enemy. Write that on the blackboard 100 times. And never forget it.

PAGE 154

Chapter 7 |The Media, Politics, and Government 147 31 32 33 35 28 24 25 46 36 34 35 28 24 22 0 10 20 30 40 50 Confidence in Media (either "A great deal" or "Quite a lot") Newspapers Television News more worry about too much information, too much entertainment, too much consumerfocused programming, and a segmenting of the information marketplace. 7.31 | The New Media and the Fragmentation of the Media The media have become both consolidated, in terms of ownership, and fragmented, in terms of the types of media that are availa ble. While in 1940, 83% of newspapers were independently owned, less than 20% of newspa pers now are not a part of a chain or media conglomerate. At the same time, a wi der menu of options has emerged for those seeking information. Twenty-four hour a day news reporting, internet news sources, and the increasing availability of news sources to match political ideologies has several consequences. First, scholars have found that as compe tition between news sources increases, the quality and in-depth coverage of news declines. Second, fragmentation may also lead to a decline in the ability of politic al leaders to hold the attention of the public. Third, the increased number of news outlets results in people seeking out news that reinforces their views. This makes people le ss open to alternative viewpoints, and more set in beliefs that may or may not be tr ue. Generally, the increased fragmentation and competition have resulted in less confidence in the media in the U.S. As the figure above shows, less than a quarter of the American public has a great deal or quite a lot of confidence in either newspapers or television news. 7.32 | The Mass Media The term mass media refers to media that ar e specifically designed to reach a large (that is, mass) audience such as the entire population of a nation or state. The term was coined in the 1920s with the development of nati onwide radio networks and mass-circulation

PAGE 155

148 | Chapter 7: The Media, Government, and Politics newspapers and magazines. The classic exam ples of mass media are the three television networksABC, CBS, and NBCbefore the emergence of cable television networks (CNN and ESPN began in the late 1970s) and the Internet. The programming of the three broadcast television networks was clearly intended to appeal to a national audience. The broadcast networks and the major newspapers (e.g., The New York Times Washington Post Chicago Tribune and Los Angeles Times ) are sometimes referred to as the MSM or mainstream media. Cable TV is a relatively recent addition to the mass media. 7.4 | i-Media Communications technology is changing the me dia. The mass media are being replaced by individualized (i-media), which are smaller s cale, niche audience, or specialized target media. These are sometimes called the new media. Some internet media now reach audiences and markets on a scale that was previously limited to the very large mass media. These internet media include pe rsonal web pages, podcasts and blogs. The institutional media, whether it is print journalism or electronic journalism, is facing competition from various new media. The new media are not just competing for a market share previously controlled by the mass media; it is a competition that is revolutionizing the production of news and other programming content. The new media provide more user-generated content. These new media bl ur the distinction be tween professional and amateur journalism and change the traditiona l function of the mass media as mediating institutionsin a mass society of 300 million people, for example, the institutional press mediated between big government and the individual citizen. 7.41 | The End of Institutional Press? For some time now declining newspaper subs criptions have raised serious questions about the future of newspapers. In The Re port on the State of the News Media in 2007, Arthur Ochs Sulzberger Jr, the publishe r and chairman of The New York Times Company, responded to questions about the impact of technological changes on print journalism. He said, I really dont know whether well be printing The Times in five years, and you know what? I dont care?2 This is a surprising statement for a newspaper man to make about the future of the print press.

PAGE 156

Chapter 7 |The Media, Politics, and Government 149 The Report noted that technology wa s transforming the media in ways that may be as important the devel opment of the television and radio, and perhaps even as important as the development of the printing press itself. Information technology is not just changing the way people get informati on. It may be fundamentally changing the relationship of the consumer or citizen to traditional inst itutions including government, education, and the media: Technology is re defining the role of the citizenendowing the individual with more responsibility and command over how he or she consumes informationand that new role is only be ginning to be understood. Information technology has empowered individuals by making them less dependent on the institutional media to mediate Political scientists use the term mediating to refer to those institutions in large, mass societies that st and between the state (i.e., big government) and the individual. For example, as the nationa l government grows larger, the gap between a lone individual and big govern ment increases. Mediating in stitutions provide individuals with information about government and check on government. The owners of newspaper, television, and internet companies, and the ed itors who work for them, filter, edit, or otherwise decide what is newsworthy and me rits reporting. Information technology is making this traditional mediating role le ss important. But eliminating the mediating institutions leaves the indi vidual citizen or consumer with more responsibility for determining the accuracy of the electronic information that is now so widely available and either free or cheap. These new or non-inst itutional media are part of trend toward de-intermediation that includes Wikipedia, We Media, YouTube, and the blogosphere. 7.42 | I-Media and Politics The advent of new forms of media has ha d a strong effect on political action and political campaigning, particularly in the 2008 presidential election. A survey by the Pew Center for Internet & American Life3 found that nearly three quart ers of (74%) of internet users (55% of the general populat ion) went online in 2008 to get involved in the political process or to get news and information about the election. 45% of inte rnet users used the internet to watch a video related to the cam paign and a third forwarded political content to others. These findings and the increas ed prominence (and succ ess) of political campaigns internet outreach suggests that traditional forms of media may not be connected people to political informati on as they have done in the past. 7.5 | Journalism as a Profession The development of an independent, professional journalism began after the Civil War when newspapers were no longer as likely to be closely allied with a political party. The fact the news papers became less partisan did not mean that the press became less political, however. Newspapers in the latter part of the 19th Century became very political during the Progressive Era (roughly the 1890s until World War I), but they

PAGE 157

150 | Chapter 7: The Media, Government, and Politics tended to be political in the sense that th ey criticized political machines and political party bosses, or advocated on behalf of causes such as public corruption. As journalism became a profession, reporters were less par tisan but still politic al. Investigative reporting of scandals or working conditions rede fined the role of the press from a partisan press to an institutional press with the power to set the political agenda by calling public attention to an issue than needed political attention. 7.6 | The Media and the Political System The media, including individuals working as reporters, editors, and producers, as well as media organizations, has a large amount of c ontrol over what the American public sees as the news. The approval of government action by the public is essential in a democracy, and the people must be aware of what the government is doing in order to approve. As such, the medias choice of what is newswort hy has very real implications for the health of the American democracy. 7.61 | Reporting Political News Reporting political news and public affairs info rmation is one of the core functions of media outlets, particularly those with a nati onal focus. Washington, D.C. has the largest concentration of news professionals in the United States. There are more than 8000 reporters with Congressional press passes in Washington, covering political news for the American public.4 The president receives the most news coverage of any political figure. Presidents hold press conferences to shape public opini on and explain their actions. Today, a press secretary often briefs the media on a regular basis, instead of having regular press conferences with the president personally, a traditional started in the Eisenhower administration. Prior to that, many reporters maintained personal relationships with the president and received updates directly from him. Now, the majority of news about the president is received through a daily (or near daily) press release, accompanied by a press briefing where the presidents press secretary answers questions about the press release. Many scholars feel that the pres ident does get a lot of attenti on, but most of it is negative. Negative coverage encourages cynicism in the population at large and alienates people from politics. Presidential press conferences, where th e president answers questions directly from the press, are much rarer. Press conf erences appear to be an opportunity for the media to directly ask the president a questi on get an answer from the president (rather than from advisers or spokespeople), but press conferences are actually carefully staged events. Government officials provide answer s that they have scripted and rehearsed before the conference. The number of news conferences given by a president varies dramatically, depending on the administration. As the figure below shows, presidents in the early 1900s gave many more press conferences than modern presidents.5 Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan gave very few pr ess conferences; Nixons low numbers were partially due to the fact that he had bad previous experiences with the press and partially due to the scandal of Watergate. Reagans lo w numbers were largely due to the fact that

PAGE 158

Chapter 7 |The Media, Politics, and Government 151 73 67 73 42 24 23 26 7 16 15 6 34 24 26 24 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 Average Number of Press Conferences per Year he preferred alternate venues for communicat ing with the press, including one-on-one interviews, answering questions on his way to or from the Presidential helicopter or during a photo session, or, as Sam Donaldson, White House reporter for ABC News said, The reason we yell at Reagan in the Rose Ga rden is thats the only place we see him.6 The media encountered challenges in cove ring George W. Bushs administration. President Bush prided himself on the tightlipped, no leaks nature of his White House. No one from the administration appeared in the media without prior approval, and no one talked about what went on behind closed doors. The administra tion was happy and the media were unhappy. Obama seems to prefer a more informal, off-the-cuff style of interaction with the press, and he has limite d the number of formal press conferences. Media coverage of Congress is different than the cove rage of the President. Congress has 535 members and is a decentralized institution. Public awareness of what Congress is doing and how it operates is rath er low. Media coverage focuses on the leadershipthe Speaker and majority and mino rity leaders. The chairs of committees engaged in reviewing important policies may get some attention from local stations and papers that report on lo cal representatives. One of the ways that the media does cover Congress is by investigations and scandals. When members of Congress do some thing scandalous (or illegal) the media give such affairs (and sometimes they are actually affairs) air time or print coverage. This kind of coverage is negative: it focuses on fail ures or misdeeds or scandals or partisan fights. The negative coverage is partly res ponsible for the publics negative perceptions of Congress as an ineffective branch of government. But media coverage of congressional committees doing their work, or the federal bureaucracy doing its work, is not usually considered newsworthy: it is cons idered as exciting as watching paint dry and not worthy of much attention. The Media World At Your Fingertips C-SPAN provides contact information for media organizations in the U.S. and other countries. Engage the media community in another country. Write a letter to the edit or about the media organizations coverage of an issue of interest to you.

PAGE 159

152 | Chapter 7: The Media, Government, and Politics 7.7 | Media and Communications Law There is an extensive body of law that governs freedom of the press. It includes statutory law (federal and state legisla tion), regulatory law (or administ rative rulings and orders), and the case law (court rulings) on the First Amendment. 7.71 | You cant say whatever you want Perhaps the most important thing to know about freedom of the press is that you are not free to publish whatever you want to. The S upreme Court has never said that the First Amendment gives an individual th e right to say anything that he or she wants to say. For instance, libel and slander are not protected by the First Amendment. Libel is writing something that is false and injures another person. A person can be held responsible (financial or otherwise) for publishing so mething libelous and the government can punish individuals who publish factual information that is deemed harmful to national security. During the World War I era the Court upheld laws that punished individuals for criticizing U.S. participation in the war. One of the legal doctrines that the Court uses to determine when freedom of the press can be restricted is the Clear and Present Danger Test The government can punish individuals for saying or publishing things that raise a clear and present danger of causing actions that the government has the power to prevent. 7.72 | The Modern Media The growing role of the media, partic ularly the various forms of electronic communication, in modern American society ha s made communications a political issue. The governments role in communications ha s been controversial for decades. The federal governments media or telecommunications policy has th ree legal foundations: 7.73 | Constitutional Law

PAGE 160

Chapter 7 |The Media, Politics, and Government 153 The First Amendment is the primary source of Constitutional protections for the media in the United States. It states that the Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press. The Court has generally interpreted th is right broadly and struck down attempted by the government to regulate the media. Freedom of the press has largely taken the form of protection from prior restraint, or the government banning expression of ideas prior to their publication. The most famous case upholding the press right to publish what it thinks is newsworthy is New York Times v. United States (1971). This is the Pentagon Papers case. The New York Times and the Washington Post had published excerpts of classified Department of Defense documents (the Pentagon Papers) examining the conduct of the War in Vietnam, a nd the papers planned additional publications. The Nixon admini stration sought an injunction against the publication of the documents, contending that the documents would prolong the war and embarrass the government. The Supreme Court explained that the First Amendment freedom of the press placed a heavy burden of proof on the government to explain why prior restraint (that is, an inj unction that prohibiting publicat ion) was necessary. And the Court ruled that the government had not me t the burden of proof because it did not explain why publication of the documents wo uld lead to immediate, inevitable, and irreparable harm to national security or other interests. As a result of the Courts rulings, the U.S. has one of the freest presses in the world. Freedom of the press is not absolute The government can limit freedom of the press if publication threatens national security in terests. The government can legally prevent publication of certain strategic info rmation such as the movement of troops during wartime. It can also legally censo r publication of instructions on how build nuclear bombs. However, information tech nology has made such efforts to prevent publication practically difficult or even impossible. Information is now freely available on the Interneteven real time images of mili tary actions. The War in Iraq illustrates how media technology has changed coverage of wars. The Pentagon adopted a policy of embedding journalists in military units. And soldiers with smart phones have repeatedly taken photos that exposed inappropriate or illegal behavior. 7.74 | Statutory Laws The statutory basis for the federal governments media and telecommunications policy has its roots in two congressional acts, the Communications Act of 1934 and the Telecommunications Act of 1996 The Communications Act of 1934 established the Federal Communications Think About It! How has communication technology changed media reporting on modern warfare? =8HSDwTrLnIE

PAGE 161

154 | Chapter 7: The Media, Government, and Politics Commission (FCC) to oversee interstate and foreign commerce in wire and radio communication. The FCC is considered one of the independent commissions because its members serve terms of office, can be removed only through impeachment, and no more than three of its five members can be from one political party. The Communications Act went through a major overhaul when Congress passed the Telecommunications Act of 1996. The pr imary purpose of the Telecommunications Act was to deregulate the telecommunications industry. Pr ior to the 1996 Act, much of the telecommunications industry resembled a monopoly. People did not have a choice as to where they purchased their telephone serv ice. The 1996 Act also relaxed laws on media ownership. Prior to the 1996 Act, a single company could not own more than twelve television sta tions or forty radio stations. Th e 1996 Act greatly relaxed this regulation, instead putting the cap of ownership at 35% of the national market for television and removing the cap entirely for radio ownership. As a result, major media companies like CBS, Fox, and Clear Channel grea tly increased their shares of the media markets. 7.75 | Administrative Regulations There are also administrative regulations that determine U.S. telecommunications and media policy. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is the primary source of these regulations, orders and policies. Thes e regulations include th e day-to-day actions of the FCC and the 1,899 employees that wo rk for the FCC. This might include the approval of a merger of two telecommunica tions companies, fining companies for indecency, licensing amateur radio operators, a nd regulating some aspects of the internet. 7.76 | The Fairness Doctrine One of the rules or regulations that the Federal Communications Commission promulgated was the fairness doctrine. The fairness doctrine required radio and television broadcast license holders to presen t controversial issues of public importance in a fair and balanced manner. The fairness doctrine is an example of an administrative regulation or law created by an administrative agency. It is a law in the generic sense that it is an official, binding policy that individuals or organi zations are not free to decide whether to comply with it. The FCCs auth ority to issue regulati ons was upheld by the Supreme Court in Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCC (1969).7 Red Lion Broadcasting aired on a Pennsylvania radio station a 15 minute broadcas t by Reverend Billy James Hargis as part of a Christian Crusade seri es. The broadcast accused an author, Fred Cook, of being a Communist and of writin g a book to smear and destroy Barry Goldwater. Cook demanded free time to re ply under the Fairness Doctrine. Red Lion refused. The FCC ruled that the broadcast was a personal attack that violated the Fairness Doctrine. Red Lion challenged the Fairness Doctrine in court. The Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the Fairness Doctrine on the grounds that Congress had the authority to regulate broadcast media because of the scarcity doctrine. According to the scarci ty doctrine, the airwaves are public and the government can regulate them by licensing to prevent signal overlap. The scarcity

PAGE 162

Chapter 7 |The Media, Politics, and Government 155 doctrine is what differentiate s the print media, which are not licensed by the government, from the broadcast media, which are. Cabl e TV is not subject to the same kinds of government licensing and regulation. 7.77 | Media Deregulation: Economic The FCC repealed the fairness doctrine in 1987. The FCC is managed by five appointed commissioners. No more than three of the five commissioners can be of one political party. The three Republican co mmissioners, who reflected the broader Republican emphasis on deregulation of busine ss, concluded that the doctrine had grown to inhibit rather than enhance debate. They maintain ed that the technology revolution had increased the media voices in the inform ation marketplace and made the fairness doctrine unnecessary (and perhaps was even an unconstitutional limit on freedom of expression). One consequence of this econom ic deregulation of th e media in the 1980s was the rise of conservative radio and television hosts/program s, such as Rush Limbaugh and Bill OReilly. The repeal of the fairness doctrine occurred at a time when conservatives were taking to the airwaves us ing a style of public di scourse that would not have been possible under the regulatory sche mes of the fairness doctrine, which would have required broadcasters to provide ri ght to reply to programs that discussed controversial issues from one perspective or side. The current FCC continues this economi c deregulatory policy by allowing media mergers in the communications industry. The FCCs position is that emerging technology and marketplace competition is prefer able to government regulation of this rapidly changing sector of the American economy. Congress has also supported this perspective in the Tele communications Act of 1996. 7.78 | Media Re-regulation: Moral Re gulatory policy and air pollution Media policy has traditionally di vided the ideological left and right in American politics. It is not a matter of one side supporting government regulation and the other side opposing government regulation. The left and right are often divide d over the purposes of government regulation. Libera ls are generally more con cerned about violence while conservatives are more concerned about se x. During the 1960s and 1970s, for example, the liberals on the Supreme C ourt generally supported civil li bertarian claims that the First Amendment freedom of expression limit ed the governments power to restrict access to sexually explicit materials. The Justices increasingly required the government to provide evidence that its restrictions we re necessary to prevent harm, and that the traditional argument that the government could restrict access to what it considered immoral materials was no longer valid. The result was a significant deregulation of morals or values based policies concerni ng access to sexually explicit materials. This deregulation was one of the reasons for the conservative backlash against liberalism. Efforts to reregulate communications include federal laws aimed at increasing the governments power to regulate the media, particularly to prot ect minors, including the following. Communications Decency Act of 19968

PAGE 163

156 | Chapter 7: The Media, Government, and Politics This law criminalized the knowing transmi ssion of obscene or indecent messages to any person who was under 18 year s of age. It defined obscene or indecent as any message that, in context, depicts or describes, in terms patently offensive as measured by contemporary community standards, sexual or excretory activitie s or organs. The Supreme Court declared these provis ions of the Act unconstitutional in Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union (1997) as the act violated the First Amendment.9 In the ruling, Justice Stevens found that the act so restricted the ability of adults to engage in communication that is appropriate for them that cost outweighs the benefits of the law. Child Online Protection Act of 1998 (The Son of CDA)10 This Act required commercial Web site operators to take actions to prevent persons under 18 from seeing material harmful to children by demanding proof of age from computer users. The Act provided a fine of $50,000 and 6 month prison term for allowing minors to view harmful content, which it defined as harmful using contemporary community standards.11 The law was challenged in court. In Ashcroft v. American Civil Liberties Union (2004) the Supreme Court ruled that the law was unconstitutional because it limited the freedom of expression rights of adults. In 2007, U.S. District Judge Lowell A. Reed explained why he thought it was not a good idea to try to protect minors by limiting their rights as adults: perhaps we do the minors of this country ha rm if First Amendment protections, which they will with age inherit fully, are chipped away in the name of their protection.12 Childrens Internet Protection Act of 2000.13 This Act required public libra ries to and public schools to take measures to limit computer access to certain Web sites in or der to protect children. The law was challenged by the American Library Associatio n on the account that it required libraries to block access to constitutionally protected information. In United States et al. v. American Library Association (2003), the Supreme Court ruled that the law did not violate the First Amendment because the law did not require libraries to block access to information but simply made the government provision of financial assistance for obtaining internet service dependent on compliance with the law. The FCC is entrusted with the responsibil ity of enforcing federal laws concerning obscenity, indecency, and profanity, as well as illegal actions by telecommunications companies, such as mystery fees14 or pay-to-play programs.15 The Enforcement Bureau of the FCC reviews public complaints and investigates to determine whether the facts warrant government action.16 These investigations can result in The difficulty

PAGE 164

Chapter 7 |The Media, Politics, and Government 157 STATEMENT OF MICHAEL K. POWELL, CHAIR FEDERAL COMMUNICATION COMMISSION Re: Complaints Against Various Licen sees Regarding Th eir Broadcast on November 11, 2004, of ABC Television Ne tworks Presentation of the Film Saving Private Ryan, Today, we reaffirm that content cannot be evaluated without careful consideration of context. Saving Private Ryan is filled with expletives and material arguably unsuitable for some audiences, but it is not indecent in the unanimous view of the Commission. This film is a critically acclaimed artw ork that tells a gritty storyone of bloody battles and supreme heroism. The horror of war and the enormous personal sacrifice it draws on cannot be painted in airy past els. The true co lors are muddy brown and fire red and any accurate depiction of this significant historical tale could not be told properly without bringing th at sense to the screen. It is for these reasons that the FCC has previously declined to rule this film indecent. This, of course, is not to suggest that legal content is not otherwise objectionable to many Americans. Recognizing that fact, it is the responsible broa dcaster that will provide full and wide disclosure of what viewers are likely to se e and hear, to allow individuals and families to make their own well-informed decisions whether to watch or not. I believe ABC and its affiliated stations ma de a responsible effort to do just that in this case. Fair warning is appropriately an important consideration in indecency cases. In complaints you often find that Americans are no t excessively prudish, only that they are fed up with being ambushed with content at times and places they least expect it. It is insufficient to tell consumers not to watch obj ectionable content, if the shock value is dependent on the element of surprise. This is particularly true in broadcast television, where viewers are accustomed and encouraged to order their viewing by parts of the daymorning shows, daytime TV and late ni ght have long been the zones in which expectations are set. When those lines ar e blurred, the consumer loses a degree of control, a degree of choice. Context remains vital to any consider ation of whether profanity or sexual content constitutes legally actionable indecenc y. The Commission must stay faithful to considering complaints within their setting and temper any movement toward stricter liability if it hopes to give full effect to the confines of the First Amendment. determining what constitutes programming that warrants fines or ot her legal actions is illustrated by Michael Powell, the former Chair of the FCC, who stated the FCCs position on a television network broadcast of the popular film, Saving Private Ryan without censoring the soldiers cursing. In response to p ublic complaints about the primetime broadcast, and in an attempt to ease broadcasting company concerns about whether they would be subject to FCC discip linary actions (fines or broadcast licensure revocation), Powell provided the fo llowing explanation of FCC policy.

PAGE 165

158 | Chapter 7: The Media, Government, and Politics 7.8 | Which Way Are We Going? The study of communication law and policy leads to the conclusion that for the past several decades (from the 1970s until today) policy has been moving in two different directions at the same time. One directio n is toward deregulat ion (less government): policy has generally supported ec onomic or business deregulation of telecommunications. In an er a of deregulation of various industries (airlines; oil and natu ral gas), conservatives have argued that marketplace compe tition and technological innovation are solutions to problems w ith communications sector, not government regulation. The seco nd direction is toward more regulation (more government) : policy has supported more government regulation of telecommun ications on behalf of social or values purposes. Conservati ves worry about sex programming; liberals worry about depictions of violence. The conflict between economic deregulation and social reregulation/regulation is apparent in a proposal made by the Chair of the FCC to extend the FCCs regulatory authority to cable television. Interest groups such as the Parents Television Council support th e proposal to give the FCC authority to re gulate explicit sex and violence and indecency. Tim Winter, the President of the PTC tried to put telecommunications in proper perspective when he stated that, except for the Pentagon, the FCC has the most important role in our nation. His argument echoed some of the earliest f ounding statements about the relationship between the media and democracy, particularly his claim that the way we communicate (the public airwaves, elec tronic communication, cable, sa tellite, telephone) is the essence of our democracy. The advocates of expanding the FCCs au thority over the communications sector by authorizing it to regulate cable as well as broadcast companies, have encountered strong opposition. Opponents of expanding the FCCs regulatory authority include the national Cable and Telecommunications Associ ation. The Association believes that the best way to regulate the industry is to rely on the intensely competitive marketplace, not government intervention. In fact, despite the politics supporting increased government regulation of programming, the law is likely to present a significant hurdle. Blair Levin, the chief of staff to FCC Chairman Reed Hundt thinks that the effort to extend the FCCs reach to include cable companies would ultimately lose in the courts. He also wryly commented that FCC Chair Martins push for a la carte service subscriptions, which is related to family values selection, was likely doomed: Every chairman of the FCC comes to realize there is a conflict betw een family values and market values.17 7.9 | Media Bias The press has been charged with bias from the earliest days of the republic. The charge was certainly accurate during the founding era of the partisan penny press. Contemporary criticism of the media for bein g biased is partly the result of higher Think about it! Has communications technology made it possible for almost anyone to claim to be a journalist?

PAGE 166

Chapter 7 |The Media, Politics, and Government 159 expectations of a professional press. The growing role of th e media has increased scrutiny of the media and the ways in which they influence values, behavior, and public understanding of government and politics.18 Individuals in positions of power in either the private sector (heads of companies or unions or other organizations) or the public sector (national, stat e, or local government officials) are likely to be sympathetic to the charge of media bias because the institutional press has historically claimed a watchdog role, one that includes investigative reporting. The government watchdog role has made the me dia an oppositional force in the sense that the press investigates and serves as a watchdog for whatever administration is in control of government. 7.9 | Additional Resources 7.91 | Internet Resources The Center for Media and Public Affairs at provides information about the public role of the media. The Pew Research Centers Projec t on Excellence in Journalism at One of the Pew Research Centers newer proj ects is the Pew Internet & American Life Project. It provides interesting perspectives on the cultural effects of the reliance on the Internet. See One useful source of information about the modern media is One example of the new media is the fake news shows have blurred some of the distinctions between news and entertainment (Infotainment). /the-colbert-report-videos/ 252013/october-08-2009/bend-itlike-beck The University of California at Los Angele s website has both stat utory law and case law relating to electronic law and policy The Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania conducts content analysis on TV coverage of politics. Newseum is the museum dedicated to the histor y of news and media, with a Web site that has interesting cyber exhibits, including coverage of the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, war correspondents, editorial cartoonis ts, women photographe rs, and front-page stories from around the country. 7.92 | In the Library Baker, C. Edwin. 2006. Media Concentrati on and Democracy: Why Ownership Matters. Cambridge University Press.

PAGE 167

160 | Chapter 7: The Media, Government, and Politics Bennett, W. Lance. 2004. News: Th e Politics of Illusion. Longman. Bennett, W. Lance, Regina G. Lawrence, and Steven Livingston. 2007. When the Press Fails: Political Power and the News Media from Iraq to Katrina. University of Chicago Press. Cook, Timothy. 1998. Governing with the News. University of Chicago Press. Eshbaugh-Soha, Matthew. 2003. Presidential Pr ess Conferences over Time. American Journal of Political Science 47 (2):348 Fritz, Ben et al. 2004. All the Presidents Spin: George W. Bush, the Media, and the Truth. Simon and Schuster Trade. Goldberg, Bernard. 2001. Bias: A CBS Insider Exposes How the Media Distort the News. Regnery Press. Graber, Doris A. (ed). 1998. The Politics of News: The News of Politics. Congressional Quarterly Books. Jamieson, Kathleen Hall. 2000. Everything You Think You Know About PoliticsAnd Why Youre Wrong. Basic Books. Kovach, Bill and Tom Rosenstiel. 2007. El ements of Journalism: What Newspeople Should Know and the Public Should Expect. Crown Publishing. Lieberman, Trudy. 2000. Slanting the Story: The Forces that Shape the News. New Press. Prior, Markus. 2007. Post-Broadcast Democracy: How Media Choice Increases Inequality in Political In volvement and Polarizes Elections. Cambridge University Press. Schechter, Danny. 2003. Media Wars: News at a Time of Terror. Rowman and Littlefield Publishers, Inc. Shogun, Robert. 2001. Bad News: Where the Pr ess Go Wrong in the Making of the President. Ivan Dee Press. Summerville, John. 1999. How the News Makes Us Dumb. Intervarsity Press.

PAGE 168

Chapter 7 |The Media, Politics, and Government 161 Study Questions 1. When covering Congress, who tends to be the focus of media coverage? Why? 2. Leonard Downie, Jr., the former executive editor of the Washington Post, does not vote because he thinks voting might lead to questions about his neutrality. Explain whether you think journalists can be neutral and also vote in elections? 3. Compare and contrast the print press and electronic media. 4. How much confidence does the public have in the media? Is this level of confidence sufficient to ensure a vibrant democracy? 5. What are the major periods of the media? 6. What is the medias relationship with the president? 1 Schudson, Michael. 1981. Discovering the News: A social history of American newspapers New York: Basic Books. 2 Quoted in The State of the News Media 2007, An Annual Report on American Journalism, 3 4 A congressional press pass allows reporters to sit in the House and Senate press galleries, as well as providing some access to presidentia l press briefings. The process to get a congressional press pass is available here: 5 Gerhard Peters. Preside ntial News Conferences. The American Presidency Project Ed. John T. Woolley and Gerhard Peters. Santa Barbara, CA: Univ ersity of California. 1 999-2010. Available at: http://www.presidency.ucsb.e du/data/newsconferences.php 6 Steven V. Roberts, Washington Talk: The Presidency; Shouting Questions At Reagan, New York Times October 21, 1987. 7 960-1969/1968/1968_2_2 8 9 990-1999/1996/1996_96_511 10 11 12 13 14 /News_Releases/DOC-301874A1.html 15 /News_Releases/DOC-300325A1.html 16 17 18 http://www.stateofthenewsmedia .org/chartland.asp?id=200&ct=col&dir=&sort=&col4_box=1 Key Terms Educative Role Watchdog Role Commercial Media

PAGE 169

CHAPTER 8: Public Opinion

PAGE 170

163 Chapter 8: Public Opinion| 8.0 | Public Opinion James Madison believed that popular govern mentwhat is today called democratic governmentrequires an informed public. One of the most widely shared modern beliefs is that democracy requires an in formed, educated, and active citizenry in order to work as a good form of government. The belief that knowledge can overcome ignorance and solve problems is at the foundation of many collective human endeavors whether in the world of science or the world of politics: the scientific community and the political commun ity. It is an article of political faith that knowledge is power and popular inform ation makes self-government possible. The importance of information explains why political scientists, government officials, members of political parties, business groups, organized labor, and so many other interest groups pay so much attention to public opinion. This chapter examines public opinion: what it is; how it is formed; how it is measured; and its role in politics, government, and public policy. The power problem with public opini on is determining whether, to what degree, and how public opinion influences public policy. Democratic theory assumes that public opinion drives the political machine. But political practice (how politics and government actually work) and political science research raise important questions about the theory. Th e relationship between public opinion and public policy is not a simple cause and effect relationship as described in Figure 8.1 below. The relationship is complicated by several factors. One complicating factor is the fact that the U.S. is not a pure or direct democracy; it is a constitutional democracy that places limits on major ity rule. A second complicating factor concerns the nature of public opinion. Is public opinion a cause (that is, does it determine government action) or an effect (is it the result of something else). Figure 8.1 describes the democratic assumption about public opinion as the cause of government action. But what if public opini on is itself the effect of something? Questions about who or what controls public opinion are central to the power problem with public opinion because they are central to the assumptions of the democratic theory of politics and govern ment. Governments and other political actors try to control public opinion. Figure 8.1 The Classic Systems Theory A popular government without popular information, or means of acquiring it, is but a Prologue to a Farce or a Tragedy, or perhaps both. Knowledge will forever govern ignorance, and a people who mean to be their own Governors must arm themselves with the power which knowledge gives. James Madison Letter to W.T. Barry (Aug. 4, 1822) A popular government without popular information, or means of acquiring it, is but a Prologue to a Farce or a Tragedy, or perhaps both. Knowledge will forever govern ignorance, and a people who mean to be their own Governors must arm themselves with the power which knowledge gives. James Madison Letter to W.T. Barry Government Decision making Process Public Opinion Public Policy Government Decision making Process Public Opinion Public Policy ?

PAGE 171

btnbfrbb btnfr rr bt n b b b b 8.1 | Definition P ublic opinion is defined as the aggregate of public attitudes or beliefs about government or politics. The following description and analysis of public opinion in the U.S. focuses on three main issues. The first issue is the political importance of public opinion in representative systems of government. The second issue is the role of public opinion in two models of democracythe delegate and trustee models of democracy. The third issue is the nature of public opinion, particularly the formation, measurement, and control of public opinion. btnfr P ublic opinion is important in democratic political systems because democratic selfgovernment is based on the consent of the governed. Democratic theory requires public policies to more or less reflect public opinion. Democracy assumes that the people are the ultimate source of governing authority. This is what is meant by popular sovereignty: the people are sovereign. Popular sovereignty is one of the basic principles of the U.S. system of representative government. The belief that government authority derives from the people means that public policies are supposed to be based on public opinion. Public opinion is supposed to directly or indirectly cause public policies to be enacted. Responsiveness to public opinion is one measure of a political systems legitimacythe belief that a system of government is lawful, right, or just. nfrr Th e following describes two models of representation: the delegate model and the trustee model democracy. The two models describe how public opinion influences public policy in modern democracies and how public opinion should influence public policy. tb br According to the delegate model, public opinion is the principal source of government legitimacy because government power is only properly exercised when it is based on public opinion. It describes a strong linkage between public opinion and public policy. Public opinion

PAGE 172

165 Chapter 8: Public Opinion| Ambition must be made to counteract ambition. The interest of the man must be connected with the constitutional rights of the place. It ma y be a reflection on human nature, that such devices should be necessary to control the ab uses of government. But what is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on hum an nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern me n, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you mu st first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to cont rol itself. A dependence on the people is, no doubt, the primary control on the government; but experience has taught mankind the necessity of auxiliary precautions. is considered the cause of public policy; public opinion is considered th e determinant of public policy. The delegate model of democracy is based on the delegate theory of representation. The delegate theory of representati on describes elected government officials as obligated to do the will of the peopleto represent the constituents w ho elect them to office. Government officials are instructed delegates in the sense that they are expected to do what the people want. The strong role of public opinion in the delegate model of democracy makes it a populist form of representative democracy. P opulist means of the people. A populist is a person, party, or philosophy that advocates for t he people or the common pers on or the middle class as opposed to the elites. 8.32 | The Trustee Model The trustee model allows government officials more fr eedom of choice to decide what is in the public interest. Government officials are not expected to act solely upon public opinion. The trustee model of democracy is based on the trustee model of representation, where a government official is not obligated to do what th e people want, but can deci de what is best. A representative is consid ered a trustee whose be tter access to information or good judgment may justify the representatives beliefs, actions, or votes differ from public opi nion at any moment in time. The trustee is not require d to do what public opinion polls indicate that the people want. The government officials are held accountable for their decisions in regular elections, but they have considerable freedom to choose courses of action that may in fact differ from the preferences of the public as measured by polls, for example. Th e trustee model is more elitist in the sense that elected representatives are expected to be the bet ter sorts of the community, the leaders who are chosen to make good decisions about public policy wit hout merely following public opinion. 8.4 | The Founders Intentions The Framers did not establish a direct democracy. They created an indirect democracy or republic whereby the public selects individuals to represent their interests in government decisions. They believe that a re public was a better form of gove rnment than a direct democracy because they worried about majority rule. Absolute majority rule would be replacing monarchyrule by King Georgewith democracy rule by King Numbers. They were committed to popular government, but not one wher e majority rule applied to all aspects of government and politics. These vi ews are described in Madisons Federalist Papers Number 10 and Number 51. Federalist Number 51 elaborates on the ways to limit the abuse of government power that is made necessary by human nature. Popular sove reignty is the primary way to limit the abuse of power, and the system of checks and balances (f ederalism and the separation of powers) is the

PAGE 173

166|Chapter 8: Public Opinion secondary (or auxiliary) limit on the abuse of power. Madison famously wrote that human nature makes government necessary, and makes it necessary to control government: In Federalist Number 10 Madison explained that the F ounders created a representative democracy that was not purely majority rule. Th ey believed that the best form of government was one that was based on limited majority rule. The Constitution placed limits on the power of the people to do whatever they wanted. The constitution protected minorities, landowners, wealthier individuals, white males, from majority rule. This is the concept of a constitutional democracy. It is one which combines two conflic ting goals: democracy suggests that the people can do as they will. Democracy suggests pure majo rity rule. Constitutional suggests limits on the power of a majority to do as it wills. It cannot do whatever it wants. This is one of the tensions in the U.S. system of government. Each generation must strive to achieve that delicate balance between granting the majority power to do what it wants and lim iting majority rule to protect minorities. The Bill of Rights, for exam ple, places limits on th e power of the people as expressed in laws passed by Congress. 8.5 | The Nature of Public Opinion 8.51 | Formation of Public Opinion One of the most interesting que stions about public opinion is how people acquire their beliefs, attitudes, and orientati ons. Understanding public opinion be gins with examining some of the main sources of public opin ion, including political sociali zation, education, life experience, political parties, the media, and the government. 8.52 | Socialization Socialization is all the ways that people acquire attitudes, values, and beliefs. Socialization begins early. The agents of socialization include families, schools, friends, religious institutions, workplace colleagues, and the media. Children begin to form political attitudes very early in life. The family is a strong influence on thi nking about government and politics. Children do not always or automatica lly identify with their parents ideology or political party but a persons party affiliation is cau sally related to their parents. Socialization also occurs in settings other than the family. So me of the other agents of socialization can limit the influence of the family. For example, the f act that many children are now raised in families where both parents work means that the family s influence has decreas ed relative to other sources of socialization such as school s, friends, colleagues, and the media. 8.53 | Life Experiences Not all political attitudes are fixed early in li fe. A persons adult experiences, desires, or needs can form new attitudes or change old ones. A change in a persons health can change attitudes about social welfare programs, for exam ple. A change in a persons economic status, for better or worse, may affect attitudes. Times of genera l economic prosperity or an individuals need may shape a pe rsons thinking about the appropriate role for government in the

PAGE 174

167 Chapter 8: Public Opinion| 45 38 31 47 0 10 20 30 40 50 NortheastMidwestSouthWestFavor Gay Marriage (% strongly favor and favor) economy. Unemployment due to an economic down tu rn, or riches from entrepreneurial success, can change a persons thinking about the fair ness of the marketplace as a mechanism for allocating resources. In American politics, economics is one of the factors that have historically divided conservatives and liberals, Republicans and Demo crats. A persons work experience as a business owner or manager, or an employee, can affect attitudes toward government and politics. Public opinion about economic issues, such as ta x policies and spending policies and government regulation of business, is one of the ways we id entify individuals as cons ervatives, liberals, or populists. 8.54 | Education Education is also recognized as one of the major sources of socialization. Students acquire information and attitudes in schools. On e of the reasons why issues such as school desegregation, school busing, school prayer, mandatory flag salu tes or pledges of allegiance, and curriculum issues such as civics, values, toleran ce, and evolution have been so controversial is because public schools have an educational mission and a socialization function. The impact of public schools is not just limited to academics. E ducational institutions also play an important role in socialization, which is why school curric ulum and policies have been considered worth fighting over. 8.55|Geography Regional differences have played an importa nt role in some of the countrys most important political experiences. Early in the nations history, the geographic divisions were the result of distinctive economic systems in the northeast (manufacturing and shipping), the south (agrarian and plantation), and the interior frontier. By the middle of the 19th Century, the divisions between the industrial, nonslave North and the agricultural, slave-holding South resulted in the Civil War. The urbanization of the 20th Century produced major difference of public opinion in urban and rural ar eas. Political geography s till has an effect on attitudes and policy preferences. Generally, people in the Northeast and the West are more likely to support abortion rights, while those in the Midwest and South are more likely to favor restricting access to abortions. As the figure here shows, these regional trends are echoed in the support for gay marriage. 8.56 | Race and Ethnicity Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life. Do you strongly favor, favor, oppose, or strongly oppose allowing gay and lesbian couples to marry legally? October 9, 2009

PAGE 175

168|Chapter 8: Public Opinion Ethnic and racial groups have diffe red in their political values throughout our nations history. African Americans, mobilized by th e Republican Party (the party of Lincoln) in post-Civil War period, were excluded from the political system in the South until the Civil Rights movements in the 19050s and 1960s and were eventually won over by the Democratic Partys support for the movement. Currently, African Americans support liberal policies and Democratic candidates. In the late 1800s and early 1900s, European s from countries like Italy, Ireland, Germany, and Poland immigrated in larg e numbers to the United States. These groups became a part of Franklin Delano Roosevelts New Deal coalition in the 1930 and they continued to be part of the Democratic Great Society coalit ion in the 1960s. Since then, how ever, conservatives such as Ronald Reagan have successfully appealed to these European ethnic groups which were identified as Reagan Democrats. In recent de cades, the political beha vior of Hispanics has attracted a great deal of atten tion because they are the fastest growing ethnic group in the United States. Both the Democratic and Republican part ies are interested in securing their political support. But this has been challenging because the term Hispanic includes a broad range of people with different backgrounds experiences, and attitudes. Mexican-Americans, CubanAmericans, and Puerto Ricans, for ex ample are all considered Hispanic. 8.57 | Gender A persons gender can have a ma jor effect on their political attitudes. During the last thirty years, women have been more likely to support liberal issues and the Democratic Party. The gender difference in party identification is the gender gap Women are more likely to support the Democratic Party and men are more likely to support the Republican Party. Women are also more likely to support affirmative action policies, welfare policie s, income assistance, reproductive rights (pro-choice vi ews on abortion), and equal righ ts for gays and lesbians. Women have voted for the Democratic presidential candidate at a higher rate than men in every presidential election si nce Jimmy Carters 1980 bid against R onald Reagan. Women also register more frequently as members of the Democratic Party. As the figure belo w shows, the gender gap in party registration fluctuates with the year, but women remain consistently more likely to register as Democrats.

PAGE 176

169 Chapter 8: Public Opinion| Information Mass Medi a Individual 8.55|The Media The media play a large and growing role in modern American society. In 1997, adult Americans spent around thirty hours a week watc hing television, and children spent even more time watching television.1 The general consensus that the media have an impact on public opinion masks debates about the nature of that impact. Take, for example, socializationthe process by which individuals acqui re information and form attit udes and values. The media are one important source of socialization in the sens e that people acquire in formation and attitudes from the media. The traditional mass media have played an important in mediating between individuals and the government. The figur e below described the mediating role. 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50% Percentage of the Population Registered as Democratics Women Men

PAGE 177

170|Chapter 8: Public Opinion The Mediating Role of the Mass Media The traditional mass media include the print press (especially newspapers) and the broadcast media (especially the television and radio networks). The role the media play in American politics includes setting the agenda. The term setting the agenda describes how the media decide what issues th e public should be thinking about. The media decide what constitutes news th at is worth reporting. Media c overage of poverty, the rate of inflation, religion, crime, or national security has an impact on what the public thinks is important as well as how the public thinks a bout the governments performance. Media influence on the values and attit udes of minors has been especially controversial. The content of programming, particularly concerning sex and indecent language and violence, has been a political issue for some time. The federal gover nment has undertaken a number of efforts to regulate the content on broad cast networks. Congress has passed legislat ion regulating programming. The Federal Communications Commission has implemented administrative regulations, including fines, which attempt to control indecent progra mming on the broadcast networks. And the Supreme Court has ruled on the constitutionality of these legislative and administrative restrictions on programs broadcast ove r the airwaves. More recently, efforts have focused on the Internet. Not all of the debate is a bout the medias role in maki ng sexually explicit or violent material more widely available. Another issu e is the ideology. The id eological bias of the mainstream media is one of the recurring themes of commentary about the political role of the media in modern American society. This issue w ill be examined in greater detail in the section on the media. 8.56 | The Government The government is an important source of publ ic opinion and it has a variety of ways to influence public opinion. Public schools, for example, teach civicswhich included attitudes toward government politics. The government is also able to instill patriotic attitudes, and the use of controlled information about national security matters, for example, to influence public opinion. Presidents, for instance benefit from the rally ar ound the flag effect when the country faces a threat. The governments role in socializing is controvers ial, however, because it seems to reverse the causal order of democratic theory wherein public opinion determines public policy. And government influence on public opinions is often considered propaganda. Propaganda is one of the normative or value-laden terms like democracy, conservative/liberal, bureaucracy, or terrorism. It is often associated with illegitimate or improper government efforts to influence thinking about politics, such as brain-washing or overly emotional appeals that convinces individuals or groups to support a particular strong leader, a party, or an ideology. But the descriptive, dictionary definition of propaganda is that it is using words or speech intended to convince someone of a political position or point of view. In this sense, propaganda is persuasion or advocacywhich seems central to politics. Some of the earliest discussions of public opinion were by economists who were interested in the workings of the market place. Adam Smith, the classical economist referred to public opinion in his work, The Theory of Moral Sentiments (1759). It is no t surprising that economists who think about the role of supply and demand in the marketplace would think about public opinion. The English philosopher Jeremy Bentham also applied the concept of public opinion to thinking about the relationship between the government and the people. Bentham is

PAGE 178

171 Chapter 8: Public Opinion| 0 20 40 60 80 Confidence in Institutions(% saying a great deal or quite a lot) Congress The President The Supreme Court GALLUP 2010 Confidence Poll; Now I am going to read you a list of institutions in American society. Please tell me how much confidence you, yourself, have in each one -a great deal, quite a lot, some, or a little associated with the utilitarian philosophy that the political and economic calculation of the public good or public interest is the grea test good for the greatest number This variation of rule by king numbers was rejected by the Founders who did not trust the public enough to give the people direct democracy. 8.6 | Is Public Opinion a Cause or an Effect? Are attitudes toward government and politics th e cause of public policies, or are attitudes (public opinion) the result of other factors? In politics, power is the ability to make another person do what you want. Can political power be used to make a person think what you want? This is an especially important ques tion when the subject is the government. 8.61 | Rhetoric One important means of public communication is rhetoric. Rhetoric is the art of using language, both public speaking and writing, to communi cate, to persuade, or to convince. In the 19th Century rhetoric was taught using collecti ons of memorable political speeches and even pulpit eloquence such as The American Orator The Orator was an influential book that trained individuals in proper public speaking t echniques the way that other books trained people in proper etiquette. 8.63 | Dynamic or Static One of the most important things to remember about public opinion is that it is dynamic, not static. It changesand perhaps more important, it can be changed Public opinion about the president, for example, is very dynamic and responds to a broad range of factors. Public opinion about congress is more stable, but reflects ge neral public assessments of how congress is performing as a political institution. Public opinion polls such as the Gallup Poll regularly ask people for their opini on about government. Sixtynine percent of Americans say they have a great deal or fair amount of conf idence in the Supreme Court, compared with 50% for Congress and 43% for the president. Public confidence in

PAGE 179

172|Chapter 8: Public Opinion 0 50 100 20002001200220032004200520062007200820092010Approval Ratings(% indicating approval of Institution) Congress Supreme Court President Congress and the president has been trending steadily downward for decades. In contrast, public confidence in the Court ha s remained very stable.2 Political actors, such as candidates for office, gove rnment officials, party leaders, interest group leaders, and community activists are not limited to responding to public opinion. Political actors try to influence, change, and even to control public opinion. In government and politics information is power. Information about how people acquire their attitu des can increase the understanding of socialization. 8.64 | The Marketplace of Ideas Understanding how people acquire their attitudes can make it possible to use that information to control what people think. This is the essence of the power problem with public opinion. Can public opinion (ideas and attitudes) be manufactured the way material products are made? Can ideas about candidates, parties, and issu es be sold the way othe r products are sold to consumers? The marketplace is a fa miliar and powerful concept in the United States because the U.S. is a capitalist country where people are ve ry familiar with the idea of a marketplace of goods and services. It is not su rprising that th e logic of the economic marketplace has been applied to politics. The political marketplace of ideas refers to the ability to pick and choose from among the competing ideologies and parties the way that consumers are able to pick and choose from among the competing sellers of goods and services. The application of economic marketplace logi c to the political mark etplace raises some important questions about the nature of public opinion. One question is about the role of advertising. The conventional economic wisdom is that marketers and advertisers respond to consumer demands for products and services. But modern advertising also creates demand. The ability to create consumer demand, rather than just respond to c onsumer demands, is one reason why the government regulates the advertising of certain goods and services. Lawyer advertising is regulated by the government. Medical advertis ing, particularly of drug s, is regulated by the government. Advertising of tobacco products is heavily regulated by the government, particularly advertising campaigns that appe al to minors by using car toon characters. The Federal Trade Commissions mission includes regulating business pr actices that are deceptive or unfair to consumers. It has a Bureau of Consumer Protection which prevents fraud,

PAGE 180

173 Chapter 8: Public Opinion| deceptive, and unfair business practices in the ma rketplace. It investigates complaints about advertising. 8.65 | The Government in the Marketplace of Ideas Of course, the government is also in the business of trying to control public opinion rather than merely responding to it. Governments frequently try to control what people think about the issues, about candidates, about parties, about govern ment officials, and about the government itself. The pejorative term for these efforts is propaganda; the modern term is public relations. In the 1930s and 1940s the government used newly emerging experts (in public relations, advertising, and film) to influence public opinion. An example of these propaganda programs to produce public opinion is the Roos evelt administrations New Deal WPA program, By the People, For the People: Posters from the WPA, 1936-1943 One archive that includes short films that were produced by the governme nt to build popular su pport for certain public policies, such as the Cold War or military service, is ils/americanoratoror00cook The moving images preserved here show government programs to shape the following thinking and behavior: For appropriate behavior for young people in the 1950s, watch How to be a teenage in 1950; For messages encouraging patriotism and support for military service, watch the cartoon Private Snuffy Smith; s/private_snuffy_smith For promoting health fears of sexua l promiscuity, watch Sex Madness: The WWII removal and detention Japanese living in designated areas of the west coast of the U.S.: 8.66 | Nature or Nurture? Are political ideas something that an individual is born with or something that is acquired? Much of public opinion about government and polit ics is the result of nu rture not nature; it is acquired through experience or learned from fam ily, friends, school, and work. This is one reason why it is considered important for a democracy to provide equal access to information, public discourse about current events, and rational debates about political alternatives. Access to information ensures that individuals have an equal right to participate in politicsregardless of whether than right is actually exercises. Public opinion is subject to manipulation by a variety of elites, governmental and nongovernmental. The Declaration of Independence a sserted that all men were create equal and endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights. This declaration of equality is generally understood to mean that each individu al has legal and political equality, or the same rights rather than having right s based on status or power. 8.7 | Democratic Theory and Political Reality

PAGE 181

174|Chapter 8: Public Opinion The relationship between public opinion and public policy is more complicated than simply public opinion causes or determines public policy. In most modern, western-style democracies, there are ongoing debates about th e degree to which public opinion matters, the degree to which public opinion determines public policy. Critics of modern democracy argue that a group of elites, either officials in government or those individuals or organizations that are outside government with more money, power, or access to resources, essentially control public opinion and make public policy for their special interest s, not the general public. Supporters of modern democracy acknowledge that not everyone has equal resources, and that wealth and power are unequally distributed. But they argue th at power is sufficiently spread around so that no single set of elitesthe w ealthy, powerful, informed, or even governmentcan control public opinion and dominate the po litical process. These supporte rs of modern democracy are generally pluralists. Pluralists maintain that there are many elites and many groups that compete for influence, but which are unable to control pu blic opinion or dominate the political process. 8.71 | The Premise of Democratic Theory The premise (or basic assumption) of democratic theory is that an informed public makes choices about government official s and public policies. In other words, democratic theory assumes that elections determine who governs and what policies will be enacted into law. This is the argument that democratic government is legitimate because its authority is based on the consen t of the governed. Is this assumption valid? There is empirica l evidence that the assumption of an informed public is mistaken. Public opinion polls indicate that the American public is not we ll-informed about public affairs, candidates, or issues. Civics knowle dge is rather low. The average voter has little information about pu blic affairs, including the names of their representatives in c ity government, county government, state legislature, or congress. Pe ople do not pay much attention to politics. More attention is paid to social and cultural activities such as entertainment and sports than politics. The low levels of information about politics are the result of apathy (disinterest), the belief that participation in pol itics does not really matter very much (low levels of efficacy), time constraints (being busy with families and work). People have other priorities for allocating their scarce resources (time, effo rt, and money). It is much easier for professionalspeople who have white collar jobs or information-related j obs such as journalism or academiato keep up with public affairs than people wh o have blue collar jobs or j obs that do not involve working with information. There are information costs associated with becoming well-informed about public affairs and keeping up with the issues. 8.8 | Measuring Public Opinion 8.81 | Polling Public opinion polling is one of the facts of modern life. Gallup polls are a familiar feature of modern politics. Th e widespread use of public opinion measurement around the world Think About It! Are You Smarter Than A 5th Grader? Is Kelly Pickler? =Cey35bBWXls

PAGE 182

175 Chapter 8: Public Opinion| is evidence of the belief that public opinion is important for political and other purposes. Governments find surveys to be useful tools for gathering information about what the public thinks, for guiding public information and prop aganda campaigns, and for formulating public policies. The US Department of Agriculture was one of the first government agencies to sponsor systematic and large scale surveys. It was followed by many other federal bodies, including the US information agency which has conducted opi nion research throughout the world. It is frequently measured using survey sampling. An opinion poll is a survey of opinion from a particular sample. Opinion polls are usually designed to represent the opinions of a population by asking a small number of people a series of questions and then extrapolating th e answers to the larger group within certain confidence intervals. 8.82 | History The first known example of an opinion poll was a local straw vote conducted by The Harrisburg Pennsylvanian in 1824. It showed Andrew Jackson leading John Quincy Adams by 335 votes to 169 in the contest for the presidency. This straw vote was not scientific. But straw votes became popular in local elections. In 1916, the Literary Digest conducted a national survey as part of an effort to increase circulation. The straw vote correctly predicted Woodrow Wilsons election as president. The Digest correctly called the following four presidenti al elections by simply mailing out millions of postcards and counting the returns. In 1936, the Digests 2.3 million voters constituted a very large sample, but the sample included more affluent Americans who tended to support the Republican Party. This biased the results. The week before the election the Digest reported that Republican Alf Landon was far more popular than Democrat Franklin D. Roosevelt. At the same time, George Gallup conducted a much smaller, but mo re scientifically-based surve y. He polled a demographically representative sample, and co rrectly predicted Roosevelts landslide victor y in the 1936 presidential election. The Literary Digest soon went out of business. The polling industry gained credibility and public opinion polling began to play a more important role in politics, particularly campaigning. But public opinion polling has changed. In a 1968 book, The Pulse of Democracy George Gallup and Saul Rae desc ribed public opinion polling as taking the pulse of democracy. By this, they meant that polling used social scie ntific methods to try to accurately measure what the public was thinking about public affairs. To day, polling is more likely to be conducted for the purpose of making the pulse of democracy, using social scientific methods to make public opinion. This is the argument made by David W. Moore in The Opinion Makers (2008). This change in the way information about how and what people think is used is directly related to the power problem with public opinion. 8.83 | Methods

PAGE 183

176|Chapter 8: Public Opinion In the early days of public opinion polling, po lls were conducted mainly by face-to-face interviews (on the street or in a persons hom e). Face-to-face polling is still done, but telephone polls have become more popular because they can be conducted quickly and cheaply. However, response rates for phone surveys have been declining. Some polling organizations, such as YouGov and Zogby use Internet surveys, where a sample is drawn from a large panel of volunteers and the results are weighed to reflect the demographics of the population of interest. This is in contrast to popular web polls that dr aw on whoever wishes to pa rticipate rather than a scientific sample of the population, and are therefore not ge nerally considered accurate. The wording of a poll quest ion can bias the results. The bias can be unintentional (accidental) or intentiona l. For instance, the public is more lik ely to indicate support for a person who is described by the caller as one of the leading candidates. Neglec ting to mention all the candidates is an even more subtle bias, as is lumping some candidates in an other category. Being last on a list affects responses. In fact, th is is one reason why el ection rules provide for listing candidates in alphabetic order or alternating Republican and Democratic candidates. When polling on issues, answers to a question about abortion vary de pending on whether a person is asked about a fet us or and unborn baby. All polls based on samples are subject to sa mpling error which reflects the effects of chance in the sampling process. The uncertainty is often expressed as a margin of error. The margin of error does not reflect other sources of error, such as measurement error. A poll with a random sample of 1,000 people has margin of sampli ng error of 3% for the estimated percentage of the whole population. A 3% margin of error means that 95% of the time the procedure used would give an estimate within 3% of the percentage to be estimated. The margin of error can be reduced by using a larger sample, however if a pollster wishes to reduce the margin of error to 1% they would need a sample of around 10,000 people. In practice pollsters need to balance the cost of a large sample against th e reduction in sampli ng error and a sample size of around 500-1,000 is a typical compromise for political polls.3 Nonresponse bias. Some people do not answer calls from strangers, or refuse to respond to polls or poll questions. As a result, a poll sample may not be a representative sample from a population. Because of this selection bias, the characteristics of those who agree to be interviewed may be markedly different fr om those who decline. That is, the actual sample is a biased version of the universe the pollster wants to analyze. In these cases, bias introduces new errors that are in additi on to errors caused by sample size. Error due to bias does not become smaller with larger sample sizes. If the people who refuse to answer, or are never reached, have the same characteristics as th e people who do answer, the final results will be unbias ed. If the people w ho do not answer have different opinions then there is bias in the results. In terms of election polls, studies suggest that bias effects are small, but each polling firm has its own formulas on how to adjust weights to minimize selection bias. Response bias. Survey results may be affected by response bias. Response bias is when a respondent gives answers that not reflect his or her actual beliefs. This occurs for a variety of reasons. One reason is that a resp ondent may feel pressu re not to give an unpopular answer. For example, respondents mi ght be unwilling to admit to socially unpopular attitudes such as racism, sexism, or they may feel pressu re to identify with socially or politically popular attitudes such as patriotism, civic activism, or religious

PAGE 184

177 Chapter 8: Public Opinion| commitment. For these reasons, a poll might not reflect the true incidence of certain attitudes or behaviors in th e population. Response bias can be deliberately engineered by pollsters in order to generate a certain result or please their clients. This is one of the reasons why the term pollster suggests hucks ter, or a con artist. Even respondents may deliberately try to manipulat e the outcome of a poll by advocating a more extreme position than they actually hold in order to s upport a position that they identify with. Response bias may also be caused by the wording or ordering of questions. Question wording The wording of the questions, the or der in which ques tions are asked, and the number and form of alternative answer s offered influence results of polls. Thus comparisons between polls often boil down to the wording of the question. For some issues the question wording can produce pronounced differences between surveys. These differences could be caused by respondents wi th conflicted feelings or the fact that attitudes are evolving. One way in which pollste rs attempt to minimize this effect is to ask the same set of questions over time, in order to track cha nges in opinion. Another common technique is to rotate the order in which questions are asked. One technique is the split-sample, where there are two versions of a question and each version presented to half the respondents. Coverage bias. Coverage bias is another source of error is the use of samples that are not representative of the populat ion as a consequence of the methodology used, as was the experience of the Literary Digest in 1936. For example, telephone sampling has a built-in error because people with tele phones have generally been richer than those without phones. Today an increased percentage of th e public has only a mobile telephone. In the United States it is illegal to make unsolic ited calls to phones where the phones owner may be charged simply for taking a call. Because pollsters are not supposed to call mobile phones, individuals who own only a mo bile phone will often not be included in the polling sample. If the subset of the popul ation without cell phones differs markedly from the rest of the population, these differe nces can skew the results of the poll. The relative importance of these factors re mains uncertain today because polling organizations have adjusted their methodologies to achieve more accurate election predictions. 8.9 | Comparative Public Opinion Many of the issues that political scientists have identified as most important to understanding American government and politics are not unique to th e United States. The comparative study of public opinion reveals the similarities and differences in how the peoples of the world think about pol itics and government. 8.91 | The World Values Survey One source of comparative informa tion about public opinion is the World Values Survey The World Values Survey developed from the European Values Study (EVS) in 1981 which covered only 22 countries worldwide. Ronald Inglehart (The University of Michigan) is a leading figure in the extension of the surveys around the world. The survey was repeated after an interval of about 10 years in then again in a series of wav es at approximately five year intervals. The

PAGE 185

178|Chapter 8: Public Opinion The Inglehart Map of the World WVS was designed to provide a longitudinal and cross-cultural measurement of variation of values. The European origin of the project ma de the early waves of the WVS Eurocentric and notable for their especially weak representation in Africa and South-East Asia. In order to overcome this bias by becoming more representa tive, the WVS opened participation to academic representatives from new countries that met certa in minimal survey standards. They could then exchange their data with the WVS in return for the data from the rest of the project. As a result, the WVS expanded to 42 countries in the 2nd wave 54 in the 3rd wave and 62 in the 4th wave. Today the WVS is an open source database of th e WVS available on the Internet. The Secretariat of the WVS is based in Sweden. The official ar chive of the World Values Survey is located in [ASEP/JDS] (Madrid), Spain. The global World Values Survey consists of about 250 questi ons resulting in some 400 to 800 measurable variables. One of the variab les measured is Happiness. The comparative Perceptions of Happiness are wi dely quoted in the popular media. Does the U.S. get a smiley face? The popular statistics website Nationmaster also publishes a simplified world happiness scale derived from the WVS data. The WVS website allows a user to ge t a more sophisticated level of analysis such as comparison of happiness over time or across socio-economic groups. One of the most striking shifts in happiness measured by the WVS was the substantial drop in happiness of Russians and some other East ern European countries during the 1990s. 8.93 | The Inglehart Map Another result of the WVS is the Inglehart Map. A number of variables were condensed into two dimensions of cultural variation (known as traditional v. secular-rational and survival v. self-expressi on). On this basis, the world's countries could be mapped into specific cultural regions because these two dimensions purportedly explain more than 70 percent of the cross-national variance. The WVS also found that trust and democracy were values that crossed most cultural boundaries. 8.94 | Religion and Economic Development The Pew Research Centers Global Attit udes Project has examin ed the relationship between a countrys wealth and its religiosity. The results show that countries with a high per capita income tend to score low on religiosity.4 8.95 | Web Sources

PAGE 186

179 Chapter 8: Public Opinion| One valuable source of information about Am erican public opinion, voting, and political participation is the American National Election Studies information available at Public speaking continues to be an important in fluence on public opinion. An electronic source of important public speeches, in cluding the top 100 American speeches, as well as memorable film speeches, is the Web site This Web site includes audio and video recordings of some of the most im portant American politic al speeches. Another resource which has archived some of the most memorable political speeches in the nations history is the American Rhetoric: Top 100 Speech es Web site. See, for example, the famous Goldwater Speech delivered at the Republican Party Convention in 1964. peeches/barrygoldw ater1964rnc.htm 8.96 | In the Library Asher, Herbert. Polling and the Public: What Every American Should Know Washington, DC: CQ Books. 2001. Clem Brooks and Jeff Manza. Why Welfare States Persist: The Im portance of Public Opinion in Democracies. University of Chicago Press, 2007. Katherine Cramer Walsh. Talking About Race: Community Dialogues and the Politics of Difference. University of Chicago Press, 2007. Robert Eisinger. The Evolution of Presiden tial Polling. Cambridge University Press, 2003. Robert Erikson, et al. Statehouse Democracy: Pub lic Opinion and Policy in the American States. Cambridge University Press, 1994. Robert Erikson, Michael Mackuen, and James Stim son. The Macro Polity. Cambridge University Press, 2002. Robert S. Erikson and Kent L. Tedin. American P ublic Opinion: Its Origins, Content, and Impact, 8/e. Longman, 2006. George Gallup. The Gallup Poll Public Opini on. Scholarly Resources, published annually. Gallup, George, and Saul Rae. 1968. The Pulse of Democracy. New York: Greenwood Press. John Hibbing and Elizabeth Theiss-Morse. Stea lth Democracy: Americans Beliefs about How Government Should Work. Cambri dge University Press, 2002. Ole R. Holsti. Public Opinion and American Fore ign Policy. University of Michigan Press, 2004. Darrell Huff. How to Lie W ith Statistics. WW Norton, 1993. Vincent Hutchings. Public Opinion and Democratic Helen Ingram, et al (eds). Mediating Effect of Public Opinion on Public Policy: Exploring the Realm of Health Ca re. State University of New York Press, 2004. Paul Lavrakas and Michael J. Traugott. Election Polls, the News Media and Democracy. Chatham House, 2000. Walter Lippman. Public Opinion. Hard Press, 2006. Moore, David W. 1992. The Superpollsters: How They Measure and Manipulate Public Opinion in America. Four Walls Eight Windows.

PAGE 187

180|Chapter 8: Public Opinion 8.98 | Study Questions 1. How does race and ethnicity influence public opinion? 2. Looking at your own upbringi ng, in what ways were you socialized? Be sure to discuss specific people and events and how they shaped your political beliefs. 3. Define public opinion and di scuss early efforts to measure it. 4. How do we measure public opinion? Be sure to discuss the different methods and their strengths and weaknesses. 5. The authors of the Federalist Papers noted that all government rests on public opinion. What did they mean by this claim? Do you agree with them? Moore, David W. 2008. The Opinion Makers. Boston: Beacon Press. Willem E. Saris and Paul M. Sniderman (eds). Studies in Public Opinion: Attitudes, N onattitudes, Measurement Error, and Change. Princeton University Press, 2004. James A. Stimson. Tides of C onsent: How Public Opinion Shapes American Politics. Cambridge University Press, 2004. Jeffrey Stonecash. Political Polling: Strategic In formation in Campaigns. Rowman and Littlefield, 2003. Keith Warren. In Defense of Public Op inion Polling. Westview Press, 2001. Robert Weissberg. Polling, Policy, and Public Opinion. Palgrave, 2002. 1 Statistical Abstract of the United States, 1997 (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1997), 1011. 8.97|Terms Public Opinion Delegate Model Trustee Model Republic Gender Gap Marketplace of Ideas

PAGE 188

181 Chapter 8: Public Opinion| 2 Survey Methods: Results are based on telephone interv iews with 1,010 national adults, aged 18 and older, conducted Sept. 14-16, 2007. For results based on the to tal sample of national adults, one can say with 95% confidence that the margin of sampling error is percentage points In addition to sampling error, question wording and practical difficulties in conducting surveys can introduce error or bias into the findings of public opinion polls. 3 Note that to get 500 complete responses it may be necessary to make thousands of phone calls. 4

PAGE 189

CHAPTER 9: Political Ideology

PAGE 190

Chapter 9: Political Ideology|183 9.0 | Whats in a Name ? Have you ever been in a discussion, debate, or perhaps even a heated argument about government or politic s where one person objected to another persons claim by saying, Thats not what I mean by conservative (or liberal)? If so, then join the club. People often have to stop in the middle of a good political discussion when it becomes clear th at the participants do not agree on the meanings of the terms that are central to the discussion. This can be the case with ideology because people often use familiar terms su ch as conservative, liberal, or socialist without agreeing on their meanings. This chapte r has three main goals. The first goal is to explain the role ideology plays in modern pol itical systems. The second goal is to define the major American ideologies: conservatism, liberalism, and libertarianism. The primary focus is on modern conservatism and liberalism. The third goal is to explain their role in government and politics. Some attention is al so paid to other ismsbelief systems that have some of the attributes of an ideologythat are relevant to modern American politics such as environmentalism, feminism, terrori sm, and fundamentalism. The chapter begins with an examination of ideologies in genera l. It then examines American conservatism, liberalism, and other belief systems rele vant to modern American politics and government. 9.1 | What is an ideology ? An ideology is a belief system that consists of a relatively coherent set of ideas, attitudes, or values about government and politics, AN D the public policies that are designed to implement the values or achieve the goals. Lets examine the parts of this definition. First, an ideology is a belief system: it consists of a set of ideas or values on a broad range of issues as "A conservative is a man with two perfectly good legs who, however, has never learned how to walk forward." Franklin Delano Roosevelt, 32nd President of the United States The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they are ignorant, but that they know so much that isn't so. Ronald Reagan, 40th President of the United States

PAGE 191

184|Chapter 9: Political Ideology opposed to a single belief about a single issue. These beliefs help people make sense of the world around them. People go through life with mental images of how the world is or should be organized. These images c onstitute an ideologya way to simplify, organize, evaluate and give meaning to what otherwise would be a very confusing world.1 Individuals who are daily bombarded with information can use ideology to help make sense of it. When people read about a terrible crime or crim e statistics, ideology can provide a ready-made explanation for the ca use of the criminal be havior as well as a predisposition to support a lib eral or conservative public policy response to crime. A person who sees video of police officers bea ting someone on the streets on Los Angeles or elsewhere is apt to use ideology to provide a handy mental image of whether the use of force is justified or a case of police brutality. A person who reads about the latest data on unemployment can use ideology to provi de a framework for thinking that the unemployment rate is too high or too low. A person who thinks about taxes is apt to use ideology to conclude that taxe s are too high or t oo low without having to spend a great deal of time learning about economic policy. And finally, individuals who view actual images of bombing or read about the use of military force can use an ideological mental image to react to the action based on an ideologi cal bias for or against the use of military force. Second, an ideology has an action compone nt. An ideology is about ideas and positions on public policies. A public policy is a plan of action to implement ideas or values or achieve specific goals. The commitment to acting on ideas differentiates an ideology from a philosophy. A philosophy is primarily concerned with ideas or values. For example, political philosophy is the st udy of fundamental questions about the government, politics, liberty, justice, equality, property, rights, law, and what constitutes a good or moral public order. Political phi losophers examine questions about the legitimacy of government; the difference betw een power and authority; the nature of freedom and equality; civic duties and obl igations; and the nature and scope of government power to limit i ndividual liberty. The adhere nts of an ideology are committed to specific sets of values and to acting to achieve them in the realm of politics and government. 9.12 | A Coherent Set of Ideas: Human Nature and the Role of Government An ideology is not just a set of ideas it is a coherent set of ideas. This means that the components of an ideology should be consiste nt with one another. One idea should not conflict with others. For example, ideolo gies typically include beliefs about human nature and beliefs about the appropriate role for government In terms of human nature, Think about It! Watch the trailer for the 1938 film Angels with Dirty Faces What do you think the film says about human nature?

PAGE 192

Chapter 9: Political Ideology|185 an ideology can describe human nature as basically 1) good or bad; and 2) fixed or flexible. The belief that human nature is basi cally good means that peop le are expected to do the right thing because they have a natural sense of right and wrong and will generally do what is right. The belief that human nature is basically bad means that people are by nature self-interested, that evil is part of human nature, and therefore people will often do wrong. The belief that human natu re is fixed assumes that an individuals capacities and abilities are determined at birth: intellig ence, aptitudes, and character are a matter of nature. The belief that human nature is flexible means that an individuals capacities and abilities can be developed by family, re ligion, culture, tradition, and education: intelligence, aptitudes, and character are a matter of nurture. Beliefs about the determinants of human behavior are of gr eat political importanc e because they shape beliefs about the best form of government (e.g., whether democracy will work), the appropriate role of government (e.g., limited or broad), and they sh ape public policies. For instance, they determine criminal justice policies, particularly whether sentencing policies should emphasize punishment or rehabilitation. James Madison is remembered as the ar chitect of American government because he designed a form of government with elaborate institutional checks and balances. He believed that people were by nature self-interested and needed to have their ambitions checked. Thomas Jefferson wrote extensively ab out human nature, specifically about the question whether humans were self-intereste d egoists (individuals whose actions are based solely on self-love) or whether they had a moral sense. He believed people had a natural moral sense. The que stion was whether it was ba sed on religion, which would justify government support for religion, or a natural sense of moral obligation or conscience. These are some of the most profound political questions. In a June 13, 1814 Letter to Thomas Law, The Moral Sens e, Jefferson discusses his thoughts on the question. In his First Inaugural Address (delivered March 4, 1861) President Lincoln spoke about human nature when he closed his Addres s with the hope that the divisiveness of the Civil War could be ended by appeals to the better angels of our nature. Lincoln believed that without such appeals to our good nature, appeals to the worse angels of our nature would result in division, discord, and violence. An ideology would be inconsistent if it included positive and negative views of human nature, or if it included both fixed a nd flexible views of hu man nature. Assessing the consistency of views on th e role of government is more complicated. They typically include ideas about the appropriate size and the appropriate use of government power. Read about it! What does Jefferson think about egoistic, self-loving behavior? odeng&data=/texts/ english/modeng/ parsed&tag=public&part=228&division=div1

PAGE 193

186|Chapter 9: Political Ideology The size usually refers to small government or big government. The use refers to the purposes of government. With the notable exception of libertarianism, ideologies typically support small government for some purposes and big government for others. For example, modern conservatives believe in big government fo r national security, morals regulation, and crime. Liberals believ e in big government to regulate business and to expand social and economic equality. American politics tends to focus on the size of governmentwhich individual, ideology, or pol itical party supports big government and which supports small government. However, the role of governmentwhat government power is actually being used foris prob ably more important than the size of government. 9.13 | The Meaning of Terms The terms liberal and conservative are comm only to describe American government and politics. One of these two labels is usually attached to individuals, parties, interest groups, media articles and outlets, public polic ies, and government officialsincluding judges. But the fact that th e terms conservative and libera l are commonly used does not mean that their meanings are clear. In f act, arguments are often about the meaning of words such as freedom, order, and justiceas well as conservative and liberal. The fact that our ordinary political vocabulary incl udes words whose meanings are not agreed upon explains why so many political arguments pause with the declaration, Thats not what I mean by liberalism/conservatism/order/justice! Democracy requires a shared political vocabulary, and it works best when citizens know the meanings of the words they use to describe government and politics Defining conservatism and liberalism is complicated by the fact that they have cha nged a great deal over time. Ideologies are dynamic, not static. They change over time. What it means to be a conservative or liberal changes over time, which is one reason why it is sometimes hard to know just what is in a name. 9.14 | The Functions of Ideology In politics as in economics and sports, organization increases effectiveness. Ideologies organize interests. Ideologies can increase th e effectiveness of individuals and ideas by organizing them in order to maximize their impact on public policy. In this respect, ideologies serve a purpose that is similar to political parties and interest groups. But ideologies both unite people and divide them. Ideologies do bring people together to work for shared ideas but they also move people apart by dividing them into opposing camps: believers and non-believers. The fact that ideologies both unite and divide, increase political cooperation and political conflict, is one reason why Americans are so ambivalent about ideology, why they have conflicting feelings about ideology. The ambivalent feelings about ideo logy can be traced to the earliest days of the republic when the Founders warned against the mischiefs of faction. In Federalist Number 9 Hamilton argued that a firm union was a safeguard against domestic faction. In Federalist Think About It! Are humans Hobbesian creatures who are violent by nature? What does Steven Pinkers 2007 TED Lecture, The Myth of Violence say about human nature? ven_pinker_on_the_myth_of_violence.html

PAGE 194

Chapter 9: Political Ideology|187 Number 10 Madison described how to design a political system that cured the mischiefs of faction. Worries about the harm ful effects of factions have not gone away. Todays worries are about ideologies or part ies or special interests divided Americans into competing camps that fight hard for their views rather than working toward the common good. The later chapters describe how organization can increase an individuals feelings of efficacy, the belief that individual participation in politics matters because it can make a difference. Ideology can play a similar role beca use it unites and organizes like-minded people to work on behalf of shared ideas. 9.2 | The Major Isms The range of ideological debates in the U.S. is very limited compared to other democracies. American politics is practically limited to liberalism and conservatism. There are occasional references to other ideologies such as libertarianism, radicalism, socialism, and fascism, but these ideologies are for the most part outside the mainstream of political debate or they are considered the more extreme elements within liberalism or conservatism. The more extremist ideologies of the left and right ends of the political spectrum are not usually part of political discourse. In this se nse, the two-ideology system mirrors the twoparty system: both present voters with a limited range of po litical choices. Liberalism and conservatism have changed a great deal over time. In the early 1800s, the conservative party was the Federali st Party, which advocat ed a strong federal government, and the liberal party was the Je ffersonian Republicans, which advocated states rights. In the 1930s, conservatives supported states rights while liberals supported expansion of the federal government. Sinc e the mid-1960s four major issues have consistently divided co nservatives and liberals: National Security Policy. Conservatives have generally been stronger supporters of national defense (anti-communism and an ti-terrorism) policies than liberals. Crime Policy. Conservatives have supported getting tough on crime by strengthening police and a dvocating punishment. Liberals have generally been considered soft on crime by strengtheni ng due process rights of suspects and advocating rehabilitation. Moral Regulatory Policy. Conservatives support moral regulatory policy related to abortion, pornography, sexual behavior and public displa ys of religion. Liberals support deregulation of morals. Economic Policy. Conservatives have been more consistently pro-business and anti-tax. Liberals have ge nerally been more pro-la bor and more supportive of government regulation of business.

PAGE 195

188|Chapter 9: Political Ideology Edmund Burke, 1771 9.30 | Conservatism: Traditional and Modern This is a conservative era in American polit ics. Conservatism has b een the dominant, but not exclusive, force in nati onal politics since the late 1960s2 with the notable exception being the reaction to the Watergate scandal in the mid-1970s. However, conservatism is not a monolithic ideology. In fact, wherever two or more conservatives are gathered together the discussion invariably turns to who is the real, true conservative. The following describes the two main strains of conservatism: traditional conservatism (during the period from the 1930s until the mid-1960s) and modern conservatism (from the mid-1960s until today). There are three main differences betw een traditional and modern conservatismtheir views on cha nge, ideology, and the role of government. 9.31 | Views on Change Traditional conservatism is closest to the or iginal meaning of the word conservative, which is derived from the Latin conservre meaning to conser ve by preserving, keeping, or protecting traditional beliefs, valu es, customs, or ways of doing things. Traditional conservatives defend the status quo against radical or revolutionary change or the assumption that all change is reform (good change). Edmund Burke (1729-1797), the Irish-British political philosopher, is considered the father of tradit ional conservatism. He did not oppose change. In fact, he argued that a government without a means of changing lacked the necessary means for its own survival. However, Burke preferred slow or incremental change and opposed radical or re volutionary change. Modern conservatism is a much stronger advocate for change In fact, some conservatives call themselves radical conservatives. A radical is someone who advocates basic, even revolutionary change. Radicals can be leftwing or rightwing. When President Reagan called his administration a bunch of radicals he reminded voters that he was a movement conservative, a person who was committed to the cause of overturning liberal social, economic, and defense policies. In contrast to traditional conservatism, which rejected radical or revolutionary change of the right or left, modern conservatism advocates major, even radical or revolutionary change. However, the change is usually described as radical change from the liberal status quo, change that will bring the country back to the basics. This usually means that the solution for ma ny of the contemporary social, economic, and political problems is to return to the Founders original understanding of politics, government, and the Constitution. This recurring conservative theme is one of the main points of the Tea Party movement. Traditional conservatisms skepticism about change is related to the belief in the importance of order. Traditional conservative s consider order the necessary condition for achieving or maintaining other important va lues such as individual freedom, private property, and justiceand without good order, these other values and valuables are unlikely to be attained. Traditional conserva tives believe that order can be created and maintained by social institutions (family, sc hools, churches, and civic organization) as well as by government. In this sense, tradi tional conservatives ar e not anti-government.

PAGE 196

Chapter 9: Political Ideology|189 They believe that government has a responsibil ity to maintain domestic order, to control crime, to preserve traditi onal values through moral regulatory policies, and to provide national security from foreign threats. But traditional conservatives believe that the primary responsibility for these activities lies with the priv ate sector, the civil society, rather than the public sector (the governme nt). The Burkean emphasis on order, social institutions, and civic responsibility made traditional conservatism less committed to other values such as individualism, individual liberty, and equality. A leading American traditional conservative is Russell Kirk (1918-1994). The Russell Kirk Center provides a good description of traditional conservative princi ples. They include belief in natural law, hierarchy, the connection between property rights and freedom, faith in custom and tradition, and skepti cism of change. 9.32 | Views on Ideology The second different between traditional and modern conservatism is that modern conservatism is much more ideological Todays conservatives portray conservatism as an ideology that will solve the problems created by liberalism. The term movement conservative refers to those conservatives who cons ider themselves part of an organized cause to work for conservative ideas. These c onservatives are part of a cause. Traditional conservatives were to a certain extent an ti-ideological. They considered ideology problematic because it was extremism rather than moderationand traditional conservatives were in the Aristotelian and Burkean traditions that emphasized conservatism as moderation rather than extr emism. The word ideology was originally coined to refer to the scientific study of ideas It was originally used to describe how the systematic study of ideas could lead to a be tter understanding of the political world the way that science increased understanding of the natural world. But by the middle of the 20th Century the word ideology was used to desc ribe the ideas that were used to get and use political power. In fact, beginning in the latte r 1950s, sociologists including Nan Aron, Seymour M. Lipset, Edward Shils, and Da niel Bell described id eology as assuming the role that religion played in traditional societies. In modern, Western-style secular democracies of the world ideology played the role of religion. They did not mean this as a compliment. They considered ideology at least partly an irrational, unthinking, and therefore unreasonable force in a political worl d where states had become very powerful, even totalitarian. The criticism of ideology wa s a reaction against the ideologies of the left and the right during the period from the 1930s to the 196 0s. These critics of ideology came to be called neoconservatives, or new conservatives. Promin ent neoconservatives were a group of former leftists who reject ed ideologies of the left, which produced communism (e.g. The Soviet Union and Chin a), and ideologies of the right, which produced fascism (Hitlers Germany and Mussolinis Italy). They associated ideology with totalitarianism. 9.33 | Views on Role of Government The third difference between traditional and m odern conservatives concerns the role of government. Modern conservative support for change and id eology has changed conservative thinking about the role of government. Conservatives are not antigovernment or even advocat es of small government as much as they oppose what

PAGE 197

190|Chapter 9: Political Ideology government has been doing. Specifically, co nservatives oppose public policies that promote egalitarianism, social welfare, the due process model of justice, and the deregulation of morals. The claim that conservatives are not antigovernment can be supported by examining conservative views on the four major policy areas that have consistently divided conservatives and liberal s: national security; crime; economics; and moral regulatory policy. The conservative pos ition is not antigovernment in these four areas. Conservatives are pro-government on national security, crime, regulation of morals, and even, to a lesser extent, economics. There is a libertarian strain within conservatism that is consiste ntly antigovernment but mainstream conservatism does not take the libertarian position on the major policies. The conservative movements support for government is apparent in the principles and positions taken by leadi ng conservative organizations such as The Heritage Foundation the The American Conservative Party and The American Conservative Union. The Heritage Foundation, for example, de scribes itself as a leading voice for conservative ideas such as individual free dom, limited government, traditional values, and strong national defense. It promotes the latter two values by support for big government. The American Conservative Partys principles are more anti-government in the sense that they more consistently advocate limited government. The principles include natural rights and individual liberty, the belie f that law should be used to support liberty and mediate disputes where one person has harmed another, and the reminder that [t]he armed forces and law enforcement exist to bolster private defe nse, not supplant it. Ideologies include a commitment to ac ting on values. Conservatives use both the government and the private se ctor to achieve their goals but they are especially committed to the private sector. The free market plays a central role as a means to achieve conservative goals. In fact, the market model is often presented as an alternative to a statist or government model for or ganizing society. The English political philosopher Adam Smith developed the marketplace model in Wealth of Nations This book, which was published in 1776, the same year as the Declaration of Independence, is one of the most influential books ever written. Smith advocated an alternative to mercantilism, the conventional economic model of the day that the government should direct economic activity for the wealth of the empire. Smith described an economic system where the prices of goods were dete rmined by the interactions of buyers and sellers in a competitive marketplace rather th an the government. Over time, however, the logic of the marketplace m odel has been extended beyond economics to other, noneconomic areas of society. For example, the economic free marketplace of goods has been expanded to politics where the free market place of ideas is based on the same logic as the economic free market. This is c ontroversial because the marketplace model assumes that goods and services should be av ailable on the basis of the ability to pay but some things are valuable even though they are not high ly valued in the economic marketplace. The philosopher Michael Sandel worri es that the logic of the marketplace is now being applied to more and more non-econom ic settings. Listen to his argument about what money cannot buy and should not buy. Do you agree with him?

PAGE 198

Chapter 9: Political Ideology|191 9.40 | Liberalism A standard dictionary definition of a liberal is a person who believes in individual liberty. Therefore liberalism can be defined as an id eology that values individual liberty. This definition is not very helpful because it does not explain very much and because conservatives also believe in individual liber ty. And liberals, like conservatives, believe in order. However, liberals and conservati ves place different values on individual liberty and order. Liberals tend to value liberty more than order while conservatives tend to value order more than liberty. Defining liberalism is complicated for so me of the same reasons that defining conservatism is complicated: it is a set of ideasnot just one idea; the ideas have changed over time; and like conservatism, liberalism is not monolithic. Two main strains of liberalism are examined here: classical liberalism and modern liberalism. 9.41 | Classical Liberalism Classical liberalism is rooted in the id eas of the English political philosopher John Locke (1632-1704). Lockes ideas greatly influenced the thinking of the American founders. His words about the importance of life, liberty, and property found their way into the Declaration of Independence. Locke emphasized the following five ideas: Reason. Humans should use their reasoning capacity to understand the natural and political world rather than merely relying on faith, custom, or tradition in order to organize society. Individualism. The importance of the indi vidual as a political actor relative to groups, classes, or institutions includ ed an emphasis on legal equality. Liberty. Freedom is valued more than order, or relative to obed ience to authority. Social Contract Theory of Government. Individuals decide to leave the state of nature and create government based on the consent of the governed and created by a social contract. Property Rights. Economic rights (to property and contract) are related to political rights. The shift is toward a private se ctor economy rather than one run by the government is an aspect of the commitment to limited government. Michael Sandel, What Money Cant Buy and What it Shouldnt Buy PBS Newshour (June 11, 2012) siness/jan-june12/makingsense_0611.html

PAGE 199

192|Chapter 9: Political Ideology The only purpose for which power can be rightly exercised over a member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant. The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my ne ighbor to say there are twenty Gods or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg. Classical liberalism originated as a political theory that limited government. During much of the 20th Century classical liberalism was actually considered conservative because it was associated with the defense of propert y rights and the free market, and opposition to government regulation of the economy and the expansion of the social welfare state. 9.42 | Modern Liberalism The main difference between classical liberals and modern liberals is that modern liberals abandoned the emphasis on limited government as the best way to protect individual rights. Modern liberals used government to ach ieve greater equality, liberty, and income security. Equality. The various civil rights movements of the 19th, 20th, and 21st centuries expanded equality for racial and ethnic minorities and women. Most recently, the gay rights movement has advocated for greater legal equality under the law. Egalitarianism became a more important goal for modern liberals. Laws were used to limit discrimination. Liberty. Modern liberals also used law to protect civil liberties. Radical political speech. Limits on government censorship. Th e right to privacy and deregulation of morals. Income Security. Modern liberals used government policies to pass social welfare programs (e.g., social security; Medica re; unemployment insurance; workers compensation). These policies were designed to increase income security for the young, the old, and the sick. Support for the creation of the social welfare state explains why modern liberals are called social welfare liberals to differentiate them from classical liberals. One of the founders of m odern liberalism is the 19th Century English political philosopher John Stuart Mill. In On Liberty and Representative Government Mill explained a principle or rule for determining what governme nt should be allowed to do, and what it should not be allowed to do, in a political sy stem based on limited government. The rule has come to be called The Harm Principle. In fact, Mill was merely restating the liberal idea developed by Thom as Jefferson (and John Locke before him): The Harm Principle is libertarian in the sense that it limits government power over individuals. Mill accepted th e basic principles of classical liberalism, particularly

PAGE 200

Chapter 9: Political Ideology|193 Nolan chart, 2d political spectrum. Diagonal line indicates classical 1d left-right political s p ectrum. individual freedom, but he was more supportiv e of using government power to protect liberty and to promote equality. The origins of social welfare liberalism can be traced to this shift toward greater reli ance on government to provide ec onomic and social security. In modern American politics, liberals generally support government regulation to promote equality and economic securitythe social welfare state while conservatives generally support government regul ation to promote law and or der, national security, and moralitythe national security a nd moral regulatory state. One indication that this is a conservative era in American politics is the fact that liberalism has become a pejorative term a negative term. Liberalism has been stigmatized as the L-word af ter been blamed for being soft on crime, for being weak on national defense, for undermining traditional values, and for being unduly critical of capitalism. In fact, the word liberal is so out of political favor today that liberals call themselves progressives. Progressive is a euphemism for liberal and Progressivism is a strain of liberalism. Think About It! Why are conservatives happier than liberals? ss/july-dec11/makingsense_12-09.html 9.50 | Libertarian Libertarianism is a simpler ideology than either conservatism or liberalism. Simply stated, libertarians value freedom and believe that individuals and groups can organize life with only minimal government. Libertarians have a positive view of human nature. The belief that government threatens freedomthat more government means less freedomis reflected in The Libertarian Party motto: Maximum freedom. Minimal Government. The familiar slogan, That government is best wh ich governs least! is libertarian. Libertarians believe in minimal government: government should be limited to doing what is necessary to protect individuals from being harmed by others. Libertarians value freedom more th an order, but they believe that order actually emerges from the competition of the marketplace. This is the basis of libertarian support for laissez faire policies in economic, pol itical, and social affairs. Laissez faire is a French term for let it be. In economics, laissez faire means allowing the competition of the marketplace, and the interaction of buyers and sellers, to operate without government intervention,

PAGE 201

194|Chapter 9: Political Ideology regulation, or control. Libertarians rely on the private sector to produce order and prosperity. In politics, li bertarians oppose using governme nt power to promote values such as equality, patriotism, or morality. They also oppose immigration policies that limit the free movement of people across national borders. This is why libertarians can be conservative on some issues (opposed to using law to promote equality or create social welfare or to regulate busine ss) and liberal on others (oppos ed to moral regulatory policy and opposed to laws promoting patriotism). Libertarians take seriously the harm principle as a guide for limited government. The harm principle is libertarian insofar as it considers the onl y legitimate use of government power is preventing individuals from being harmed by others. Harm means physical harm to person or property or inte rests. The harm principle does not allow paternalistic legislation, using laws to pr evention people from harming themselves by smoking, drinking alcohol or using drugs, eating unhealthy food, riding motorcycles without a helmet, or riding in a car without a seatbelt. 9.60 | Other Isms 9.61 | Socialism and Communism Socialism is the belief that economic power is the basis of political power and that economic equality is essential for political equality. The belief that economic inequality causes political inequality pr ovides the socialist justification for using government to actively promote equality through extensive government regulation or even government control of the economy. In order to achieve political equality, the government as redistributes resources thr ough progressive taxation and so cial welfare program, at a minimum, and government control of the ec onomy (both the means of production and the distribution of goods and se rvices) at a maximum. Karl Marx is the most famous figure associated with socialism because he develope d a comprehensive, systematic analysis of the relationship between economics and politics, thereby gi ving earlier socialist thinking an ideology or world view. For an American eco nomists critique of th e rise and fall of socialism as an economic model read Robert Heilbroners analysis Like conservatism and liberalism, there ar e many variations of socialism. In fact, in American politics the term socialist is often used in a generic sense to refer to any big government taxing and spending policies. In th is sense, government spending as a share of the nations Gross Domestic Product is a measure of how socialistic the country is. Socialists do support expansive government. But so do non-socialists. For example, the federal governments response to the Great Recession included the infamous Troubled Asset Relief Program (or TARP) of 2008 and the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 which provided government bailouts fo r financial services companies and car manufacturers (GM and Chrysler). These policies were socialistic only in the sense that they increased government inte rvention in the private sector economy. But the bailouts were not socialistic in the sense that they were not aimed at promoting greater economic equality: critics called them Wa ll Street bailouts that Main St reet would have to pay for. The key to identifying socialist policies that result in big government, as opposed to nonsocialist policies that result in big government, is the social policies promote egalitarianism: economic equality.

PAGE 202

Chapter 9: Political Ideology|195 Communism can be understood as an extrem e version of socialism. It takes the socialist ideal of equality, and the governme nts responsibility to achieve it in the economic, political, and social sectors to the po int where there is no distinction between a private sector and the pub lic sector. Communism is totalitarian in the sense that it advocates total government power over so ciety. Indeed, the word totalitarian means total control with no distinction between the public sector and the private sector. In a totalitarian system, the government is authorized to use its powers and laws to regulate individual behavior, family polic y, business and labor, as well as al l aspects of social life. 9.62 | Anarchism In terms of the size of government, anarchis m is at the opposite end of the ideological spectrum from communism. The key to understanding anarchism is the fact that the Greek origin of the term means without rulers. Anarchists oppose all forms of government because governments by definition have the power to coerce individuals to join a community or require obedience to laws. Government use forceeven the force of lawto ensure compliance rather than merely allowing individuals to freely, voluntarily join a political community. Anarchists believe that government is not necessary because people can use their capacity for reasoni ng to decide whether to freely and voluntarily agree to live in orderly and just soci eties without government requiring them to do so. Anarchists have a basically positive view of human nature which contrasts with Thomas Hobbes who believed that humans were by nature selfish, and the strong would ta ke advantage of the weak. Anarchists believe that people will learn from experience that some rules are necessary for peaceful and prosperous coexistence and therefore w ill voluntarily accept rules that provide good order and justice without the force of law. Anarchists consider government power to compel individuals to obey the law illegitim ate because it violates an individuals inherent right to be free from coercion by ot hers. In todays political debate, anarchists are most often depicted as violent radi cals who oppose government policies promoting international trade and globalism. 9.63 | Populism The term populism refers to of the people. Populists advocate on behalf of the common person who they depict as being unfairly trea ted by the rich and powerful or some other privileged elites. In this sense, populis t movements tend to be protest movements representing farmers, the average American, or workers. Populism has been a recurring theme throughout American history. President Andrew Jackson was a populist who worked to bring the average person into a pol itical process that was controlled by the better sorts of society. In the latter 19th and early 20th Century, agrarian populists defended rural/agrarian interests from the urbanization and i ndustrialization that occurred with the Industrial Revoluti on. Populism often emerges as a reaction against major social, economic, or cultural changes (e.g., immigration) or economic crises (e.g., panics, depressions, or recessions). The cultural revolution of the 1960s spawned right wing populists such as George Wallace, Governor of Alabama and presidential candidate. Think about it! What would life without government be like? Are people wolves or sheep?

PAGE 203

196|Chapter 9: Political Ideology Tea Party Protest, Washington D.C. September 12, 2009 Listen to Wallaces populist campaign message making fun of northern urban elites (including the Washington press). Todays left wing populism includes crit icism of Wall Street (e.g., the Occupy Movement) and the growing economic inequali ty in the country. Todays right wing populism includes opposition to immigration, or at least the demand that the federal government defend the countrys borders a nd enforce immigration laws, and opposition to efforts to change the traditional defin ition of marriage as a uni on between one man and one womanfor example, the Tea Party Movements rallying cry is to take back the Constitution from the elites. 9.64 | Feminism Feminism is a social or political movement th at strives for equal rights for women. It is multi-faceted movement that has political, economic, social, legal, and cultural components. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy defines feminism and describes it by paying special attention to its various dimensions. Feminist theory describes and analyzes gender differences (and similariti es) in order to bett er understand gender differences and gender inequality. From the perspective of political science, feminist theory is an attempt to explain relevant f acts, include gender behavior, sexuality, and inequality. One relevant fact is the differe nt gender political power relations. Feminism describes and critiques these political power relations. As such, feminist theory often promotes womens rights. The subjects of study include discrimi nation, stereotypes, objectification, and patriarchy. Womens Studies is a multidisciplinary academic field

PAGE 204

Chapter 9: Political Ideology|197 that includes anthropology, communications economics, history, philosophy, political science, and sociology. 9.65 | Environmentalism Environmentalism is a movement whose members advocate protecting the natural environment. Environmentalism is an ex ample of modern issue politics advanced by individualspolicy entrepre neurs who take up a causeand organizations (interest groups). The environmental movement began to have an impact on national politics in the 1960s and 1970s when they put the envir onment on the governments agenda. Senator Gaylord Nelson founded Earth Day on April 22, 1970. The Environmental Protection Agency also was created in 1970. The EPA is th e primary federal government agency responsible for providing clean air and clean water. Why is the environmental movement political? Why is it controversia l to provide clean air and clean water? Because doing so involves the allocation of scarce resources. Protecting the environment costs money and entails government regulation of business and consumer behavior. This explains the debate over global warming. Gl obal warming is an example of an environmental issue that has become controversial because addres sing it will require governmental regulation. 9.66 | Fundamentalism Fundamentalism is not usually considered an ideology the way conservatism, liberalism, and libertarianism are ideologies. However, fundamentalism is an idea which has an important impact on modern American politic s and the politics of other countries. Fundamentalism is usually defined as a movement within a religious denominationa movement that reacts against modernity by ad vocating a return to the basics or the fundamentals of a particular faith. Religious fundamentalism is evident in most of the major religions of the world today. Christ ian, Islamic, and Judaic fundamentalists advocate a return to basic articles of faith, particularly those tenets of faith that are expressed or revealed in sacred te xts such as the Bible or Koran. Fundamentalism is not limited to religious movements. It can be secular as well. From a social science pers pective, fundamentalism is a reaction against modernity, particularly science, secula rism, and value relativism. Secularism is the belief that government and politics should be separate from religion, that religi on is appropriate for the private (social) sphere, not the public (governmental) sphe re. In the U.S., secularism is reflected in the idea that there should be a wall of separation between church and state. Relativism is the belief that values are subjective and conditional rather than universal and objectively true. Fundamentalis ts advocate restoring the traditional or fundamental belief that morals and values ar e universal truths that are not subject to evolving standards of modernity. In the U.S., political fundamentalists advocate returning to the nations founding values, political principles, and foundi ng documents. Legal or constitutional fundamentalists advocate Origin alism, the belief that judges should decide cases based on the original intentions of those who wrote th e words of the Constitution rather than their interpretation of the words or the mode rn meanings of the words. Religious fundamentalists and secular fundamentalists tend to be conservative insofar as they work to return to or restore th e values of the founding era.

PAGE 205

198|Chapter 9: Political Ideology Number of terrorist inci dents, by country, in 2009 9.67 | Terrorism Terrorism is hard to define in a way that is universally accepted or which differentiates between acceptable and unacceptable uses of political violence. The old saying that one persons freedom fighter is another persons terrorist still applies to contemporary analyses of political violence. A basic definiti on of terrorism is the use of violence or the threat of violence to intimidate or coerce a people, principally for political purposes. Terrorism creates a climate of fear in a population in order to achieve a particular political objective. U.S. law does define terrorism. Title 118 of the U.S. Code defines international terrorism as violent acts that appear to be intended to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; to influence the pol icy of a government by intimi dation or coercion, or to affect the conduct of a gove rnment by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping.3 It defines domestic terrorism as activities th at involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the Un ited States or of any State; appear to be intended to intimidate or coerce a civili an population; to infl uence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and occur prim arily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States. An extremely broad range of individuals political organizations, and movements have used terrorism: leftist and rightist; conservative and liber al; nationalistic and internationalist movements; religious and secular; defenders of the status quo and revolutionaries; populists and elitists; and even government s (though state institutions such as armies, intelligence services, and the police). Since the terrorist attacks of 9/11, the government has devoted a great deal of attention to terro rism. In fact, the Federal Bureau of Investigation describes protecting against terrorism its top priority. Terrorism involves the use of political violence but not all political violence is terrorism. It is important to differentiate between legitimate and illegitimate uses of political violence. During the colonial era, mob actions were part of the American

PAGE 206

Chapter 9: Political Ideology|199 political experience with direct, particip atory democracy. The Boston Tea Party in December 1773 was direct action intended to protest against British policies and to intimidate the British. Shays Rebellion in the winter of 1786 and 1787 was an armed uprising by citizenry who demanded that the government be more responsive to the economic problems of average Americans who facing mortgage foreclosures. The Tea Party movement played an impor tant role in the 2010 mid-term elections. Conservatives and Republican candidates for na tional and state offices did very well. One controversy surrounding the Tea Party movement is the fact that individual members of the movement and Tea Party groups either implied or explicitly stated that the American political tradition includes demanding cha nge through means other than the ballot box and regular elections. These alternative me thods include violence and the threat of violence. The references to Second Amendm ent remedies for political problems are a reminder that the American political trad ition includes famous examples of when political violence was accepted as a legitimate way to achieve political change or to oppose advocates of political change. Me mbers of the Tea Party movement and advocates of gun rights, such as the Natio nal Rifle Association, remind the American public and government officials that the D eclaration of Independence explained why individuals or organiza tions can take up arms when the government is tyrannical, exceeds its authority, or is not responsive to demands.4 9.60 | Why are there only two ideologies in the U.S.? Individual freedom of choice is a powerful c oncept in the U.S. In economics, freedom of choice means a preference for free markets. The free marketplace of goods and services where consumers choose based on their preferen ces is a very familiar part of American culture. In the economic marketplace compe tition is believed to improve products and services. It is also consider ed a good thing for economic consumers to have a broad range of options from which to choose when pur chasing a car, a house, health care, an insurance plan, or any other good or service. Americans cons ider economic ch oice a good thingand economic consumers certainly have a great variety of goods and services from which to choose. At one time, televisi on viewers had only three networks to watch. Now there is a seemingly endless menu from which to select. At one time, economic consumers had to choose from the big th ree American automobile manufacturers: Chevrolet, Ford, and Chrysler. Todays consumers have many more choices. Why then is political choice so limited? Why are American economic consumers presented with such a variety of goods and services but they ar e practically limited to choosing either a conservative or a liberal, either a Republican or Democrat? Must a person be either a conservative or a liberal? In a nation of 300 million people, is it possible to fit everyone into only two boxes? Are policies ei ther liberal or conservative? 9.61| What Are You? The two-dimensional framework for thinking about ideologies and political parties has serious limitations. Must all people be fit into either the conservative or the liberal box? Must all issues be reduced to only two-dimensions? The lim itations of the conservative and liberal framework have prompted searches for ways of thinking about ideology that

PAGE 207

200|Chapter 9: Political Ideology provide for more than two options. One altern ative framework that provides more than two categories is the Worlds Smallest Political Quiz It makes a distinction between views on economic issues and vi ews on personal issues. Take the quiz to see which of four ideological labels best describes you. Do you think the results accurately label you? What do you think of the quiz? Do you think the organization that developed the questions is biased toward a particular ideology? In recent years American politics has been described in terms of Red States and Blue States. Red states are conservative Republican and blue states are liberal Democratic. The Pew Research Center developed a Political Typology quiz that provides more political colors than red and blue. 9.70 | Is Ideology A Good Influence or A Bad Influence? It is not easy to provi de simple definitions of comple x terms such as conservatism and liberalism and describe their role in American government and politics. It is even harder to assess whether their role is positive or negative, whether ideologies are good or bad influences on government and politics. It is hard to objectivelyth at is, neutrally or without biasassess an id eologys role because ideologies are prescriptive rather than descriptive terms. A prescriptive term is a normative or valu e-laden term. A prescriptive term is one that has a value judgment about its worth, whether it is desirable or undesirable, whether it is good or bad. A descriptive term is not a normative or valueladen term. The following illustrates descriptive and prescriptive statements that are (mostly) familiar to politics. Descriptive Statements Democracy is government of the people, by the people, and for the people. Freedom is the right to do what you want. Equality means treating everyone the same. Conservatism is an ideology that values so cial order more than individual liberty. Liberalism is an ideology that values indi vidual liberty more than social order. Socialism is an ideology that values equality. Terrorism is the political use of violence. Prescriptive Statements Democracy is a good form of government. Freedom is preferable to slavery. Chocolate is bette r than vanilla. Conservatism is preferable to liberalism. Liberalism is preferable to conservatism. Capitalism is a good economic system. Socialism threatens freedom. Violence is not a legitimate means to a political end. Terrorism is unacceptable.

PAGE 208

Chapter 9: Political Ideology|201 There are too many lawyers and laws in modern American society. It is hard to objectively assess conservatism and liberalism because ideologies are commonly considered prescriptive rather than descriptive terms. A prescriptive term is a normative or value-laden term. A descriptive term defines or explains without assessing value. In American politics and government, people think of conserva tive or liberal or socialist as good or bad rather than merely as labels that describe different sets of beliefs and programs for acting on them. As a result, candidates for pub lic office, government officials, public policies, and political even ts are viewed through prescr iptive, ideological lenses. Capitalism and democracy are considered good ; other economic and political systems are considered bad. Similarly, the Republican and Democratic parties are not merely described, they are assessed as good or bad ba sed on ideological or policy preferences. Prescriptive terms reflect biases for or against somethingwhich makes it harder to study it objectively. Studying terrorism is comp licated because it is a prescriptive term, and its prescription is pejorative (or negative): to call a person a terrorist, or to describe an action as terrorism, is to condemn the person or the action. A descriptive definition of democracy is that it is a pol itical system wher e people control thei r government through elections or other means. But democracy is commonly used in a prescriptive sense: Democracy is a good (or bad) form of govern ment. To say that democracy is a good form of government is a positive normative st atement. To say that democracy is a bad form of government is a negative normative st atement. Attaching prescriptive labels to political terms sometimes makes it harder not easier, to unders tand what is being described. The fact that the terms liberal a nd conservative, which are so important for understanding American politics and government, are so often used as prescriptive labels that are attached to individuals, parties, or policies can make it harder to understand American government and politics. When thi nking about ideology, it is important to try to separate the descriptive thinking about th e terms from the prescriptive or normative assessment of whether the ideology is good or bad. Doing so will increase the likelihood that ideologythe systems of beliefs and policies for acting on themcan increase understanding of government and politics and the public policies that emerge from the process. Take the 20 question Political Typology quiz and then think about it! Are your Red or Blue?

PAGE 209

202|Chapter 9: Political Ideology Chapter 9: Study Questions 1. What is the role of religion in ideology? 2. What is ideology? 3. How do liberalism, conservatism, and libertarianism likely influence thinking about stem cell research? 4. Briefly discuss the problems with the conservative and liberal labels. 5. Is ideology good or bad? 6. Describe some of the differences between conservatism and libertarianism. 9.8 | Additional Resources The Center for Voting and Democracy has links to articles related to elections and democracy including voter turnout, links to or ganizations and ideas related to reforming the electoral system, and anal ysis of electoral returns. The Worlds smallest political quiz uses te n questions to place a person on the economic and social ideological spectrums. The Gallup Organization provide s historical and current in formation about American public opinion. 9.9 | In the Library George W. Carey, et al. Freedom & Virtue: The Conservative Libertarian Debate Intercollegiate Studies Institute, 1998. Robert Erikson. American Public Opinion: Its Origins, Content, and Impact. Longman Pub Group, 2006. William Flanigan. Political Behavior of The American Electorate CQ Press, 2006. Taegan D. Goddard. You Won Now What? How Americ ans Can Make Democracy Work from City Hall to the White House Scribner, 1998. Chapter 9:Key Terms Ideology Traditional conservatism Modern conservatism Liberal Classical liberalism Terrorism Libertarianism Socialism Communism Anarchism Feminism Environmentalism Fundamentalism

PAGE 210

Chapter 9: Political Ideology|203 Gerald M. Mara. The Civic Conversations of Thucydid es and Plato: Cl assical Political Philosophy and the Limits of Democracy State University of New York Press, 2008. Edwin Meese. The Heritage Guide to the Constitution Regnery Publishing, 2005. Deborah Stone. The Samaritans Dilemma: Should Government Help Your Neighbor ? Nation Books, 2008. Howard Zinn. A Peoples History of the Un ited States: 1492 to Present. Harper, 2001. 1Kenneth M. Dolbeare and Linda J. Medcalf. 1988. American Ideologies Today New York: Random House, Inc. p.3. 2 In The Emerging Republican Majority (New Rochelle, NY: Arlington House, 1969), Kevin P. Phillips predicted the rightward movement in American national politics based on his experience working with President Nixons 1968 campaign. 3 ode18/usc_sup_01_18_10_I_20_118.html 4 See es-2nd-amendment-remedies-toreids-oppression.html

PAGE 211

10.0 | Political Participation One of the most important, and difficult, po litical questions is why governments have authority over individuals. Why can the government (or the community or the majority ) CHAPTER 10: Political Participation 1960 Democratic National Convention

PAGE 212

Chapter 10: Political Participation|205 tell people what to do and what not to do? Th is is the power problem stated in its simplest terms. In theory, democracy addresses this aspect of the power problem through selfgovernment Self-government requires the part icipation of an active and engaged citizenry. This chapter examines how voting, elections, and campaigns organize participation in politics and government in or der to solve the problem s that people expect government to solve. Political participation is not limited to voting. Good citizenship, full citizenship, is active and engaged citizenship. Efforts to increase political participation have resulted in a movement to increase civic engagement. The term civic engagement refers to a broad range of individual or co llective actions that ar e intended to address issues of public concern. Civic engageme nt includes volunteerism, working with organizations, and participation in the electora l process. The latter part of this chapter provides examples of how to do civic e ngagement. The chapter begins with voting. 10.1 | Voting Voting is one of the ways that citizens participate in a demo cracy. Voting is just one form of political participation. There are many othe r ways to participate in politics: writing a letter to a newspaper; posting to a Web site; making a campaign contribution; contacting a legislator; running for office; campaigni ng for a candidate; or lobbying government. But voting is the form of political participa tion that is most closely associated with meeting the responsibilities of citizenship b ecause voting is an act of self-government. Voters select government officials to represen t them and cast votes fo r or against issues that are on the ballot. There are many other forms of political participation: running for office, making campaign contributions, wo rking for a party or candidate or issue, lobbying, or contacting govern ment officials about an issue or problem which interests you. Even non-votingthe intentional refusal to participate in an election as a protes t against the political system or the candidate or party choices that are availablecan be a form of political participation. All these forms of part icipation are components of political science measures of how democr atic a political system is. 10.11 | Expanding the right to vote One of the most important developments in the American system of government has been the expansion of th e right to vote. Over time, politics has become much more democratic. The Founders provided for a rather limited right to vote because they were skeptical of direct democracy and the ability of the masses to make good decisions about public policy or government leaders. In fact, the Founders were divided on how much political participation, in cluding voting, was desirable. The Federalists generally advocated limited particip ation where only white male property owners could vote. A leading Federalist, Alexander Hamilton, advocated a system of representative government th at resembled a natural aristocracy that was run by gentlemen of fortune and ability.1 The Anti-federalists advocated broader participation. The Antifederalist author writing under the name The Federal Farmer defined democratic participation as full and equal representation: full and equal The vote is the most powerful instrument ever devised by man for breaking down injustice and destroying the terrible walls which imprison men because they are different from other men. Lyndon B. Johnson Always vote for principle, though you may vote alone, and you may cherish the sweetest reflection that your vote is never lost. John Quincy Adams

PAGE 213

206|Chapter 10: Political Participation representation is that in which the interests, feelings, opinions, and views of the people are collected, in such a manner as they w ould be were all the people assembled. The Anti-federalist Republicus advocated an American democracy that provided for fair and equal representation, which he defined as a condition where every member of the union have a freedom of suffrage and that every equal number of people have an equal number of representatives. Over time the right to vote was greatly expanded and the political system became much more democratic. Abraham Lincolns Gettysburg Address is a memorable political speech because of what it said about democracy and equality Lincoln famously defined democracy as government of the people, government by the people, and government for the people. He also brought equality ba ck into American pol itical rhetoric by emphasizing the political importance of equality that was first stated so memorably in the Declaration of Independence. The Declaration of Independe nce asserted that all men were created equal and endowed with unalien able rights. The Constitution did not include equality as a political value. It provided for slavery and allowed the states to limit the right to vote. The right to vote was e xpanded by constitutional amendments and by legislation. The constitutional change s included the following amendments: The 14th Amendment (1868) prohibited states from denying to any person with their jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. The 15th Amendment (1870) prohibited states from denying the right to vote on the basis of race. The 17th Amendment (1913) provided for direct election of Senators. The 19th Amendment (1920) gave women the right to vote. The 24th Amendment (1964) eliminated the Poll Tax. The 26th Amendment (1971) lowered voting age to 18.

PAGE 214

Chapter 10: Political Participation|207 One of the most important statutory expansions of the right to vote is the Voting Rights Act of 1965 It made racial discrimination in voting a violation of federal law; specifically, outlawing the use of literacy tests to qualify to register to vote, and providing for federal registration of voters in areas th at had less than 50% of eligible minority voters registered. The Act al so provided for Department of Justice oversight of registration, and requir ed the Department to approve any change in voting law in districts that had used a device to limit voting and in which less than 50% of the population was registered to vote in 1964. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 is a landmark civil rights statute that also expanded the right to vote by limiting racial discrimination in voting. In addition to these government actions, the political system also developed in ways that expanded the right to vote and made the system more democratic. The emergence of political partie s fundamentally changed the American political system. Political parties changed the way the pres ident is chosen by effectively making the popular vote, not the Electoral College, dete rmine who wins the presidency. There have been notable exceptions to the rule that the candidate who receives the most popular votes wins the election (t he presidential elections of 1824, 1876, 1888) and 2000), but modern political culture include s the expectation that the pe ople select the president. 10.12 | How democratic is the United States political system? Democracy is a widely accepted value in the U.S. and elsewhere in the world. As more nations adopt democratic political systems, political scientists are paying attention to whether a countrys political system is democratic as well as how democratic the political system is. Democracy is not an either/or value. There are degrees of democracy: a political system can be more or less democr atic. Non-governmental organizations such as Freedom House and publicati ons such as The Economist have developed comparative measures of how democratic a countrys political system is. The Economist ranks the U.S. as 17th in the world.2 This is a surprisingly low ranking for a nation that extols the value of democracy and promotes it worldwide. The low ranking on democracy is due to several factors: Voter Turnout. The U.S. has comparativel y low rates of voter turn-out. European countries, for example, have much higher rates of voting. A Presidential System. The U.S. has developed into a system of presidential governance system where executive power is dominant rather than the more democratic legislative or parliamentary systems. National Security. The U.S. has develope d extensive provisions for secrecy and national security and emergency powers which are hard to reconcile with democratic values. 10.13 | Voter Turnout Voter turnout is the proportion of the voting-age public that participates in an election. Voter turnout is a function of a number of individual factors and institutional factors. Voter turnout is low in the United States What does low mean? In many elections, less than half of the eligible voters participate in the elec tion. The graph below shows the turnout rate for presidential elections from 1960 to 2008.

PAGE 215

208|Chapter 10: Political Participation Voter turnout is also low comp ared to other western industr ial democracies. Why is U.S. voter turnout low in absolute numbers (less than half) and comparatively? Some of the explanations focus on the individual while others focus on the electoral system. 10.14 | Individual Explanations The individual explanations focus on an indi viduals motivations. The two main models of individual explanations fo r voting behavior are the ratio nal choice model and the civic duty model. The rational choice model of voting was developed by Anthony Downs, who argued that individuals are self-interested actors who use a cost-benefit analysis to determine whether it is in their self-interest to vote.3 According to the rational choice model, a persons decision whether to vote is based on an individuals assessment of whether the vote will affect the outcome of the election, the expected benefit of voting and not voting, and the sense of civic duty (the personal gratification or satisfaction from voting. The rational choice model is based on the assumptions in economic models of human behavior. The civic duty model describes non-material, n on-rational incentives for voting. According to the civic duty model, a person vo tes out of a sense of responsibility to the political unit, or a commitment to democra tic government and the obligations and duties as well as the rights of citizens to maintain self-government. Patriotic values and the commitment to the community or society are familiar expressions of civic duty. In order to vote, the probab ility of voting, times the bene fit of vote, plus the sense of duty to vote must outweigh the cost (in time, effort, and money) of voting. As the probability of a vote mattering in a federal election almost always approaches zero (because more than 100,000,000 votes are cast), duty becomes the most important element in motivating people to vote. Accordi ng to the rational choice model, a person will vote if they think it is worth it; a person will not vote if they th ink it is not worth it. 63% 62% 61% 55% 54% 53% 53% 50% 55% 49% 51% 57% 57% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50% 55% 60% 65% 70% 1960196419681972197619801984198819921996200020042008Turnout Rate for Voting Age PublicPresidential Elections Think About It! Should the U.S. try to increase voter turnout by either paying people to vote or by fining (or otherwise sanctioning) eligible voters who do not vote?

PAGE 216

Chapter 10: Political Participation|209 According to this cost-benefit ratio, it may be rational not to vote. An individual with a greater commitment to civic duty or res ponsibility will weigh the relative costs differently and may conclude that voting is worth it. The concept of political efficacy is central to understanding voting behavior. Political efficacy is the belief that ones participation matters, that ones decision to vote really makes a difference. What is th e likelihood that one vote will matter in a presidential election where more than 100, 000,000 votes are cast? The rational choice model suggests that voter turnout in the Unite d States is low because individuals have thought about whether or not to vote and simply concluded that it is not worth their time and effort and money to vote. Demographic factors affect whether or not someone turns out to vote. Demographic factors that are related to vot er turn-out include income, education, race and ethnicity, gender, and age. Wealthy citizen s have higher rates of voter turnout than poor citizens. Income has an effect on voter turnout. W ealthy citizens have higher levels of political efficacy and believe that the political works and their votes will count. On the other hand, people that make less money and ha ve less wealth are less likely to believe that the political system will respond to their demands as expressed in elections. Race is also related to voter turnout. Whites vote at higher rates than minorities. Gender is also related to voter turnout. Women voted at lo wer levels than men for many years after gaining suffrage with the passage of the 19th Amendment in 1920, but today women vote at much higher levels than men do. Age is also important. There is a strong relationship between age and voter turnout. Older people vote at higher le vels than younger people do, which helps explain why candidates for office and government officials are so sensitive to issues that affect seniors (such as reducing spending on Social Security or Medicare). 10.15 | System Explanations The system explanations focus on aspects of th e political system that affect voter turnout. These system factors include voter registratio n laws, the fact that elections are usually held on one day during the week, the large numbe r of elections in our federal system, and the two-party system. Eligibility A persons eligibility for voting is provi ded for in the U.S. Constitution, state constitutions, and state and federal statutes The Constitution states that suffrage cannot be denied on grounds of race or color (F ifteenth Amendment), sex (Nineteenth Amendment) or age for citizens eighteen ye ars or older (Twenty-sixth Amendment). Beyond these basic qualifications, the states have a great deal of authority to determine eligibility and to run elections. Some states bar convicted criminals, especially felons, from voting for a fixed period of time or indefinitely. The National Conference of State Legislatures reports on felon voting ri ghts in the states. The Sentencing Project reports that 5.8 million Americans are disenfranchised, denied the right to vote, because of a felony conviction. State felon voting laws have a dispropo rtionate impact on AfricanAmericans: one out of 13 African-Americans ar e ineligible to vote because of a felony conviction.

PAGE 217

210|Chapter 10: Political Participation Voter Registration Voter registration is the requireme nt that a person check in with some central registry in order to be allowed to vote in an election. In the U.S., the individual is responsible for registering to votesometimes well before the actual election. Furthermore, each state has differe nt voter registration laws and moving from one state to another state re quires reregistering to vote.4 These registration laws reduce voter turnout. In some countries, the government registers eligible voters and actually fines eligible voters who do not perform th eir civic duty to vote in an election. Voter Fatigue. Voter fatigue is the term for the apathy that the electorate can experience when th ey are required to vote too often in too many elections. The U.S. has a large number of government units (around 90,000) and Americ ans elect a large number of government officialsaround one for every 442 citizens. Having a large number of electionsin the U.S. there is always an election somewherecan reduce voter turnout. The Two-party System Finally, the two-party system can contribute to low voter turnout by increasing the sense that an individuals vote does not matte r very much. In two-party systems, the parties tend to be primarily interested in winning elections. In order to win elections the parties tend to compete for moderate voters with middle-of-t he-road appeals because most of the voters are by definition centrists rather than extremists. This can be a winning electoral stra tegy, but it sometimes leaves voters thinking there isnt much real difference between the two majo r parties which compete by muddling in the middle. Why vote if there is no real choice between the two candidates or parties? The two major American political parties tend to be interested primarily in winning elections, and only secondarily in advocating ideologies or issues. In contrast, countries with multiple party systems are more likely to have rational political parties. As used here, a rational party is one whose primary goal is a dvancing ideas, issues, or ideology; winning an election is secondary. Listen to Southern Democrat Huey Longs critique of the Democratic and Republican Parties in the 1940 presidential election. George C. Wallace, the former Governor of Alabama and 1968 presidential candidate of the American Independent Party, famously said of the Democratic and Republican candidates for president: there is not a dimes worth of difference between them.5 Does it matter whether one votes for a Republican or Democrat when there really isn t much choice in a two-party system where the major parties dont diffe r much on the issues? Election Tuesday ? Why does the U.S. have elections on a Tuesday? The reason for Tuesday elections goes back to the days of horse s and buggies when Monday elections would require traveling on the Sabbath and Wednesday was market day. So in 1845 Congress provided for Tuesday elections. W ould changing from one-weekday elections to two-day weekend elections increase voter turnout by making it easier for people to fit voting into busy family and work schedules? It has in some countries. The U.S. has comparatively low rates of voter turnout but bills to change to weekend voting die in Think About It! What should you expect when you show up at the polls to vote? What to Expect Before Heading to the Polls story/story.php?storyId=9653 8073

PAGE 218

Chapter 10: Political Participation|211 committee in Congress. Some states now allo w early voting and a si gnificant percentage of votes are now cast before prior to the da y of the election. Should technology such as electronic voting be used to increase voter turnout? 10.2 | Elections Elections are one way for people to participat e in the selection of government officials. Elections also provide a means of holding government officials accountable for the way they use their power. Participation and acc ountability are two of the main reasons why elections are a measure of whether a political system is democratic and how democratic it is. In most cases, it is not as useful to describe a political system as democratic or nondemocratic as it is to determine how democra tic it is. Many countries of the world have political systems that are more or less demo cratic. Some countries are more democratic than others. The existence of free, open, and competitive elections is one measure of whether a countrys political system is democratic. 10.21 | Three Main Purposes Elections serve three main purposes in repres entative democracies (or republics, like the U.S.): Selecting government officials. The most basic purpose of an election in a democratic system is to select government officials. Elections provide an opportunity for the people to choose their government o fficials. The fact that voters choose their representatives is one of the ways that democratic or republican systems of government solve the power problem. Voting is part of self-government. Informing government officials Elections also provide government officials with information about what the people wh at, what they exp ect, and what they think about government. Elections provide an opportunity for the voice of the people to be expressed and heard. Elections thus serv e as one of the ways to regularly measure public opinion about issu es, political parties, candidates, and the way that government offi cials are doing their jobs. Holding government accountable Elections provide re gular or periodic mechanisms for holding elected representa tives, other government officials, and even political partie s accountable for their actions while in power. The Founders of the U.S. system of republican governm ent provided for elections as part of the system of checks and balances. The political scientists who study voting and elections describe two theories of elections. One theory is the elections are forward looking in the sense that an election provides government officials with information about whic h direction the public wants the government to go on major issues. The second theory is that elections are backward looking in the sense that an election provides go vernment officials with feedback about what has been donein effect, an election is a referendum on government officials or the political party in power.

PAGE 219

212|Chapter 10: Political Participation 10.22 | Too Much of a Good Thing? In the U.S., voters go to the polls to el ect national government officials at all levels of government: national, state, and local. Voters indirectly elect the President (through selection by the Elector al College). Voters directly elect the members of the House of Representati ves and the Senate. Voters directly elect state government officials such as governors, legislators, the heads of various executive departments, and in many states judges. And voters elect local government officials such as county commissione rs, school board members, mayors and city council members, and members of special governing districts such as airport aut horities. In addition, most states provide for referendums, elections wher e voters decide ballot issues. With more than 90,000 total governme nt units in the U.S., elections are being held somewhere for some office or for some ballot measure al most all the time. Across the whole country, more than one million elected offices are filled in every electoral cycle. 10.23 | Initiative and Referendu m Elections are not limited to thos e that involve the se lection of government officials. In the U.S., many state and local governments prov ide for ballot initiati ves and referendum. A ballot initiative is an election where the vot ers decide whether to support or reject a proposed law. A referendum is an election where the voters go to the polls to approve or reject a law that has been passed by the st ate legislature or a local government body. The people vote for or against issues such as st ate constitutional amendments, county charters, or city charter provisions and amendments.6 The increased use of initiatives and refe renda in states such as California has raised questions about whether direct de mocracy is preferable to indirect or representative democracy. In a representative democracy, the elected representatives of the people make the laws; in a direct democracy, the people make the laws. The recent trend toward initiatives and referendum has attracted the attention of people who study American politics. One organization that m onitors and reports on what is happening in the states is the Ballot Initiative Strategy Center This Center acts as a nerve center for progressive or liber al ballot initiatives in the states. The Initiative and Referendum Institute (IRI) at the University of Southern California studi es ballot initiatives and referendums in the U.S. and elsewhere in the world. Technology has made it possible to use this form of direct democracy to make the political system more democratic by allowing the public more opport unities to participate in the adoption of the laws that government them. 10.24 | Regulating Elections Elections are regulated by both federal and state law. The U.S. Constitution provides some basic provisions for the conduct of electi ons in Articles I and II. Article I, Section Four provides that [t]he Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alte r such Regulations, except as to the Place of Chusing Senators. The 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments also regulate elections by Think about it! Do we have too many elections?

PAGE 220

Chapter 10: Political Participation|213 prohibiting states from discriminating on the basis of race or gender. The 15th Amendment states that the right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude. However, most aspects of electoral la w are regulated by the states. State laws provide for the conduct of primary elections (w hich are party elections to determine who the partys nominee will be in the general election); the elig ibility of voters (beyond the basic requirements established in the U.S. Constitution); the running of each states Electoral College; and the running of state and local elections. 10.25 | Primary and General Elections Election campaigns are organized efforts to persuade voters to choose one candidate over the other candidates who are competing for the same office. Effective campaigns harness resources such as volunteers; mone y (campaign contributi ons); the support of other candidates; and endorsements of other government officials, interest groups and party organizations. Effective campaigns us e these resources to communicate messages to voters. Political parties have played a central ro le in election campaigns for most of the nations history. However, during the last 30 years there has been an increase in candidate-centered campaigns and, more rece ntly, independent organizations (such as super-PACS). Candidates who used to rely on political pa rties for information about voter preferences and attitudes now c onduct their own public opinion polls and communicate directly with the public. Before candidates can seek election to a part isan political office, they must get the nomination of their party in the primary election A campaign for a non-partisan office (one where the candidates run without a party designation on the ballot), does not require getting the party nomination. A primary election is an election to determine who will be the partys nominee for office. A general elec tion is the election to actually determine who wins the office. A primary election is typically an intra-party election: the members of a party vote to determine w ho gets to run with the party la bel in the general election. A general election is typically an inter-party election: candidates fr om different parties compete to determine who wins the office. Mo st state and local political parties in the United States use primary elections (abet with widely varying rules and regulations) to determine the slate of candidates a party will offer in the general election. More than forty states use only primary elections to determine the nomination of candidates, and primaries play a prominent role in all the other states. There are four basic type s of primary elections: closed primaries, open primaries, modified closed primaries, and modified open primaries. Closed primaries are primary elections where voters are required to register with a specific party before the election and are only able to vote in the pa rtys election for which they are registered. Open primary elections allow anyone who is e ligible to vote in the primary election to vote for a partys selection. In modified closed primaries, the state party decides who is allowed to vote in its primary. In modifi ed open primaries, independent voters and registered party members are allowed to vote in the nomination contest. 10.3 | National Elections

PAGE 221

214|Chapter 10: Political Participation The United States has a presidential system of government. In presidential systems, the executive and the legislature are elected separately. Article I of the U.S. Constitution requires that the presidential election occur on the same da y throughout the country every four years. Elections for the House of Repr esentatives and the Senate can be held at different times. Congressional elections take pl ace every two years. The years when there are congressional and presidenti al elections are called presid ential election years. The congressional election years wh en a president is not elected are called midterm elections. The Constitution states that memb ers of the United States House of Representatives must be at least 25 years old, a citizen of the United States for at least seven years, and be a (legal) inhabitant of th e state they represent. Senators must be at least 30 years old, a citizen of the United States for at least nine years, and be a (legal) inhabitant of the state they represent. Th e president must be at least 35 years old, a natural born citizen of the United States and a resident in the United States for at least fourteen years. It is the responsibility of stat e legislatures to regulat e the qualifications for a candidate appearing on a ballot paper. Getting on the ballot is based on candidate's performances in previous elections.

PAGE 222

Chapter 10: Political Participation|215 2008 Presidential Ballot in Palm Beach County, Florida 10.31 | Presidential Elections The president and vice-president run as a t eam or ticket. The team typically tries for balance. A balanced ticket is one where the president and the vice-president are chosen to achieve a politically desirable balanc e. The political balance can be: Geographical. Geographical balance is wh en the President and Vice-president are selected from different regions of the countrybalancing north and south, or east and westin order to appeal to vote rs in those regions of the country. Ideological. Ideological balance is when the President and Vice-president come from different ideological wings of the party. The two major parties have liberal and conservative wings, and the ideological balance broadens the appeal of the ticket.

PAGE 223

216|Chapter 10: Political Participation Experience. A ticket with balanced political experience is one that includes one candidate with extensive experience in federal government and the other a political newcomer. Sometimes political experience (being a Washington insider, for instance) is considered an advantag e; sometimes it is considered a handicap. Incumbency can be a plus or a minus. Balance can try to have it both ways. Demographics. Demographic balance refe rs to having a ticket with candidates who have different age, race, gender or religion. Once again, demographic balance is intended to br oaden the tickets appeal. The presidential candidate for each party is selected through a presidential primary Incumbent presidents can be challenged in their partys primary elections, but this is rare. The last incumbent Presiden t to not seek a second term was Lyndon B. Johnson. President Johnson was mired in the Vi etnam War at a time when that war was very unpopular. The presidential primary is actually a series of staggered electoral contests in which members of a party choose delegates to attend the partys national convention which officially nominates th e partys presidential candidate. Primary elections were first used to choose delegates in 1912. Prior to this, the delegates were chosen by a variety of methods, including sele ction by party elites. The use of primaries increased in the early decades of the 20th Century then they fell out of favor until anti-war protests at the 1968 Democratic National Convention. Police attacking protestors at the 1968 Demo cratic National Convention in Chicago, IL Currently, more than eighty percent of states use a primary election to determine delegates to the national c onvention. These elections do not occur on one day: the primary election process takes many months The primary election process is long, drawn-out, complex, and has no parallel in a ny other nation in the world. The presidential

PAGE 224

Chapter 10: Political Participation|217 candidates begin fundraising efforts, star t campaigning, and announce their candidacy months in advance of th e first primary election. It is purely historical accident that New Hampshire and Iowa have the first primary elections and are thus the focus on ca ndidate attention for mo nths prior to their January elections. New Hampshire had an early primary election in 1972 and has held the place of the first primary since that time. Iowas primary is before New Hampshire, although the state uses a caucus to select delegates. Gene rally, the Iowa caucus narrows the field of candidates by demonstrating a candidates appeal am ong party supporters, while New Hampshire tests the appeal of the front-runners from each party with the general public. Dates of primary elections in 2008. 10.32 | The Electoral College The president is not dir ectly elected by the people. The popular vote does not actually determine who wins the presidency. When the voters in a state go to the polls to cast their votes for president (and vice presiden t), they are actually voting for members of the Electoral College The winner of a presidential election is the candidate who receives a majority vote of the members of the Electoral College. With the possible exception of the Federal Reserve Board, the Electoral College may be the least-understood government body in the U.S. system of government. Each member of the Electoral College cast her or his vote for a presidential and vicepresidential candidate. Each states members of the Electoral College are chosen by the state political party at that states party convention. Th e state parties choose party loyalists to be the partys members of the El ectoral College if that party wins the popular

PAGE 225

218|Chapter 10: Political Participation vote in the state. This is why the members of the Electoral College almost always vote for the presidential candidate who wins the popular vote in that state. On rare occasion, a faithless Elector will not vote for the candidate who won the popular vo te in their state. When voters in a state go to the polls to vote for a president, they actually each cast their votes for a slate of electors that is chosen by a party or a candidate. The presidential and vice-presidential candidate names usually appear on the ballot rather than the names of the Electors. Until the passa ge of the Twelfth Amendmen t in 1804, the runner-up in a presidential election (t he person receiving the second most number of Electoral College votes) became the vice-president. The winner of the presidential election is the candidate who rece ives at least 270 Electoral College votes. The fact that it is possible for a ca ndidate to receive the most popular votes but lose the election by receiving fewer Electoral College votes than another candidate is hard to reconcile with democratic prin ciples. It also does not seem fair in modern American political culture which includes an expecta tion that voters chose government officials. Abolishing the Electoral College and replacing it with a national direct system would also prevent a candidate from receiving fewer votes nationwide than their opponent, but still winning more electoral votes, which last occurred in the 2000 Presidential election. State law regulates how the states Elector al College votes are cast. In all states except Maine and Nebraska, the candidate that wins the most votes in the state receives all its Electoral College votes (a winner ta kes all system). From 1969 in Maine, and from 1991 in Nebraska, two electoral votes are awarded based on the winner of the statewide election, and the rest (two in Maine, three in Nebraska) go to the highest votewinner in each of the states congressional districts. The Electoral College is criticized for a variety of reasons: It is undemocratic. The people do not actual ly elect a president; the president is selected by the Electoral College. It is unequal. The number of a states Elect ors is equal to the states congressional delegation. This system gives less populous states a disproportionate vote in the Electoral College because each state has two senators regardless of population (and therefore two members of the Elect oral College). The minimum number of state Electors is three. Wyoming and California have the same number of senators. Wyoming has a population of 493,782 and 3 EC votes, 164,594 people per EC vote. California has a popul ation of 33,871,648 and 55 EC votes, 615,848 people per EC vote.

PAGE 226

Chapter 10: Political Participation|219 2010 Florida Senate Campaign Debate: (From L to R: Marco Rubio, Charlie Crist, Kendrick Meek) Map of Electoral College Votes It spotlights swing states. The Electoral College system distorts campaigning because the voters in swing states dete rmine the outcome of the election. As a result, voters who live in states that are not competitive are ignored by the political campaigns. Abolishing the Electoral College and treating the entire country as one district for presidential elections elim inate the campaign focus on swing states. It is biased against national candidates. The Electoral College also works against candidates whose base of support is spread around the country rather than in a state or region of the country which woul d enable them to win the popular vote in one or more states. This is what happened to Ross Perot. In 1992, Perot won 18.9% of the national vote, but received no Electoral College votes because his broad appeal across the country did not in clude strength in one or a few state. Despite these long-standing cr iticisms of the Electoral College, abolishing it is unlikely because doing so would require a cons titutional amendmentand ratification of a constitutional amendment requi res three-quarters of the state legislature to support it. The less populous states are not likely to s upport an amendment to abolish the Electoral College in favor of direct popular electi on of the president because doing so would decrease the voting power of the less populous states. Small states such as Wyoming and North Dakota would lose power and more popul ous states such as California and New York would gain power. 10.33 | Congressional Elections Congressional elections take place every two years. Each member of the House of Representatives is

PAGE 227

220|Chapter 10: Political Participation In 2010, Allen West (R) challenged incumbent and Ron Klein (D) in Florida District 22. West emphasized his military experience. A neighborhood campaign supporter produced a sign which framed the choice as The Wimp or the Warrior. elected for a two-year term. E ach Senator is elected for a si x-year term. About one-third of the Senate is elected in each congression al election. Until the Seventeenth Amendment to the United States Constitution in 1913, Senato rs were elected by state legislatures, not the electorate of states. 10.34 | House Elections Elections to the United States House of Repr esentatives occur every two years on the first Tuesday after November 1 in even years. If a member dies in office or resigns before the term has been completed, a special House electio n is held to fill the seat. House elections are first-past-the-post electionsmeaning the can didate who gets the most votes wins the election regardless of whether that person receives a majority of the votes cast in the election. The winner is the one who receives a plurality of the votes. Plurality means the most votes. It is not necessary for the winner to receive a ma jority (50% plus one) of the votes. Every two years congressional elections coincide with presidential elections. Congressional elections that do not coincide with presidenti al elections are called midterm electionsbecause they occur in the middle of a Presidents four-year term of office. When congressional elections occur in the same year as a presidential election, the party whose presidential candidate wins the election usually increases the number of congressional seats it holds. This is one of the unofficial linkages between presidential and congressional elections. The president and members of Congr ess are officially elected separately, but some voters go to the polls to vote for or against Republicans and Democrats so the presidents popularity has an impact on congressional elections. There is a historical pa ttern that the incumbent presidents party loses seats in mid-term elections. In mid-term elections, the president is not on the ballot. The presidents party usually loses seats in mid-term elections. One reason for mid-term losses is the presidents popularity has slipped during the two years in office. Anot her cause of mid-term election losses is the fact that voter turnout is lo wer in mid-term elections, an d members of the presidents party are less likely to vote in an election when their president is not on the ballot. These patterns of voting behavior illustrate the partisan linkages betw een congressional and presidential elections. 10.35 | Gerrymandering

PAGE 228

Chapter 10: Political Participation|221 Over time, congressional districts have become far less competitive. Congressional districts are drawn to protect individual incumb ents and political parties. Another way to describe this is that congressi onal districts are dr awn to create safe districts. A safe district is one that is not competitive; it is a safe district for the Re publican Party or a safe district for the Democratic Party because the district boundaries are drawn to ensure that it contains a majority of Republicans or De mocrats. One consequence of drawing safe districts is a reduction in voter choice. The Constitution requires that congressional districts be reapportioned af ter every census. This means that reapportionment or redistricting is done every ten years. The reapportionment is done by each state. In most cases, the political party with a majority in th e state legislature controls redistricting. The fact that either one or the other major pa rty controls the reapportionment encourages partisan gerrymandering. Gerrymandering is drawing electoral district lines in ways that advantage one set of interests and disadvantage others. Hi storically, gerrymandering advantaged rural interests and disadvantaged ur ban interests. Voters in rural districts were overrepresented and voters in urba n districts were under-represe nted. Racial gerrymandering is done to advantage one r ace and to disadvantage others. Historically, racial gerrymandering over-represented white vot ers and under-represented Black voters. Racial gerrymandering is illegal because the Fourteenth Amendment prohibits states from denying people the equal protec tion of the laws. Partis an gerrymandering is drawing electoral lines to benefit the majority party a nd hurt the minority party. It is still practiced as a way for the majority part y to use its political power. One of the ways that the two major part ies cooperate is in the creation of safe electoral districts. The Democratic and Repu blican parties have a vested interest in reducing the number of competitive districts and increasing the number of safe seats. The fact that more than nine out of ten American s live in congressional districts that are not really competitive, but are safe seats for one party or the other, m eans that elections are not really very democratic. Redistricting to create safe seats for incumbents (those in office) gives an incumbent a great advantage over any challenger in House elections. In the typical congressional election, only a small number of incumbents lose their seat. Only a small number of seats change party control in each elec tion. Gerrymandering to create safe districts results in fewer than 10% of all House seats actually being competitive in each election cyclecompetitive m eaning that a candidate of either party has a good chance of winning the seat. The lack of electorally competitive districts means that over 90% of House members are almost guaranteed reelection every two years.

PAGE 229

222|Chapter 10: Political Participation The Gerry-Mander. Boston Gazette March 26, 1812. This is a significant development because competitive elections are one measure of how democratic a political system is. The large number of safe districts makes a political system less democratic because there are fewer competitive elections. Creating safe seats for 1) Republicans and Democrats; an d 2) incumbents in either party, results in conditions that resemble one-party politics in a large number of districts. If one party almost always wins a district and the other party almost always loses, the value of political competitions is greatly diminished. 10.36 | A Duopoly (or Shared Monopoly) The two major parties collude to create thes e political monopolies (technically they are duopolies because the two major parties contro l the political marketplace). The creation of a large number of safe seats makes dist ricts more ideologically homogeneous, thereby making negotiating, bargaining, and ultimately the need to compromise less likely. A candidate who does not have to r un for office in a politically dive rse district is less likely to have to develop campaign st rategies with broad public app eal, and once in office such a legislator is less likely to have to govern with much concern about accommodating different interests or representing different constituents.

PAGE 230

Chapter 10: Political Participation|223 10.4 | Campaigns A political campaign is an organized effort to influence the decisions of an individual, group, organization, or government institution. Campaigns are one way that individuals, parties, and other political ac tors compete for popul ar support. Campaigning is a type of advertising: it is political advertising rather than commercial advertising. A candidate, political party, or interest group campaigns by providing the public with favorable information about their issues (this is posit ive campaigning) or unfavorable information about the opposition (this is negative campaigni ng). Political (or electoral) campaigns are organized efforts with three elements: message, money, and machine. 10.41 | The Message The campaign message is usually a clear and co ncise statement that explains why voters should vote for a candidate or an issue. Some examples of campaign messages include the following: John Doe is a business man, not a politicia n. His background in finance means he can bring fiscal discipline to state government. Crime is increasing and education is decreasing. We need leaders like Jane Doe who will keep our streets safe and our schools educating our children. Jane Doe has missed over 50 congressiona l votes. How can you lead if you dont show up to vote? Jane Doe is not a Washington politician. She remembers where she came from and wont become part of the problem in Washington. Jane Doe knows how to keep Americans safe from terrorism. John Doe is an experienced leader. Vote Yes on Number Four to Protect Marriage. The message is one of the most impor tant aspects of any political campaign, whether it is an individuals campaign for of fice or a referendum on an issue. The media (radio, television, and now the new media) emphasize short, pithy, memorable phrases from campaign speeches or debates. These sound bites are the short campaign slogans or catchy messages that resemble bumper-stick ers. Sound-bite campaigns and campaign coverage reduce political messages to slogans such as Peace through Strength (Ronald Reagan), Its Morning in America (President Reagan), and Change We Can Believe In (Barack Obama). The Museum of the Moving Image has archived presidential campaign ads. A memorable campaign slogan from th e 1984 Democratic primary campaign was Walter Mondales ad dismissing his main Democratic challenger, Gary Hart, with the catch phrase from a popular Wendys commer cial: Wheres the beef? The implied charge was that the photogenic Hart lacked subs tance, particularly when compared to the dull but experienced Mondale. The mantra of Bill Clintons pres idential campaign in 1992 was Its the economy stupid. This sloga n stressed the importa nce of keeping the campaign focused on the state of the economy ra ther than other issues that sometimes distract Democrats. Candidate George W. Bushs campaign used the slogan

PAGE 231

224|Chapter 10: Political Participation compassionate conservatism to appeal to both conservatives and those who worried that conservatives did not care about the poor or disadvantaged. Todays national and state campaigns ar e typically professional, sophisticated, carefully crafted campaigns to develop and control the image of a candidate. The marketing of political campaigns has been described as the packaging of a candidate and the selling of a candidateeven The Selling of a President. The reference to selling a president is from Joe McGinniss The Selling of the President (1968). McGinniss described how candidate Richard Nixon used Madison Avenue marketing professionals and strategies to win the White House. At the ti me, the idea that a political campaign could, or should, market and sell a candidate the way that beer, deodorant, and bars of soap were marketed and sold other products like beer or deodorant or a bar of soap was controversial. The idea of corpor ate advertising expertise being applied to democratic politics in order to influence what citizens thought of the president seemed inappropriate and threatening. Bringing marketi ng values to politics seemed to demean or diminish politics by treating people as consumers rather than as citizens. Political advertising also seemed threatening in the se nse that it used psychology to manipulate or control what people think. In the years since 1968, the marketing a nd advertising of candidates is widely accepted as the way to conduct a successful national campaign. Presidential campaigns develop a message or candidate brand. Af ter the Watergate Sca ndal exposed President Nixons dishonesty, the Jimmy Carter campaign br and was honesty: I will not lie to you. During the Carter Administration the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan, Americans were taken hostages during a revoluti on in Iran that overthrew the Shah of Iran who was an ally of the United States, and a hostage resc ue mission failed. These events, coupled with the loss of the Vietnam War, allowed presiden tial candidate Ronald Reagan to portray President Carter, the Democrats, and liberal s as weak on national defense. The Reagan campaign theme Peace through Strength successfully branded Carter, Democrats, and liberals as weak on national defense and R eagan, Republicans, and conservatives as strong on national defense. The comparison of campaigning and advert ising is appropriate because many of the techniques and strategies that are used by Madison Avenue advertisers are mainstream politics. The simila rities between the selling of a product or service and the selling of candidate are now acknowledged. In order to be successful, national campaigns spend a great deal of money on gathering information about political consumers so that candidates and parties can cr aft and present a message that is appealing. 10.42 | Money Campaign finance has become more important as campaigns have changed from traditional retail politics to wholesale politics The term retail politics refers to campaigns where candidates actually meet voters one-on-one, in small groups or communities, at town hall meetings, or othe r face-to-face settings such as walking a neighborhood. The term wholesale politics refers to campaigns where candidates address large audiences often using the pr int and electronic mass media. The change to wholesale politics has increased the cost of campaigning by shifting from labor-intensive campaigningw here friends and neighbors and campaign workers and volunteers canvas a district or city or make personal telephone calls to

PAGE 232

Chapter 10: Political Participation|225 The War Room is a documentary that chronicles Bill Clintons 1992 Presidential Campaign from an inside-look at his campaign staff. individual votersto capital-intensive ca mpaigns where money is used to purchase television air time or advertising. The change from campaigns as ground wars to air wars has increased the cost of campaigning. Fundraising techniques include having th e candidate call or meet with large donors, sending direct mail pleas to small donor s, and courting interest groups who could end up spending millions on the race if it is significant to their interests. The financing of elections has always been controversial becau se money is often considered a corrupting influence on democratic politics. The perc eption is that the wealthy can purchase access to government officials or pay for campaigns th at influence public opinion. The fact that private sources of finance make up subs tantial amounts of campaign contributions, especially in federal elections, contributes to the perception that money creates influence. As a result, voluntary public funding for candidates willing to accept spending limits was introduced in 1974 for presidential primaries and elections. The Federal Elections Commission was created in the 1970s to monitor campaign finance. The FEC is responsible for monitoring the disclosure of campaign finance information, enforcing the provisions of the law such as the limits a nd prohibitions on contri butions, and overseeing the public funding of U.S. presidential elections. A good source of information about mone y matters in American campaigns and elections is The Center for Responsive Politic s. The Center tracks money in politics as part of an open secrets project. The recommendation to Follow the money has become all-purpose slogan that is applicable to criminal investigati ons and investigations of political influence and campaign ads. The saying comes from the Hollywood film All the Presidents Men which tells the story of how Wash ington Post reporters investigated the Watergate scandal. A secret source named Deep Throat advised the reporters to Follow the Money. The National Institute on Money in State Politics is still following the money trail to determine political influence in state politics. The U.S. Supreme Courts rulings in campaign finance cases has made Follow the money even more relevant in todays politics. In a series of ru lings, the Court has said that campaign contributions are speech that is protected by the First Amendment a nd that government restrictions on campaign contributions are subject to strict scruti nywhich means that the government has to show that campaign finance laws serve a comp elling interest in order to be upheld. As a result, corporations can make unlimited i ndependent campaign expenditures. Even the existing requirements that contributions be publicly disclosed are now being challenged. The Campaign Finance Information Center s mission is to help journalist follow the campaign money trail in local, state, and national politics The landmark Supreme Court ruling that has changed the campaign finance rules is Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (2010). cases/2000-2009/2008/2008_08_205 10.43 | The Machine The third part of a campaign is the machine The campaign machine is the organization, the hu man capital, the foot soldiers loyal to the cause, the true believers who will carry the run by

PAGE 233

226|Chapter 10: Political Participation volunteer activists, the profe ssional campaign advisers, pollsters, voter lists, political party resources, and get-out-th e vote resources. Individu als need organizations to campaign successfully in national campaigns. Successful campaigns usually require a campaign manager and some staff members who make strategic and tactical decisions while volunteers and interns canvass door-todoor and make phone ca lls. Large modern campaigns use all three of the above compon ents to create a successful strategy for victory. 10.5 | The Media Modern campaigns for national officesthe presidency, the Senate, and the House of Representativesare largely media campaigns. They are conducted usin g the print media, electronic media, and the new media (t he Internet and the social media). Communication technology has fundamentally altered campaigns. The development of the broadcast media (radio and television) changed political campaigns from ground wars to air wars. The term ground war refers to a campaign that relies heavily on candidates and their campaign workers m eeting voters and distributing campaign literature. The term air war refers to campa igns that rely heavily on the mass media. The following two quotes from the Museum of the Moving Image archive of presidential campaign ads illustrate the cha nge in thinking about television campaign advertising: The idea that you can merchandise ca ndidates for high office like breakfast cereal is the ultimate indignity to the democratic process. Democratic presidential candidate Adlai Stevenson (1956) Television is no gimmick, and nobody will ev er be elected to major office again without presenting themselves well on it. Television producer and Nixon campaign consultant (and later President of Fox News Channel) Roger Ailes (1968) 10.51 | Who Uses Whom? Campaign organizations have a complicated re lationship with the media. They need and use each other but they have different, sometimes conflicting needs. The media like good visuals and compelling personal interest stories wh ich capture the attention of the public and turn the general publ ic into an audience. Campaigns li ke to provide such visuals. But the media (and campaigns) also like to play gotcha. The media consider it a good story to catch a candidates ignorance, mistake, or gaffeor even to ask a question that might cause a candidate to make a mistake. The mistake might be Misspelling a word. Vice-presidential ca ndidate Dan Quale spelled potato potatoe. Ignorance. Not knowing the name of a foreign leader. Pres idential candidate George W. Bush did not know the na me of the leader of Pakistan. Misrepresentation. During the presidential primary campaign, Hillary Clinton misrepresented a trip to Kosovo as one wh ere she landed at an airport under fire to convince voters that she had the experience to be commander in chief.

PAGE 234

Chapter 10: Political Participation|227 Math problems. Announcing budget numbers that do not add up. Ignorance. Vice-presidential candidate Sara h Palin did not know the name of any Supreme Court decision th at she disagreed with. 10.52 | The Social Media Communication technology has changed national campaigns from primarily ground wars (walking the neighborhoods; kissi ng babies; shaking hands) to air wars (broadcast radio and television ads). Campaigns are now using social media to post material on Tumblr (videos and photos) or Spotify or Pinterest. According to Adam Fletcher, deputy press secretary for the Obama re-election campaign, Its about authentic, two-way communication.7 This may be true, but it may also be about a campaign strategy to try to reach people where they are: Online using social media. A presidential campaign that shares songs with the public may be less interested in actually creating two-way communication with the public than it is in establishing social connections with people by appearing to share tastes. Familiarity (with songs, photos and videos that are posted on Spotify, Flickr, Instagram, Twitte r, Facebook, etc.) creates trust. Socialbakers a social media analytics group, says the campaigns have to try to reach people wherever they are, and young people in particular are on-line mo re than reading newspapers or watching broadcast television networks. 10.53 | The Age of Digital Campaigns The digital age is fundamentally changing campaign advertising. In the age of mass media, campaign ads that aired on the major te levision and radio networks were intended for the general audiences that were watc hing or listening to national programs. The digital age allows targeted advertising. Political intelligence companies such as Aristotle gather large files of detailed information about a persons behavior from commercial companies that keep track of consumption patterns or Internet searches, and then sell that data to campaigns. The campaigns, which then know where a person lives; what their demographics are; what they purchase; what they read; what their hobbies are; and other factors that might be related to how they think about politics, can tailor ads to very specific audiences. This digital information is very good for campaigns, but is it good for us? See the following PBS story about How Campaigns Amass Your Personal Information to Deliver Tailored Political Ads. The digital campaigns are also developing ways to target off the grid voters, the voters who do not get their public affairs information from the traditional media sources (papers, television, and radio). Identifying such voters is one thing. Getting them to vote is another. Having a good ground gamepeople in neighborhoods, cities, districts, and states who can actually contact voters and get them out to voteis still an important element of a successful presiden tial campaign strategy. Think About It! How much does a campaign know about me? See How Campaigns Amass Your Personal Information to Deliver Tailored Political Ads. /bb/politics/julydec12/frontline_10-29.html

PAGE 235

228|Chapter 10: Political Participation President Obamas reelection campaign was succ essful because it comb ined air wars with a solid ground game in the states that it id entified as the key swing states in the 2012 presidential election. 10.54 | Campaign Fact Checking Candidates, parties, and orga nizations supporting or opposing a candidate, or an issue, say things which may not meet the standard of the truth, the whol e truth, and nothing but the truth. In an age of el ectronic communications, it is ev en more likely that Mark Twain, the American humorist, was right when he said, A lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is still putting on its shoes. As a result, a number of organizations have developed campaign fact -checking operations to hold campaigners accountable for what they claim as facts. On e of these organizations is Its Web site provides running description and analysis of inaccurate campaign statements. Some of the more interesting false statements that they fact-checked were claims that Democratic presidential candidate Barack Hussein Obama was a radical Muslim who refused to recite the Pledge of Allegiance and took the oath of office as a U.S. Senate swearing on the Koran, not the bible. 10.55 | Political Futures Market One of the more innovative and interesting pe rspectives on the measurement of public opinion as a predictor of the outcome of an election involves the application of economic perspectives. The political futures markets are desi gned to provide an economic measure of support for a candida te as a predictor of whethe r the candidate will win an election. One example of this approach is The Iowa Electronic Markets These are realmoney futures markets in which contract payoffs depend on economic and political events such as elections. These markets are ope rated by faculty at the University of Iowa Tippie College of Business as part of their research and teaching mission. 10.6 | How to Do Civic Engagement The importance of fostering civic engageme nt in higher education is described in Civic Responsibility and Higher Education (2000), a book edited by T homas Ehrlich. Ehrlich worked to promote including civic engageme nt along with the traditional academic learning in the mission of universities. Th e American Associat ion of Colleges and Universities stresses the role that higher educat ion plays in developing civic learning to ensure that students become an informed, engaged, and socially responsible citizenry. These efforts emphasize the importance of connecting classroom learning with the community. The connection has two points: us able knowledge and workable skills. The emphasis on usable knowledge includes promo ting social science research as problem solving. The term usable knowledge refers to knowledge that people and policy makers can apply to solve contemporary social problems. (Lindblom and Cohen) The emphasis on workable skills is even more directly related to civic engagement. Today there are many organizations that advance the cause of linking academic study and social problem

PAGE 236

Chapter 10: Political Participation|229 solving. One of these organizations is the W. K. Kellogg Foundation This Foundation was created by the cereal company magnate The Foundation emphasizes the importance of developing the practical skills that will enable individuals to realize the inherent human capacity to solve their own problems. These skills include dialogue, leadership development, and the organization of effort. In effect, civic engagement develops the practical skills that can help people help themselves. How can you do civic engagement? Contact a government official. Contact a local, state, and national government official. Ask them what they think are the major issues or problems that are on their agenda. Contacting your member of Congress is easy. (See the Chapter on Congress.) Attend a government meeti ng. Attend the public meeting of a local government: a neighborhood association; a city council meeting; a county commission meeting; a school board meeting; a school board m eeting; or a state government meeting (of the legislature or an executive agency). Contact an organization. Contact a nongovernment organization to discuss an issue of your concern, community intere st, or the organizations mission. These organizations, political parties, and inte rest groups represent business, labor, professional associations, or issues such as civil rights, property rights, the environment, immigration, religion, and education. 10.7 | Summary One aspect of the power problem is the government authority over individuals. The governments ability to tell an individual what to do is legiti matethat is, it is authority rather than merely powerif the government s ability is based on the consent of the government. Democracy, or self-government, re quires an active and engaged citizenry in order to make government control over individu als legitimate. Political participation is one of the measures of how democratic a political system is. Therefore, political participation is also a measure of govern ment legitimacy. Vo ting, elections, and campaigns provide opportunities for individual s to be active and engaged citizens. 10.8 | Additional Resources 10.81 | In the Library Campbell, Angus, Philip Converse, Warre n Miller, and Donald Stokes. 1960. The American Voter. New York: Wiley. Civic Responsibility and Higher Education 2000. Thomas Ehrlich. Editor. Downs, Anthony. 1957. An Economic Theory of Democracy New York: Harper Collins. Green, Donald P., and Alan S. Gerber. 2008. Get Out the Vote : how to increase voter turnout 2nd ed. Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution Press.

PAGE 237

230|Chapter 10: Political Participation Lewis-Beck, Michael S. 2008. The American Vo ter Revisited. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. Lindblom, Charles E., and David K. Cohen. 1979. Usable Knowledge New Haven: Yale University Press. McGinniss, Joe. 1968. The Selling of the President Schier, Steven. 2003. You Call This An Election? Americas Peculiar Democracy Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press. 10.82 | Online Resources Each state has primary responsibility fo r conducting and supervising elections. For information about Florida elections go to the My Florida Web site and click on government, then executive branch, then state agencies, then department of state, then Or you can learn about Florida election laws by goi ng directly to the Florida D epartment of State Web site which provides information about voter regi stration, candidates, pol itical parties, and constitutional amendment proposals. Votesmart provides basic information about Americ an politics and government. It is, in effect, American Government 101. C-SPAN election resources are available at /campaigns.asp Dave Leips Atlas of U.S. Presidential El ections provides interesting information about presidential elections. Rock-the-Vote is an organization dedicated to getting young people involved in politics. Project Vote-Smart is a nonpartisan info rmation service funded by members and nonpartisan foundations. It offers a wealth of facts on your political leaders, including biographies and addresses, issue positions, voting records, campaign finances, evaluations by special interests. The U.S. Census Bureau has information on voter registration and turnout statistics. C-Span produces programs that provide info rmation about the workings of Congress and elections.

PAGE 238

Chapter 10: Political Participation|231 10.9| Study Questions 1. What is the rational choice theory of voting? 2. What are the primary factors at the individual level that influence whether someone turns out to vote? 3. What are the institutional factors that depress voter turnout in the United States? 1 Alexander Hamilton, in The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787 Vol. 2, ed. Max Farrand (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1937), 298-299. 2 For the methodology and results, see 3 See Anthony Downs. 1957. An Economic Theory of Democracy. New York: Harper Press. 4 Declare Yourself has informati on on each state and the requiremen ts for voter registration at http://www.declareyourse 5 George C. Wallace. Stan d Up For America. New York: Doubleday, 1976:212. 6 The National Conference of State Legislatures prov ides detailed information about ballot initiatives in each state:,114,802#802 7 Quoted in Campaigns Use Social Media to Lure Younger Voters, Jenna Wortham, The New York Times (October 7, 2012). Accessed October 12, 2012. Key Terms: voter fatigue open primaries closed primaries presidential primary caucus voter turnout rational choice model civic duty model political efficacy Individual explanations System explanations Voter registration Air campaigns

PAGE 239

232 11.0 | Why Political Organizations? Why do people everywhere live, work, and play in groups ? Why are large organizationscorporations, political parties, interest groupsthe predominant actors in our political, economic, and social systems? Is there something natural about social organizations? And what is th e role of individuals in political systems where groups are the dominant actors? Political scientists are not the only scholars who ask such questions. These are some of the oldest and most interesting questions that are asked by other social scientists (economists, sociolog ists, and anthropologi sts), philosophers, and CHAPTER 11: Political Parties

PAGE 240

natural scientists. Scientific research studi es the phenomenon of grouping in the animal kingdom to learn why animals such as fish, birds, and elephants live in groups.1 Social scientific research studies ideological, partisan, and other political groupings of people. This chapter examines one form of political organization: political parties. Parties exist in all modern democracies but there is an underlying tension between democratic theory, wh ich values individualism, and the political reality that organizations are the dominant actors in modern politics and government. The tens ion between individualism and organization is one reason why Americans are more skeptical of political parties than people in other western democracies where political parties tend to be stronger. Am ericans have such a strong commitment to individualism that there is a heal thy skepticism about organizations, particularly large, powerful organiza tions whether in government, politics, or economics. In American polit ics and government, parties are considered a necessary evil. Their influence over voters and government officials is frequently questioned, but parties are also considered essential for organizing public participati on in politics and control over government. The following sections expl ore these aspects of party politics in the U.S. 11.1 | What is a Political Party? A political party is an organization of people with shared ideas about government and politics who try to gain control of government in or der to implement thei r ideas. Political parties usually try to gain control of govern ment by nominating candidates for office who then compete in elections by running with the party label. Some political parties are very ideological and work to get their set of beliefs implemented in public policy. Other political parties are not as ideological. A pa rty may not be ideologically united because it represents a coalition of different interests. Or it may be more interested in gaining and holding power by having its members win electi ons than strongly advoc ating a particular set of beliefs. Political organizations play an importa nt role in government and politics around the world. It is impossibl e to understand American government and politics without understanding the role of political parties and interest groups. This is ironic because American culture values individualism, but political organizations such as parties and interest groups have come to play an ex tremely important role in our political and economic life. Parties and interest groups ar e linkage institutions. Linkage institutions are sometimes called aggregating or mediating institutions. The media are also a linkage (or mediating) institution. A linkage organization is one th at links indivi duals to one another or the government. A linkage organization aggregat es and collects individual interests. This is an important function in large scale (or mass) political systems because it is a way for individuals with shared intere sts to speak with a single or louder voice. Linkage organizations are also important b ecause they mediate between individuals and government, they mediate between the lone (or small) individual and (increasingly) big government. The mediating role becomes mo re important as a countrys population I adore political parties They are the only place left to us where people dont talk politics. -Oscar Wilde The old parties are husks, with no real soul within either, divided on artificial lines, bossridden and privilegecontrolled, each a jumble of incongruous elements, and neither daring to speak out wisely and fearlessly on what should be said on the vital issues of the day. -Theodore Roosevelt

PAGE 241

bttnbfrrbbb b i ncreases and as government get larger and larger. Intermediary organizations make it possible for individuals to think that they can have an impact on government. In this sense, political parties like other mediating structures actually empower people. Parties are part of civil society The term civil society refers to the non-governmental sector of public life Civil society includes political, economic, social, religious, cultural activities that are part of the crucial, non-governmental foundations of a political community: the family, neighborhoods, churches, and voluntary associations (including parties and interest groups). The Heritage Foundation is a conservative think tank. One of its goals is to promote these mediating structures as a way to empower people and limit government as envisioned by Peter Berger and John Neuhaus in To Empower People: The Role of Mediating Structures in Public Policy (1977). Civic engagement maintains these traditional mediating structures and supports their development. The following sections examine political parties and their role in American politics pays some. Some attention is paid to the historical development of the U.S. party system, particularly the features of the two-party system. 11.2 | Roles in Modern Democracies I t is hard to imagine modern democracies without political parties. They exist in all democratic political systems. The freedom to form parties and compete in the electoral process is considered one of the essential measures of democracy because parties are considered vital elements of self-government. Political parties perform the following functions: Recruit and nominate candidates for office. Help run campaigns and elections. Organize and mobilize voters to participate in politics. Organize and operate the government. Big Government Mediating Institutions (Civil Society) The Lone or Small Individual

PAGE 242

The recruitment and nomination of candidates is one of the most important functions of political parties. In the past, part y leaders in the U.S. exerted a great deal of control over the partys candidate for office. Pa rty leaders and activists chose their partys nominee. Today, however, party control over nominations has been weakened by the increased use of primary elections to choose party candidates. In primary elections, the public votes for a partys nominee, which has opened the process and limited the influence of party officials and activists The partys weakened control over the nomination process has weakened American political parties. Political parties also organize and mobilize voters. This function is important in large countries because it can help organi ze the public in ways that increase an individuals sense of political efficacy. Political efficacy is the belief that a persons participation matters, that a persons vote can make a difference. In large scale democracies such as the United States, political parties organize indi viduals, synthesize their interests, and link or collect their view s on government and polit ics into two or more perspectives. This collection or organization can magnify an individuals political voice. So political parties are not just divisive forces in politics; they can unite individuals with other like-minded people who share their thinking on government and politics. The role of political parties does not e nd with an election. After an election, the parties work to organize and operate the government. The majority party in Congress and the party that wins the presidency work to organize the actions of the candidates who campaigned successfully and became government officials. The Ins generally support one set of public policies, and the Outs support an alternative set of public policies. The above roles explain why political scient ists see parties as vital elements of modern liberal democracies. Liberal demo cracies are a form of representative government that is based on individual rights and limited government with political participation organized by parties. But th e American political tradition includes skepticism of parties. The fact that abou t one-third of voters consider themselves Independents rather than me mbers of either of the two major parties (the Republican and Democratic parties) is evidence that Americans do not have a particularly strong att achment to parties. The Independents apparently th ink parties are not an essential element of mode rn democracy, or they associate political parties with the kinds of partisan bickering and fighting that prevent well-meaning people from working together to solve problems. 11.3 | Founding Era Opposition to Political Parties Political parties have a familiar place in American politics today and they are ac cepted as established featur es of politics and government. However, this was not always so. The Constitution does not mention political parties. Indeed, political parties did not even exist when it was wr itten. During the founding era, the groups that pursued a particular political interest were referred to as factionsand they were generally considered harmful infl uences whose power needed to be checked.

PAGE 243

236|Chapter 11: Political Parties The Founders opposed political parties, and warned against their development in American politics. But they were not banned. The Founders felt that federalism and the separation of powers and checks and balances would keep factions from advancing their special interests and harming the public interest in the new republic. The anti -party views of George Washington and James Madi son illustrate the early hostility to the emergence of political parties in the American political system. 11.31 | George Washington George Washingtons Farewell Address on September 19, 1796 is a famous statement warning against the spirit and actions of political parties. He warned against the development of state parties that created geographic divisions among Americans as well as the baneful effects of the spirit of party generally, a spirit that was inseparable from our nature, and existing in all forms of government, but it is seen in its greatest rankness, and is truly their worst en emy, in popular forms of government: James Madison also considered factions and other social, economic, and political divisions) a vice. But he thought that banning factions woul d be a cure that was worse than the disease because factions were rooted in human nature. In Federalist Number 51 he describes his ingenious solution to the pr oblem of factions. He made factions, which were a problem, part of the solution. The system of checks and balances required so many different interests, pa rties, and factions that no one could dominate the political process and use government power against the others. So the political solution to the problem of factions was more of them. Th e way to guard against a united majority threatening the rights of the minority is to create a society with so many separate The alternate domination of one faction over a nother, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in differen t ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries which result gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute pow er of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own eleva tion, on the ruins of public liberty. [T]he common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it. It serves always to distract the public councils and enfeeble the public admini stration. It agitates the community with illfounded jealousies and false alarms, kindles the animosity of one part against another, foments occasionally riot and insurrection. It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which finds a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passions. Thus the policy and the will of one country are subj ected to the policy and will of another.

PAGE 244

descriptions of citizens as will render an unjust combination of a majority of the whole very improbable, if not impracticable. Ma dison specifically compared the problem of protecting political rights with the pr oblem of protecting religious rights: In a free government the security for civil ri ghts must be the same as that for religious rights. It consists in the one case in the multip licity of interests, and in the other in the multiplicity of sects. The degree of security in both cases will depend on the number of interests and sects; and this may be presumed to depend on the extent of country and number of people comprehended under the same government. 11.32 | Parties and the Constitution As previously mentioned, the Constitution doe s not does not say anything about political parties. Parties developed after the Constitution was written. Shortly after the Constitution was written the Federalist and Anti-federalist Parties had emerged to compete for control of the federal governme nt. The Federalist Party supported a strong national government, a strong executive in the national government, and commercial interest. The Federalist Partys geographic ba se was in New England. The Anti-federalist Party supported strong state governments, legislative government, and agrarian interests. Its geographic base was strongest in the S outh and West. Alexander Hamilton and Chief Justice John Marshall were strong Fede ralists. Thomas Jefferson and James Madison were Anti-federalists (a party which came to be called the Democratic-Republicans). The election of 1800 was a presiden tial contest won by Jefferso n, and the landmark case of Marbury v. Madison (1803) began as a political co ntest over Federalist and Antifederalist control of government. The Jeffersonians (or Democratic-Republicans) then became the dominant party, winning seven c onsecutive presidential elections from 1800 to 1824. The fact that the Constitution does not say anything about one of the most important features of modern American govern ment and politics is surprising. It also explains why it is not possible to read th e Constitution to get a good understanding of how government and politics actually work. It is hard to understand American government and politics without understanding the role that political parties play. 11.4 | Party Systems Modern governments typically have one-party systems, two-party systems, or multi-party systems. The U.S. has a two-party system. 11.41 | One Party Systems In one-party systems only one political party is lega lly allowed to ho ld power. Although minor parties may sometimes be allowed in a one-party system, the mi nor party is legally required to accept the leadership of the do minant party. In a one-party system, the dominant party is usually cl osely identified with the government. The party organization and the government may not be identical, but sometimes party officials are also government officials so the separation between party and government may not be very

PAGE 245

238|Chapter 11: Political Parties great. In fact, in some one-party systems the party leadership position may be more important and powerful than positions within the government itself. Communist countries such as China and Cuba, and formerly the Soviet Union, are examples of one-party political systems. One-party systems are usua lly in countries without a strong democratic tradition. Although there are few one-party systems, there is a variant called the dominant party system that is fairly common. A dominant pa rty system is one where one party is so strong, so dominant, that even though othe r parties are legally allowed no other party has a real chance of competing in elections to win power. Domina nt party systems can exist in countries with a strong democratic tr adition in the country. The inability of any party other than the dominant party to compete in elections may be due to political, social and economic circumstances, public opinion, or the fact that the dominant party is entrenched in government and uses the govern ment powers to preserve its privileged position. In countries with weak democratic traditions, the dominant party may remain in power by using political patronage (distributi on of government jobs, contracts, or other government benefits to influence votes), vo ting fraud, or other manipulations of the electoral process. Where voting fraud is used to stay in power, the definition between a dominant and a one-party system is blurred. Examples of dominant party systems include the Peoples Action Party in Singapore and the African National Congress in South Africa. Mexico was a one-party dominant sy stem with the Instit utional Revolutionary Party until the 1990s. In the United States the south was a one-party dominant region from the 1880s until the 1970s. It was controlled by the Democratic Party as a result of the Civil War: the Republican Pa rty was the party of Lincoln. 11.42 | Two Party Systems A two-party system is one where there are two major pol itical parties that are so strong that it is extremely difficult for a candida te from any party othe r than the two major parties to have a real chance to win elections. In a two-party system, a third-party is not likely to have much electoral success. The U.S. has a two-party system. The two major parties, the Republican and Democratic Parties, are the dominant parties. It is difficult for any third or minor party to win elections. In the U.S., parties are mostly regulated by the laws of the individual states, which organize elections to both local and federal offices. No laws limit the number of political parties that may operate, so it is theoretical ly possible for the U.S. to develop a multiparty system. However, the country has had a two-party system since the early years of the republic. Third or minor parties do appear periodically. The fact that states have restrictive ballot access laws limits the development of third parties, but most are generally of only limited and te mporary political significance. In a two-party system, th e typical ideological divisi on is to have one party consisting of a right wing coalition and one pa rty consisting of a left wing coalition. A coalition is a (usually temporary) combination or alliance of different interests that agree to unite to achieve shared goals. In the U. S., the Republican and Democratic parties are coalitions of interests. The Republican Party coalition consists of libertarians, economic conservatives, social conservatives, and national security and public order advocates. The Democratic Party coalition consists of ra cial and ethnic minorities, civil libertarians, organized labor, and the elderly. The compone nts of the two major party coalitions can

PAGE 246

Duvergers Law is a principle that a plurality election system tends to produce a stable, two party system. change over time. They are no t necessarily permanent members of one party or the other. The two major parties are ideo logically broad and inclusive because they need to position themselves to appeal to a br oad range of the electorate. One reason for a two-party system is the rules of the electoral game, specifically whether a country uses proportional representation (PR) or single-member district plurality vote system (SMDP). Proportional representati on is a system where each party receives a share of seats in parliament th at is proportional to the popular vote that the party receives. In a single-member district plurality vote system the person who gets the most votes in an election wins the seat. It is a winner-take-all election: The person who gets the most votes (i.e., the plurality) wins the election even if he or she did not win a majority of the votes. The United States uses this single-member district plurality system. For example, in a congressional election, the can didate who gets the most votes wins the senate seat or a house seat. The Electoral College also uses this winner-take-all system. The presidential candidate that receives the most popular votes in a state gets all of that states Electoral College votes (with the ex ception of Nebraska and Maine which use a system of proportional representation). The winn er-take-all system is not very democratic and it disadvantages minor parties Politics, like sport, is activity that is organized by rules. Election rules have a major impact on how the political game is played and who is likely to win. The winnertake-all system has the following effects on the way the political game is played: It tends to create and maintain a two-party system. It tends to make political parties more ideologically moderate because they must compete to win the most votes cast in an election or it will lose the election. Extremist or single-issue parties are unlikely to win elections. It increases political stability because te nds the differences between the two major parties will not be as great as it would be in a political sy stem where parties competed at the left or right extremes of the ideological spectrum. Maurice Duverger, the French sociologist described how the electoral rules had these effects on party politics. An electoral system based on proportiona l representation creates conditions that allow new parties to develop and smaller part ies to exist. The winner-take-all plurality system marginalizes new and smaller political parties by relegating to the status of loser n elections. A small third party cannot gain legi slative power if it has to compete and win in a district with a large populat ion in order to gain a seat. Similarly, a minor party with a broad base of support that is geographically spread throughout a state or spread across the nation is unlikely to attract enough votes to actually win an election even though it has substantial public support. Fo r example, the Libertarian Pa rty has supporters throughout

PAGE 247

240|Chapter 11: Political Parties the country, and may attract a substantial number of votes, but the votes are not enough to be the majority in a single district or a single state. Duverger also believed the SMDP vote rule produces moderation and stability. Take, for example, the following scenario. Tw o moderate candidates (from two moderate parties) and one radical candida te are competing for a single office in an election where there are 100,000 moderate voters and 80,000 radical voters. If each moderate voter casts a vote for a moderate candidate and each ra dical voter casts a vote for the radical candidate, the radical candidate would win unless one of the moderate candidates gathered less than 20,000 votes. Consequently, moderate voters s eeking to defeat the radical candidate/party would be more likely to vote for the candidate that is most likely to get more votes. The political impact of the SMDP vote rule is that the two moderate parties must either merge or one moderate pa rty must fail as the voters gravitate to the two strong parties. A third party usually can become successful only if it can exploit the mistakes of one of the existing major parties. For example, the political chaos immediately preceding the Civil War allowed the Republican Party to replace the Whig Party as the more progressive party. Loosely united on a platform of country-wide economic reform and federally funded industrialization, the decentr alized Whig leadership failed to take a decisive stance on the slavery issue, effectively splitting the party along the Mason-Dixon Line. Southern rural planters, initially lured by the prospect of federal infrastructure and schools, quickly aligned themselves with the pro-slavery Democrats, while urban laborers and professionals in the northern states, threatened by the sudden shift in political and economic power and losing faith in the failing Whig candidates, flocked to the incr easingly vocal anti-slave Republican Party. In countries that use proportional representation (PR), the electoral rules make it hard to maintain a two-party system. Th e number of votes that a party receives determines the number of seats it wins, so new parties can develop an immediate electoral niche. Duverger believed that the us e of PR would make a two-party system less likely, but other electoral systems do not gua rantee new parties access to the system. 11.43 | Multi ---Party Systems Multi-party systems are systems with more than two parties. The Central Intelligence Agencys World Factbook provides a list of the political parties in the

PAGE 248

countries of the world. Canada and the Un ited Kingdom have two strong parties and a third party that is electoral ly successful, may place second in elections, and presents a serious challenge to the othe r two parties, but has still never form ally won enough votes to gain control of government. However, str ong third parties can play a pivotal king making role if one of the two major parties needs its support in or der get the most votes and gain control of government. Finland is unusual in that it has an active three-part y system in which all three parties routinely win elections and hold the top government offi ce. It is very rare for a country to have more than three parties that are equally successful and have the same chance of gaining control of government (that is, forming the government or appointing the top government officials such as the prime minister). In political systems where there are numerous parties it is more common that no one party will be able to attract a majority of votes and therefore form a government, so a party will have to work with other parties to try to form a coali tion government. Coalition governments, which include members of more than one party, ar e actually commonplace in countries such as the Republic of Ireland, Germany, and Israel. In countries with proportional representa tion, the seats in a countrys parliament or representative assembly would be alloca ted according to the popular votes the party received. The electoral districts are usua lly assigned several representatives. For example, assume the following distribution of the popular vote: Party Percent of the Popular Vote Republican Party 36 Democratic Party 35 Libertarian Party 15 Green Party 14 The seats in the countrys 100-member repres entative assembly w ould be allocated as follows: Party Seats in the Representative Assembly Republican Party 36 Democratic Party 35 Libertarian Party 15 Green Party 14 Proportional representation makes it easier fo r smaller or minor parties to survive because they can win some seats in an el ection even though they never win enough votes to form a majority and control the government. Consequently, proportional representation tends to promot e multi-party systems because elections do not result one winner (the candidate or party that get the mo st votes) and all the rest of the candidates are losers.

PAGE 249

242|Chapter 11: Political Parties 11.5 | U.S. Political Parties The U.S. has a two-party system The two major parties are the Republican Party and the Democratic Party There are, however, minor parties. Two well-established minor parties are the Libertarian Party and the Green Party The following table includes the largest current largest partie s. Each party was on the ballot in enough states to have had a mathematical chance to win a majority of El ectoral College votes in the 2008 presidential election. Project Vote Smart provides a useful list of political parties in each of the 50 states. 12.51 | Current Largest Parties Party Name Date Founded Founder(s) Associated Ideologies Current Party Chair Democratic Party 1792/ 1820s Thomas Jefferson/ Andrew Jackson Liberalism, Progressivism, Social Liberalism Tim Kaine Republican Party 1854 Alvan E. Bovay Conservatism, Neoconservatism, Economic Conservatism, Social Conservatism Reince Priebus Libertarian Party 1971 David Nolan Libertarianism Mark Hinkle Green Party 1984 Howie Hawkins John Rensenbrink Environmental Protection, Liberalism Theresa El-Amin, Mike Feinstein, Farheen Hakeem, Julie Jacobson, Jason Act on It! One way to promote global civic engagement is to contact a political party official in another country and ask about an issue of interest to you. The Central Intelligence Agencys World Factbook lists the political parties in the countries of the world.

PAGE 250

11.6 | Political Party Eras Political scientists have identified distinctiv e party eras in the U.S. party system. A party era is a time period when the two major partie s took different sides on the most important issues that were facing th e nation during that time period. The following describes six party eras. 11.61 | The First Era: the 1790s until around 1824 The election of 1796 was the first election where candidates ran as members of a political party. The Federalist Party and the Anti-Federalist Party (or Democratic Republicans) differed on the question of th e power of the national government. The Federalists generally supported a strong national government and the Jeffersonian Democratic Republicans supported state gove rnment. The election of 1800 produced a number of firsts. It produced Americas first presidential campaign.2 It marked the beginning of the end for the Federalist Pa rty. John Adams and the Federalist Party supported England, a strong national govern ment, industrial development, and aristocracy. Thomas Jefferson and the Republican Party supported France, decentralized state governments, and agrarian society, a nd egalitarian democracy. Jefferson won the election of 1800 which was the first transiti on of power from one party to the opposition party and the beginning of a pa rty system. By 1820, the Federa list Party had gone out of existence and James Madison (of the Democratic Republicans) was elected president in what came to be called the Era of Good Feelings because it was a period of one partydominance (therefore there was little party competition). 11.62 | The Second Era: from 1824 until the Civil War During the second era, Andrew Jackson and the Democrats were the dominant party. The Democrats advocated a populist political system that is often called Jacksonian Democracy One feature of Jacksonian Democracy is governing based on political patronage. The familiar political slogan, To the victor go the spoils (of office), describes how the candidate that won an election was entitled to give government jobs (and other benefits) to the pe ople (including the members of his or her Nabewaniec, David Strand, and Craig Thorsen Act on It! Contact a political party in your state, or another state, and ask a party official a question about the partys position on an issue or about an issue that interests you.

PAGE 251

244|Chapter 11: Political Parties political party) that supported the campaign. This was the era that produced political parties as mass membership or ganizations rather than polit ical parties as legislative caucuses. The most important national politic al issues during this era were economic matters, such as tariffs to protect manufactur ing and the creation of a national bank to direct economic development, slavery, and the territorial expansion of the republic. In the years 1854 to 1856, the Republican Party em erged to replace the Whig party as the second of the major political parties of the era. 11.63 | The Third Era: from the Civil War to 1896 During this party era, the Republican Party and the Democratic Pa rty were divided on two major issues: Reconstruc tion of the South and the Industrial Revolution. The Republican Party was a northern party that supported manufacturing, railroads, oil, and banking as part of the broa der support for the Industria l Revolution. The Republican Party supported the national governments Reconstruction of the South after the Civil War. The Democratic Party was based in th e South. It opposed the use of federal power, including civil rights laws, to regulate the wa y that Southern states treated newly freed slaves. In terms of economic policy, the De mocratic Party also supported rural or agrarian interests rather than urban and industr ial interests. 11.64 | Fourth Era: from 1896 to 1932 The Republican Party was the dominant party duri ng the fourth party era. It was strongly identified with big business, the northeast, and the west. The Democratic Party was largely limited to its base in the southern st ates of the old Confederacy. The early years of this era, the period from the 1890s until Wo rld War I, were the Progressive Era. The Progressive Era was a major reform era in American politics and government. It produced the civil service sy stem, primary elections, nonpar tisan elections, and direct democracy mechanisms such as referendum, in itiative, and recall. The civil service system was an effort to replace the spoils system of political patronage with a merit selection system of government officials. Primary and nonpartisan elections weakened political parties by giving voters more control over the selection of candidates for office any by having candidates run without party la bels. These reforms were intended to get politics out of the smoke-fill ed back rooms where party bosses chose candidates for office. Referendum and initiative were two electoral reforms th at expanded direct democracy by allowing the public to vote on la ws proposed by state le gislatures or to initiate their own laws without having to rely on state legislatures. Finally, rRecall was a way for voters to vote government officials out of office. 11.65 | The Fifth Era: from the 1930s until the latter 1960s During this era the Democratic Party was the dominant party. The era includes the major expansions of the federal so cial welfare state during the New Deal programs advocated by President Franklin D. Roosevelt and the Great Society pr ograms advocated by President Lyndon Johnson. During this era, the Democratic Party be came identif ied with the common person, minorities, and labor, wh ile the Republican Party became identified with business and the wealthy. The New Deal issues included the national governments

PAGE 252

response to the Depression and foreign polic y matters related to World War II and the Cold War. The Great Society issues focused on the expansion of the social welfare state and civil rights and liberties. Egalitarianism is one of the values associated with New Deal/Great Society liberalism. 11.66 | The Sixth Era: from the latter 1960s This era began as a conservative backlash or reaction against the liberalism of the New Deal and Great Society. Republicans opp osed liberal Democratic policies that conservatives blamed for an increase in crime, social disorder (race riots, prison riots, and antiwar demonstrations), the loss of the Wa r in Vietnam, loosening of sexual mores, school busing, affirmative action, the separation of church and state, inflation, and going soft on communism. Both of the major parties are coalitions of interests or viewpoints. During this era, the Republi can Party was like a four-legged stool supported by following four legs: Anti-crime: Advocates of getting tough on crime. Anti-communism: Cold Warriors. Economic conservatives: advocates of the free market. Values voters: the conservatives who s upport traditional and religious values. The values voters in the Republican Party focus on social issues. The values and lifestyles conflict between liberals and conservatives was called the culture wars. An important movement in the culture war was Patrick Buchanans Address at the 1992 Republican Party Convention Buchanan, a traditional conservative who lost the Republican Party nomination for president, gave a rousing speech that inspired the social conservative base of the Republic Party with the following declaration and call to action: There is a religious war going on in this country. It is a cu ltural war as cr itical to the kind of nation we shall be as the cold war itsel ffor this war is for the soul of America. On economic issues, Republicans during this sixth era took two main positions: de-regulation of business and opposition to taxes. On national security matters Republicans were staunch anti-communists who supported getting tough on the Soviet Union. These issues became the basis for the Republican Partys rise in national politics beginning with President Nixons election in 1968. The Republican Party won the presidency five of the six presidential elections between 1968 and 1988. And until the mid-term elections in 2006, Republican Pres ident George W. Bushs party controlled both houses of Congress. Democratic Presiden t Obamas victory in the 2008 presidential election increased speculation that the country was entering a post-party era where party politics was less important than issue politics, but the intense part isan divisions that characterized governance sinc e then have ended such speculation about post-party politics. Nevertheless, the U.S. party system is dynamic, not static. It is constantly changing. The advanced age of the current pa rty era has raised two related questions. Is the Sixth Party Era about to end? Does the in crease in the percentage of the public that consider themselves independents indicate the emergence of a post-party era? The political forces that shape the two major political parties are still at work:

PAGE 253

246|Chapter 11: Political Parties The modern Democratic Party was shaped by the populism of the 1890s, the antibusiness reformism of the 1930s and th e civil rights crusad e of the 1960s. The Republican Party was formed by abolitionism in the 1850s, anti-tax revolts in the 1970s and 1980s and the evangelical cons ervatism of the 1990s and 2000s.3 The constituent elements of the two major party coalitions change over time, but the parties typically consist of components or intere sts that are associated with the different sides of public policy debates or issues. As these coalitions change, they pressure the parties to change to accommodate their interests. This could result in a new dominant party era. However, the increase in the number of Americans who consider themselves Independents, and the ability of candidates to run for office using their own resources rather than the resources traditionally provided by a political party, ha s renewed speculation about the decline of political parties or even an end to the era of political parties. Is the political party over? 11.67 | Parties, Causes, and Movements One of the keys to understanding the continue d life of the U.S. two-party system is the relationship between political parties and move ments (or causes). A political movement or cause is an organized campaign on behalf of an issue or policy. The American political experience includes many movements: anti-sla very; prohibition; womens rights; civil rights; anti-war; pro-life; the environment, etc. The Republican and Democratic Parties have causes or movements as pa rt of their political bases. The Tea Part y movement is an example of a recent movement within the Re publican Party that advocated, among other things, a return to the original understanding of the Constitution. Are political parties anachronistic? Are Independents Just Partisans in Disguise e-independents-just-partisans-in-disguise

PAGE 254

The Democratic Party has incorporated the business reform movement of the 1930s and the civil rights movement of the 1950s and 1960 s into its base. Gove rnment regulation of business and government advocacy of civil rights, particularly of minorities, are causes or movements that are associated with the De mocratic Party. The Republican Party has incorporated the anti-c ommunist movement of the 1950s an d the religious revivalism of the 1980s and 1990s into its base. Political movements to strengthen national defense and promote Christian activism are causes that are ge nerally at home in the Republican Party. Political movements often change the political parties as their ideas are incorporated into the party. In fact, the movement-party dynamic explains the continuity and change in the American political system. The continuity is the fact that the two-party system of Republicans and Democrats has remained the sa me for almost 200 years. The change is the fact that what it mean s to be a Republican or Democrat changes over time as movements arise to bring ne w issues to the political system. The dynamic of the relationship between a political party and the causes and political movements that periodically arise from within elements of a political party help explain how political change occurs within a party system that ha s not changed very much in 200 years in the sense that we have had the same two major parties since the early decades of the 19th Century. 11.7 | Party Affiliation and Political Attitudes Political party is re lated to political attitudes. Therefore, the origins of political partisanship (the identification with a political party) have been studied extensively. There is broad agreement that a persons identification with a political party is caused by upbringing, ethnicity, race, geographic location, and socioec onomic status. A person also identifies with a party because of ideology or positions on important issues. In order to better understand all of these factors, a Gallup Panel su rvey asked Americans who identified themselves as Republicans or Democrat s (or said they leaned to either party if they initially said they were independents) to explain in their own words just what it is about their chosen party that appeals to th em most. The following Gallup Polling data describe the appeal of the two major parties.4 Republicans justify their allegiance to th e GOP most often with reference to the partys conservatism and conservative positions on moral issues. Beyond that, Republicans mention the partys conservative economic positions, usually defined as support for smaller government. Finally, a much smaller number of Republicans mentioned a variety of other th ings that appealed to them. Republicans Democrats Percent Percent Conservative/More conservative 26 Social/Moral issue positions 18 Conservative family/moral values 15 Overall platform/ philosophy/ policies 14 Overall platform/ philosophy/ policies 12 Liberal/More liberal 11

PAGE 255

248|Chapter 11: Political Parties Conservative on fiscal/economic issues 10 Help the poor 7 Favors smaller government 8 Disagree with the Republicans 5 Favors individual responsibility/self-reliance 5 Always been a Democrat 5 Always been a Republican 4 Antiwar 3 For the people/working people 3 Healthcare reform 2 Low taxes 3 Pro-environment/conservation 1 Favor strong military 3 Pro-life on abortion 2 More honest than the Democrats 2 Disagree with the Democrats 2 Other 3 Other 7 Nothing in particular (vol.) 5 Nothing in particular (vol.) 6 No opinion 6 No opinion 5 Asked of Republicans and independents who lean to the Republican Party. What is it about the Democratic Party that appeals to you most? Percentages add to more than 100% due to multiple responses. Asked of Democrats and independents who lean to the Democratic Party) What is it about the Democratic Party that appeals to you most? Percentages add to more than 100% due to multiple responses. The Democrats justifications are somewhat different. Compared to the percentage of Republicans who mention conservatism as th eir rationale for identifying with the Republican Party, the percentage of Democr ats who mention liberalism is relatively small. Democrats are most likely to mention that the Democratic Party appeals to them because it is for the working class, the middle class, or the common man Democrats also tend to mention issues or party stances in ge neral, and to a lesser extent mention specific issues such as the partys antiwar, prohealthcare, and pro-environment stances. 11.8 | Summary One example of how the U.S. political syst em did not develop the way the Founders intended is the development of political par ties. The Founders worried about political parties as divisive forces. They saw parties literally dividing Americans into parts or parties. The two-party system has not changed for almost 200 years, but the two major parties have changed a great deal over time as political movements and third or minor parties arise to address new issues facing th e nation. American political culture values individualism. Individualism produces skepticism about politic al parties, but parties are also considered important linkage institu tions that organize public participation in politics. So despite a political culture that values individualism, despite skepticism about political organizations and partisanship, despite the rise of interest groups as alternative sources for campaign support, and despite the fact that around one-third of voters now consider themselves Independents, parties continue to play a central role in the modern system of government and politics. So despit e the periodic claims th at parties are dying, that American politics is entering a post-partisan era, and books entitled The Party is Over ,5 the party is not over. The reports that pa rties are dead bring to mind Mark Twains

PAGE 256

Study Questions What are the roles and functions of political parties in America? Do parties play a worthwhile role in the American political system? 1) How are political parties organized in America? What effect does this have on the political system? 2) Trace the evolution of the political parties from the founding through the New Deal. How and why did the parties change during this period? 3) What role do political parties play in elections? 4) What are the major eras in the history of American political parties? 5) Compare and contrast the platfo rms, strengths, weaknesses, and strategies of the Republican and Democratic Parties. famous quip about a newspaper report that he had died: The reports of my death are greatly exaggerated. 11.9 | Additional Resources Gov-Spot offers a list of many Political Parties and platforms for review. ies/politicalparties.htm The University of Michigan Library Web s ite provides links to congressional party leadership and platforms. In the Library: Bibby, John F. and L. Sandy Maisel. 2002. Two PartiesOr More ? Westview Press. Green, Donald, et al. 2002. Partisan Hearts and Minds: Po litical Parties and the Social Identities of Voters. Yale University Press. Greenberg, Stanley B. 2004. The Two Americas: Our Current Political Deadlock and How to Break It St. Martins Press. Sanbonmatsu, Kira. 2004. Democrats, Republicans, and the Politics of Womens Place Key Terms political party nomination process one-party systems two-party system Duvergers Law Multi-party systems

PAGE 257

250|Chapter 11: Political Parties University of Michigan Press. 1 Jens Krause and Graeme D. Ruxton. 2002. Living in Groups London: Oxford University Press. 2 Edward J. Larson. 2007. A Magnificent Catastrophe: The Tumultuous Election 3 Sam Tanenhaus, Harnessing a Cause Without Yielding to It. The New York Times (November 9, 2008), p.3WK. 4 5 Mike Lofgren. 2012. The Party Is Over. New York: Viking.

PAGE 258

CHAPTER 12: Interest Groups Lobbyist Bob Livingston (L) and former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich (R)

PAGE 259

252 | Chapter 12: Interest Groups 12.0 | Interest Groups Interest groups play an extremely im portant role in Am erican politics and government. In fact, it is impossible to understand American government or politics without a ba sic understanding of intere st groups. This chapter describes interest groups a nd their political activities. It also explains their role in politics, government, a nd the public policy process. The explanation of the increased role th at interest groups play in modern politics and government includes asse ssments of whether their role is basically good or bad, bene ficial or harmful, as well as whether interest groups are too powerful. The main question about interest groups is whether they advance their special interests to the detriment of the general, public, or national interest. Th is question is similar to questions about the role of politic al parties, and it produces similar skepticism about powerful special interests. In politics as in other areas of life, organization increases effectiveness. Like par ties, interest groups are mediating institutions that organize public participation in politics, function as part of the system of checks and balances, and help civil society control government power. This chapter will help you decide whether group behavior is madness or whether groups give voice to individuals. 12.1 | What is an Interest Group? An interest group is a collection of individuals or organizations that share a common interest and advocate or work for public policies on behalf of the members shared interests. For these reasons interest groups are also called advocacy groups, lobbying groups, pressure groups, or even special interest groups. What is the difference between an interest group and a political party? It is not sizealthough in the U.S. interest groups are smaller than the Republican and Democratic Parties. An interest group can have more or fewer members than a political party. A la rge organization such as The Association for the advancement of Retired People (AARP) ha s more members than some minor political parties. The major difference between an interest group and a political party is that parties try to achieve their policy goals by running candidates for office in order to control government but interest groups usually do not. Both political parties and interest groups take positions on important public policy issu es and work on behalf of their members goals. But interest groups advocate for polic ies without actually running candidates in elections in order to try to take control of government. Interest groups typically lobby the government to adopt their positions. Lobbyist s are the individuals who represent and advocate on behalf of an interest group. Political scientists ag ree that interest groups play an important role in American politics, but they do not agree on what exactly defines an interest group. One definition of an in terest group focuses on membership: a group must have a significant number of members in order to be officially recognized as an interest group. Another definition focuses on efforts to influence public policy, not membership itself, so that an interest gr oup is defined as any non-government group that tries to affect policy. The term interest group is sometimes used generically to refer to Madness is rare in individuals but in groups, political parties, nations, and eras its the rule. Friedrich Nietzsche Ten people who speak make more noise than ten thousand who are silent. Napoleon Bonaparte

PAGE 260

Chapter 12: Interest Groups|253 any segment of a society that shares simila r political opinions on an issue or group of issues (e.g. seniors, the poor, consumers, etc.) ev en if they are not necessarily part of an organized group. 12.12 | Types of Interest Groups There are many types of interest groups. Inte rest groups represent or advocate on behalf of almost every imaginable organized interest from A (abortion; airlines; agriculture) to Z (zoning and zoos). One major distinction between types of interest groups is the difference between public and private interest groups. A public interest group is one that advocates for an issue that benefits society as a whole. A private interest group is one that advocates for an issu e that primarily bene fits the members of the group. There are some overlaps between these two types because it is not always possible to separate public and private interests. Common Cause founded by Ralph Nader, was one of the first public interest groups. It promotes responsible government generally but it has a primarily liberal orientation. Three prominent public interest gr oups in the field of public health are the American Heart Association the American Cancer Society and the American Lung Association. A related type of public interest group is The Public Interest Research Group (PIRG), but it is a primarily liberal advo cate on issues such as the environment, public transportation, and education. Groups whose prim ary purpose is advancing the economic interests of their members are pr ivate interest groups. The Indoor Tanning Association, for example, is a trade group that advocates for a specific industry. It lobbies to protect an industry from increased governme nt regulation during a time when there is increased concern about skin ca ncer. During the protracted h ealth care refo rm debates of 2009 that eventually resulted in the passage of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Obamacare), Congress considered proposals to pay for the expanded health with a Botax, a tax on elective, cosmetic surgery. Doctors successfully lobbied against the Botax in the Senate health care reform bill, so a tantax was substituteda tax on indoor sun tanning services. The Indoor Tanning Association opposed the proposed Tantax. In fact, the tanning industry has a broader lobbying and public information campaign to ease public concerns about the advers e health effects of tanning and thereby avoid further taxation and regulation. This campaign is a good example of a defensive strategy, one that is intended to prevent public policy actions that are adverse to a groups interests. The U.S. political system has many veto points where legislation can be stopped. The number of organized interest groups began increasing in the post-World War II era, with group formation su rging since the 1960s. The in creased size of the federal government also meant that many of the intere st groups went national in the sense that they focused their activities on Washington, DC.1

PAGE 261

254 The f | Chapte r f ollowing ill u Business care co m provide h for their i n Trade or professio n manufact u that repr e policies o Labor G r rights gr o wage la w private s e Demogra p demogra p religious groups t discrimin public su p Single Is s for a sin g rights, th e Ideologic conserva t include t h r 12: Inter e u strate the t y Groups. A m pany that l h ealth care s e n terests. Profession n al associat i u rers or he a e sents an e n o r favorable r r oups. Labo r o ups advoca t w s or workp l e ctor worker s p hic Grou p p hic segme n minorities; t ypically l o ation, pensi p port, and f a s ue Groups. g le-issue. S e environme n al Groups. t ism, liberal i h ink tanks, e st Groups y pes of inte r corporation obbies to w e rvices. Co r a l Associat i i on that rep a lth care or n tire sector r egulatory p r unions th a t e for publi c l ace safety l s or public s p s. These n ts of soci e veterans; p e o bby for r on benefits a vorable im m These are g i ngle-issue g n t, or advoc a Ideological i sm, or libe r the r esear c r est groups a such as an w in a gove r r porations o f i ons. An e m resents the insurance o of the eco n olicies. a t represent c policies th a l aws or hea l ector worke are orga n e ty such a s e rsons with r etirement handicap a m igration p o g roups that w g roups incl u a te for or a g groups inc l r tarianism, f c h and poli a nd interest g aerospace m r nment cont r f ten hire a l o m ployers o interests o f o r legal serv n omy might organized l a a t benefit w o l th care. Th rs. nizations t s senior ci t disabilities; benefits, l a a ccessibility o licies. w ere create d u de those th g ainst aborti o l ude organi z f or example i cy organiz a g roup activi t m anufactur e t ract to buy o bbying fir m o rganizatio n f an entire i n ices). An i lobby for f a bo r and ot h o rkers, suc h ese groups t hat repre s t izens; raci a and immi g aws prote c religious f d specificall y h at advocate o n or gay ri g z ations that Ideologic a a tions that o t ies: e r or a heal t airplanes o m to advoca t n or trade o n dustry (e. g i nterest gro u favorable t a h er employ e h as minimu m can represe n s ent speci fi a l, ethnic, o g rants. The s c ting again f reedoms a n y to advoca t for women g hts. advocate f o a l groups al s o ften have t h o r t e o r g ., u p a x e e m n t fi c o r s e st n d t e s o r s o a

PAGE 262

Chapter 12: Interest Groups|255 particular ideological perspective or a particular economic theory that informs their policy analysis and advocacy. Religious Organizations. Church Groups or organizations active on religious issues lobbying government for exempti ons from zoning laws, tax laws, or employment rules and regulations. 12.13 | Economic Interest Groups The greatest number of interest groups is economic interest groups including business, trade and other associations, labor, and professional associations. Business. Businesses such as General Motors, Microsoft, and Boeing lobby to influence public policy regarding employment, workplace safety, the environment, taxes, and trade pol icy, among others. In this era of cooperative federalism, where both the national and state governments regulate business and economic activity, corporations typically have a Public Affairs or Public Relations or Government Affairs division to conduct public relations campaigns, to make campaign contributions on behalf of candidates they support, and to lobby on behalf of the business interests. Trade Associations Businesses with a similar interest sometim es join trade associations to advocate on behalf of the entire industry or sect or of the economy. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the National Federation of Independent Businesses, and the National Association of Manufacturers are trade associations. They are interest groups that represent business generally, or small busin ess specifically, or the manufacturing sector specifically. The nu mber of such business groups and their local, state, and national influence make them one of the mo re important political forces in U.S. politics. Business groups are genera lly members of the Republican Party coalition. Labor Interest groups representing worker s include labor unions that represent individuals who work on farms or the ag ricultural sector, manufacturing such as steel and auto manufacturing), and indivi duals who work in the service sector. Union membership in the U.S. is low, pa rticularly compared with membership in other industrial democracies. Two of the oldest and most powerful labor unions

PAGE 263

256 | Chapter 12: Interest Groups are the AFL-CIO (The American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations) and the Teamsters The influence of organized labor has greatly diminished over the past decades. One reas on for their decline is the American economy has moved away from industry and manufacturing, which were the sectors of the economy where unions were strongest, toward an information and service sector economy, where unions were not organized. Industrial and manufacturing unions represented blue-col lar workers. White-collar workers have not been heavily unionized. As the econom y shifted toward the service sector, a labor union was created specifically to represent these pink collar workers. The Service Employees International Union (SEICU), which calls itself the largest and fastest growing union, organizes on behalf of health care and hospitality industry workers. Labor Unions are traditiona lly members of the Democratic Party coalition. Professional Associations. Professionals have organized themselves into some of the most influential inte rest groups in the U.S. These include such well known professional associations as the American Medical Association ; the American Bar Association; the National Education Association ; the National Association of Realtors ; and engineering associationsthe National Society of Professional Engineers and the American Engineering Association. The AEAs mission is to make the AEA an AMA for engineers. The above Top Spenders on Lobbying graph shows that professional associati ons are the top spenders on lobbying. Each state controls occupational licensure. That is, a state licenses professionals to operate in the state. Therefore there are 50 state medical associations and state bar associations. Medicine, law, and engi neering are among the most prestigious professions. Their professiona l associations can exert considerable influence over government regulation of their professions including the licensing standards that determine access to the profession. One pow er question about these professional associations is whether th ey use their influence to protect the public/consumers (from untrained or unscrupulous doctors, engineers, lawyers, or financial advisors) or whether they use their polit ical power to protect their members. 12.14 | Ideological Groups Ideological groups are organize d to advocate for a particular set of political beliefs. Ideological groups are harder to identify than economic groups. The American Act on It! Civic engagement includes interacting with organizations that are such an important part of civil society. Contact an interest group to ask about an issue that you are interested in or an issue that the group supports.

PAGE 264

Chapter 12: Interest Groups|257 Conservative Union calls itself the oldest membership -based conservative organization in the U.S. One of its most widely known ac tions is the rating of elected government officials. The American Civil Liberties Union might be considered an ideological organization but its advocacy of civil liber ties is sometimes liberal and sometimes conservative. The Americans for Democratic Action calls itself the ol dest independent liberal organization in the U.S. There is a la rge number of radical or fringe organizations that are active in American politics, if so metimes only on the Internet. One such radical right organization is the Guardians of the Free Republic 12.15 | Think Tanks Think tanks are organizations th at are primarily interested in researching and promoting ideas. It is appropriate to think of think ta nks as think-and-do tanks because they are interested in thought that produces action. Thi nk tanks research and advocate public policies that are based on th e ideas they support. The Am erican Action Network is a conservative think tank. A former director of the Congressional Budget Office described its purpose, and the purpose of other think tanks: Havi ng good ideas is not enough. You actually have to sell them to the Co ngress, the president, the citizens. 2 Two prominent think tanks are the Brookings Institution, a think tank with a gene rally liberal orientation, and the American Enterprise Institute a think tank with a generally conservative orientation. 12.2 | Incentives to join Why do political groups exist? Why do people join groups? The Politic al Scientist James Q. Wilson identified three type s of incentives to join a group: solidarity, material, and purposive.3 Some interest groups provide more than one of th ese incentives for membership, but the different categories are useful for understanding the different kinds of interest groups. 12.21 | Solidarity Solidarity incentives for a person to join a group are essentially social reasons. Individuals decide to join a gr oup because they want to associ ate with others with similar interests, backgrounds, or points of view. The old saying, Birds of a Feather Flock Together, describes solidarity incentives. Chur ch groups, civic groups such as the Elks Club, and groups whose members have shar ed ethnic backgrounds, are examples of groups whose members are motivated primarily by associational or shared interests. 12.22 | Material Material incentives are esse ntially economic motives for membership. Membership is motivated by a tangible benefit. An indi vidual who joins the Association for the Advancement of Retired People (AARP) to get motel, restaurant, or car rental discounts is motivated by a material incentive to join. A company that becomes a member of a trade association such as the Chamber of Commerce or the National Association of

PAGE 265

258 | Chapter 12: Interest Groups Manufacturers in order to benefit from the trade associations lobbying is motivated by a material incentive. A study of interest groups in the United States and other countries found that a great majority (almost three-quarte rs) represents professional or occupational interests. The main motivation of such professional or occupationa l groups is economic or material interests.4 12.23 | Purposive Purpose incentives are those that appeal to an individuals commitme nt to advancing the groups social or political aims. Purposive groups attract members who join for reasons other than merely associ ating with others who share their interests, or solely because they want to obtain material benefits. Some of these purposive or issue advocacy groups are ideological. Ideological purposive groups advocate on behalf of ideas (e.g., conservative; liberal; libertarian) or causes (right-to-life; civil liberties; property rights; the environment; religious freedom). Pur posive groups include the American Conservative Union, the American Civil Liberties Union, the Sierra Club, and the two major interest groups who take different sides in the debate over abortion policy: The National Right to Life and the National Abortion Rights Action League (NARAL). 12.3 | What Do Interest Groups Do? Much of what interest groups do falls under the large umbrella of lobbying. Lobbying is a broad term for an interest groups activities that seek to persuade political leaders and government officials to support a particular position. Lobbying occurs at all levels of government (local, state, national, and internat ional), in all three br anches of government (although technically groups do not lobby the co urts), and in non-gove rnmental settings. Interest group lobbying includes testifying at government hearings, co ntacting legislators, providing information to politicia ns, filing lawsuits or funding lawsuits or submit amicus curiae briefs with a court, and public campaigns to change public opinion or to rally members of the group to c ontact public officials. 12.31 | Lobby Congress Congress, committee members, and individual members of congress are frequent targets of lobbying campaigns. Interest groups might lobby in the congressional setting by providing testimony at a committee or subcommittee meeting, contributing to an individual c ongressional representatives

PAGE 266

Chapter 12: Interest Groups|259 campaign fund, or organizing a letter or phone-call campaign by members of the interest to convince a particular representati ve of the public support for a policy. 12.32 | Lobby the Executive Branch Although the executive branch does not actually make the laws, interest groups target the executive branch in order to influence the formation of public policy or its implementation. Lobbying the exec utive branch may include contacting the president, members of the presidents staff (including the chief of staff or policy advisors), cabinet level officials, or other high-ranking members of the executive departments (the political appointees that make policies). Interest groups also lobby the independent regulatory commi ssions. These agencies have rule making authority. The rule making pro cess includes taking public comments about proposed regulations. Interest gr oups participate in this pr ocess in order to influence regulatory policy that affects them. Officials in the executive departments also play an important role in the development of the federal budget, so interest groups lobby them to support programs that the groups supports and oppos e programs that the group is opposed to. Agricultural interests, food processors and consumer groups lobby members of the Department of Agriculture, which plays an important role in congressional and administration food policy. Health care provi ders, insurance companies, and patient rights groups lobby officials in the Departme nt of Health and Human Services, which play an important role in formulating a nd implementing health care policy (including Medicare and Medicaid). Th e telecommunications industry, consumer rights groups, and citizen groups interested in the content of broadcast programming lobby the Federal Communications Commission. The FCC is an independent regulatory agency that licenses broadcast companies and has some aut hority to regulate the content of broadcast programming and other aspect of the telecommunication industry. Interest Groups are an important part of the policymaking process. They are one of the three major members of what political scientists call Issue Networks. The term Issue Network describes the patterns of inter actions among three sets of participants in the policy making process: a congressional committee; an Executive Department; and interest groups. Each area of public policy has an Issue Network. Interest groups link the governmentthat is congressional committees and the executive departments or independent regulatory commissi onsand the civil society (t he interest groups). The following figure describes the Issue Network fo r defense policy. The arrows describe the mutual benefits the participants provide. Interest groups provide information to the legislative committees and executi ve departments that make pub lic policy in their area of interest. Congressional committ ees provide budgets for programs that an interest groups supports. And executive departme nts support programs that in terest groups support.

PAGE 267

260 | Chapter 12: Interest Groups Figure 12.3 Issue Networks: Defense Policy Congressional Committees Senate Armed Services Committee House Armed Services Committee Executive Departments Interest Groups The Department of Defense (Aerospace and Defense Industries) 12.33 | Lobbying the Courts In an effort to maintain some separation of law and politics, it is considered inappropriate for interest groups to lobby the courts the way they lobby congress and the executive branch. Interest group efforts to influe nce the courts take two forms. The first is political litigation. Political litigation is using a lawsuit primarily to change public policy. An interest group may file a lawsuit on behalf of its members. The Sierra Club may file a lawsuit challenging a policy allowing development of a natural environment. The National Fede ration of Independent Businesses challenged the constitutionality of the Patient Protec tion and Affordable Care Act (Obamacare). A second way that an interest group ca n lobby the courts is by filing an amicus curiae brief (that is, a friend of the court brief) that advocates for one of the two sides in a case that is before the court. The major cases that the S upreme Court agrees to decide typically have a large number of amicus curiae briefs submitte d for both sides. A third way that interest groups attempt to influence the courts is by sponsorin g a lawsuit, providing legal resources for the actual parties. Taking a case all the way to the Supreme Court requires a great deal of time and money.

PAGE 268

Chapter 12: Interest Groups|261 A good example of political litigation is the efforts of The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) to support lawsuits challenging the constitutionality of segregated public schools. The landmark Supreme Court ruling in Brown v. Board of Education was the result of an organized campaign to use the courts to change public policy. In fact, the various civil rights revoluti ons of the period 1940s1960s relied heavily on political litigation. In the 1950s and 1960s, liberal public interest groups relied heavily on political litigation to change public policies related to prisoner rights, racial equality, freedom of expressi on, the right to privacy, and environmentalism. In the 1970s conservative public interest groups used political litiga tion to change public policies on abortion, property rights, freedom of religion, affirmative action, business and employer rights, and gun rights. Today there are many conservative orga nizations that have adopted a legal strategy to achieve cons ervative policy goals: The Pacific Legal Foundation was created to challenge environmental regulations. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce established a National Chamber Litigation Center and the Institute for Legal Reform to advocate pro-business legal policies. The Christian Legal Society advocates agains t the separation of church and state. The Cato Institute advocates libertarian positions. The National Rifle Associati on advocates for gun rights. The tort reform movement is an example of business groups going to court to change legal policies relating to to rtswrongful injuries such as medical malpractice and product liability. Judicial Hellholes, Jackpot Justice, Looney Lawsuits, and Wacky Warning Labels Contest are terms that have entered everyday vocabulary about civil law in modern American society. The American Tort Reform Association has even trademarked the epithet Judicial Hellholes. The National Federation of Independent Businesses has created a Small Business Legal Center specifically to advocate in the courts: The Legal Center is the advocate for small business in the courts. We do what

PAGE 269

262 | Chapter 12: Interest Groups federal and state NFIB lobbyists do, but inst ead of lobbying legislat ures we lobby judges through briefs and oral arguments in court. We tell judges how the decision they make in a given case will impact small businesses nationwide.5 The American Tort Reform Association s membership and funding come from the American Medical Association and th e Council of Engineering Companies. The National Association of Manufacturers uses political litigation to change policies that it considers anti-business, such as product liability laws and campaign finance laws that limit campaign contributions. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce has established an Institute for Legal Reform which specializes in political litigation to advance probusiness legal policies. Whose side are the la wyers on? In criminal justice, the defense bar represents suspects who have been accused of a crime. In civil justice issues such as product liability and medical malpractice, the plaintiff bar generally represents consumers, employees, or patients. Lawyers for Civil Justice is a national organization of corporate counsel and defense lawyers advocat ing for tort reform. The Florida Chamber of Commerce created the Florida Justice Reform Institute to reform what it calls a wasteful civil justice system. Other business organizations advocating tort reform include Americas Health Insurance Plans, Ameri can Hospital Association, Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturing A ssociation, and the National Federation of Independent Businesses. 12.34 | Grassroots Lobbying and Protests Interest groups also engage in grassroots lobbying Grassroots lobbying is a term fo r efforts to mobilize local support for an issue position the group has taken. Grassroots lobbying is usually contrasted with Washington lobbying. Washington lobbying is sometimes criticized as inside-thebeltway activity that focuses on the Washington political establishment to the neglect of the average American or Mainstreet America. Grass roots lobbying has an outside-the-beltway focus and therefore a reputation for being a more genuine reflection of public opinion that Washington lobbying campaigns. Grassroots lobbying consists of interest groups contacting citizens and urging them to contact government officials rather than having the interest group directly contact government officials. The political appeal of a ppearing to be a grass-root s organization whose members come from the community has created the phenomenon called astroturf lobbying. Astroturf lobbying is where an interest group without a large membership portrays itself as having roots in the commun ity. The membership is artificial, however, which is why the grassroots are called astroturf. In todays media age and celebrity culture, grassroots campaigns can use influential media person alities (such as Rachel Maddow or Glen Beck) to encourage their listeners or viewers to take action, there by linking the national

PAGE 270

Chapter 12: Interest Groups|263 and electronic communities to the local or grassroots. The more extreme version of grassroots lobbying is orga nizing or supporting protests and demonstrations. Many national organizations have a day where they bring members to Washington, D.C. to call attention to their issues, whether advocating to put an issue on the policy agenda or to protest a change in public policy. 12.35 | Lobbyists Interest groups frequently pay professional lobbyists to represent the organization to the public and the government. Professional lobbyists can either work directly for the interest group or they can be employees of public relations or law firms who are hired by the group for a specific campaign. One of the most seriously funny depict ions of interest group efforts to influence public opinion and public policy, and the image of lobbyists is the Hollywood film Thank You For Smoking The fictional film descri bes the efforts of the tobacco lobby, the alcohol lobby, and gun lobby, which IN THE FILM are called the MOD Squad: Merchants of Death. The Youtube video clip is available at: 12.36 | Campaigns and Elections Interest groups also participate in campaigns and elections. In elections of government offici als, interest group activity includes the following: Candidate recruitment. Groups recruit candidates with specific views on political i ssues to support for office. Campaign contributions. Interest groups provide funding to support campaigns. Campaign resources. Interest groups with large memberships provide campaign workers. Public information. Interest groups rate candidates (e.g., on conservatism or liberalism) to provide information to vot ers about where a candi date stands on the issues). Get out the vote efforts. Groups can rally their members to go to the polls to vote for a particular candidate. Of course, money is the mothers milk of po litics. Money has become more important as politics has moved away from the grass roots retail politics (one-to-one or personal

PAGE 271

264 | Chapter 12: Interest Groups relationships) toward wholesale politics (mass appeal campaigns). Wholesale politics is more likely to be air war campaigns that are conducted on television, radio, and the Internet. One of the main ways that groups participate in elec tions is by providing moneyraising and spending mone y on behalf of a campaign or political cause. There are a number of organizations that are created specifically to provide money for campaigns. A Political Action Committee (PAC) is a political arm of a business, labor, trade, professional, or other group. PACS are legally authoriz ed to raise voluntary funds from employees or members of the group to contribute to a part y or candidate. Many interest groups have PACs. Realtors have RPAC; doctors have AMPAC; supporters of abortion rights have NARAL-PAC and pro-life advocates have Right to Life PAC. Political action committees (PAC) allo w interest groups pool resources from group members and contribute to political campaigns and polit icians. Under federal law, an organization automatically becomes a PAC by either receiving contributions or making expenditures more than $1000 for the purpose of influencing a federal election. Individual contributions to federal PACs are limited to $5,000 per year. However, the whole system of campaign finance law is currently in an unsettled state because the Supreme Court has ruled that campaign spe nding is a form of free speech that is protected by the First Amendment. As a result, the federal laws limiting the amount of money that an individual could spend on hi s or her own campaign were struck down. And in Citizens United v Federal Election Commission (2010) the Court ru led that corporate campaign contributions that were independent of a candidates campaign could not be limited by the government. This ruling resulted in the creation of Superpacs. In addition, organizations that are listed under section 527 of the tax code as social welfare organizations can also engage in more campaign activity wi thout regulation. Not all campaigns are conducted to elect government officials. Some campaigns are referendums. A referendum is a politic al campaign where the public votes for or against an issue that is presented on the ballot. An example of a referendum election is one where the public votes wh ether to approve a tax incr ease. Interest groups are especially important player s in referendum politics beca use groups organize public support for their side of the issue and public opposition for the side they oppose. 12.37 | Providing Information Interest groups and lobbyists ty pically describe their function as providing useful information to the public and government officials. The general public and even members of Congress are usually not experts on an issu e that they will be voting on. Lobbyists provide technical inform ation about their fields of interest or expert ise. Lobbyists for the American Medical Association provide information about health care and lobbyists for health insurance companies provide information about insurance. In this sense, lobbyists describe their role in the political process as an educative role: explaining tec hnical or specialized matters to generalists. Lobbyists who represent large membership groups also educate members of Congress or the administration about how the general public or the groups members feel about a particular issue, bill, or law. Th is is also a representational role.

PAGE 272

Chapter 12: Interest Groups|265 An interest groups strategy may also include conducting a public opinion campaign. Public opinion campaigns are efforts to change public opini on about an issue. Issue advocacy campaigns are political advert ising campaigns to shape public opinion, to persuade the public to think abou t an issue the way that the gr oup thinks about an issue. Oil companies that are worried about their public image can hire advertising companies to design campaigns that portray oil compan ies as energy companies that are deeply concerned about the environment, global wa rming, conservation, jobs, and the socially responsible production of energy. Oil spills such as the Exxon Valdez sp ill in Alaska and the British Petroleum oil well spill in the Gulf of Mexico in 2010 prompted extensive public relations campaigns to portray the two companies as good stewards of the environment. These kinds of well-financed public relations campaigns conducted by major corporations raise questions about the nature of public opinion in a democracy. Is public opinion the cause of public policy, or is public opinion made by these campaigns. Most interest groups today rely to some extent on direct ma il, the use of computerized mailing lists to contact individuals who might share their interests. 12.38 | Agenda Building Agenda building is the proces s by which new issues are brought to the attention of political decision-makers. There is a seemingly unlimited supply of problems or issues that someone or some group thinks the government should do something about. But public officials have limited resources (time, political capital, inform ation, and money). Politics is the allocation of these scarce resources. Public officials must concentrate on a few important issues. Interest groups can convince politicians to put a new is sue on the governments agenda. 12.39 | Program Monitoring Program monitoring is when indi viduals or groups keep track of the governments acti ons to determine whether and how a bureaucracy or other administrative agency is implementing legislation. A group that monitors a program may find that a program or policy they supported is not being implemented as intended or is not being implemented well. Interest groups play a role in the policy process by monitoring policies. 12.4 | Playing Offense or Defense? Sometime interest groups lobby for changes in public policy. They want to pass health care reform, make abortion illegal, increase regulation of Wall Street companies, enact policies to address global warming, or increase government support

PAGE 273

266 | Chapter 12: Interest Groups for religious activity. Some times interest groups lobby against change in public policy. They want to stop health care reform, maintain legal abortions, stop government regulation, or prevent the passage of laws that provide more government support for religious activities. Health care policy illustra tes how some interest groups play offense (they support change) and others play defense (they oppose ch ange). There are interest groups that are working hard to change the current employme nt-based health care system in favor of a public or national health care policy. The groups playing o ffense include organized labor unions, the American Association of Retired Persons (AARP), and even the American Medical Association, which has historically opposed the creation of public health care as a form of socialized medicine. The groups pl aying defense include he alth care providers, insurance companies, and organizations representing business such as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. The high economic stakeshe alth care accounts for around 17 percent of the countrys gross domestic productmake it hard to make any major changes in health care. For decades the interest group battles over health care reform have been a clash of titansa conflict among big, power ful interest groups with a great deal at stake in the outcome: groups representing doctors, hospitals and other health care providers, insurance companies, and other business group s. Interest groups devote a great deal of money, time, and other resour ces to such conflicts. The debate over the health care reform proposed by the Obama administratio n attracted an unprecedented amount of money. For a description of the large sums of money spent on health care reform see Exploring the Big Money Be hind Health Care Reform Is it easier to play offense or defense? The political system makes it easier to play defense than offense. It is easier to prevent the government from acti ng than to prompt it to act. The separation of powers. Passing a fede ral law requires working with both the legislative and executive branches. Bicameralism. In order for a bill to beco me a law it must pass both houses of Congress. The committee system in Congress. The committee system is a functional division of labor that creates natural contact points for interest groups to participate in the policymaking process. Interest groups can lobby a committee to kill the bill. Party politics. The OUT party often ha s a vested interest in opposing a bill proposed by the IN party. Federalism. The geographic division of power between the national and state governments is part of the system of checks and balances. All of these attributes of the political system create many veto points at which an individual or organization can try to stop action. The multiple veto points make it easier to stop action than to successfully propose it and interest groups are important players in the defensive contests to st op change that they oppose. 12.5 | The Free Rider Problem

PAGE 274

Chapter 12: Interest Groups|267 A large, active, and committed membership is a valuable resource. Candidates for office and elected government official s tend to listen to lobbyists that represent groups with large and active membershipparticularly when the membership includes voters in the individuals district or state. The American Association of Retired Persons (AARP) is an influential demographic group because it has over 40 million membersand because older people have higher rate s of voter turnout than younge r people. But attracting and maintaining membership can be challenging. One of the most important challenges to forming a membership-based group is the free-rider problem The free-rider problem occurs wh en a person can benefit from an interest groups actions without having to pay for the costs of those actions. This creates an incentive to be a free rider, to receive be nefits without paying co sts. Free riders get what is for them a free lunch. The free-rider problem creates membership problems for groups that rely on material or purposive incentives for members to join their group. In fact, the free-rider problem is one reason why the government requires everyone to pay taxes that are used to provide certain goods and services. A private good is something of value whose bene fits can be limited to those who have paid for it. A private good is divisible in the sense that it can be provided to those who have paid for it but not to those who ha ve not paid for it. Cars, computers, and phones are divisible goods. Health care, legal ad vice, and education ar e divisible services. A public good is something of value whose benefits cannot be limited to those individuals who have actually pa id for it. In this sense, a public good is an indivisible good because once it is available its benefits cannot be limited to those who have actually paid for it. For these reasons, private goods are available for purchase in the marketplace based on the ability to pay while the govern ment provides public goods. Safe streets, public order, peace, nationa l security, and clean air or clear water are commonly considered public goods because they are indivi sible: once provided, it is hard to limit national security or clean air to those who have paid for them. Political debates about the role and size of government can often be reduced to arguments about whether some goods or services should be considered private goods, and available in the marketplace based on the abi lity to pay, or public goods that are provided by the government. Is education a public or pr ivate good? Does it depend on whether the education is primary or secondary education, or a college or professional education? Is health care a private or public good? The answ ers to these questions are political because they answer the age-old questions about what government should be doing. 12.6 | Are Interest Groups Harmful or Helpful? Concern about the influence of interest groups is as old as the republic and as new as the coverage of health care reform. The Founders worri ed about factions. In Federalist No. 10, Madison worried about the ap parently natural tendency of individuals to organize themselves into groups that a dvocate for their special or se lf-interest rather than the general or public interest. Madison believed that the most common s ource of factions was the unequal distribution of property. He did not think th at the mischiefs of faction could be eliminated; he thought they could be controlled if there were so many different factions that no one or two could dominate politics and use governm ent and politics for their narrow self-interest and ag ainst the minority interests.

PAGE 275

268 | Chapter 12: Interest Groups It is not easy to determine whether inte rest groups play a ha rmful or helpful role in modern American government and politics. It is easy to criticize special interests for working against the public intere st. But there is often disagr eement about what the public interest is. And it is not easy to measure the influence of groups The Center for Responsive Politics6 studies the activities and the in fluence of groups, with a special emphasis on political contributions and their influence on public policy. It is easier to measure activity (e.g., campaign c ontributions) than influence. It is not simply that large groups are mo re influential than small groups, or that money is the sole determinant of influence. Money and numbers are important. But familiar game of rock, scissors, paper can help explain the relationships among the major kinds of resources that groups can mobilize. Interest group resources include numbers (the size of the membership), money (financial resources), and intensity (the members commitment to the cause). If size alonethe number of memberswere the sole determinant of influence, then consumers and workers would be much more influential than business interests because there are more of consumers and workers. And the poor would be mu ch more influential than the rich. But size can be trumped by money. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce has less than 10% of the membership of the AARP but the financial resources of the Chambers members make it an influential inte rest group. Money is a resource that is used to influence decision makers by ma king campaign contributions or by public relations campaigns that shape the way people th ink about an individual issue, or party. So money can trump numbers. And finally, in tensity of interest can trump numbers and money. An organization with a small number of members who are intensely interested or committed to their cause can trump numbers or money. Intensity is one of the keys to explaining the political influence of the National Rifle Association. NRA members are famously committed to the cause of advocating gun rights. 12.7 | Summary It might be said of interest groups (and bureaucrats) that love them or hate them, we cant seem to live without them. The Founders worr ied about the mischie fs of faction, but groups have been integrated in to the American polit ical system at all levels (national, state, and local) and arenas (legislative, execu tive, and legal). Concerns about the power or influence of special interests remain va lid, but it is not easy to determine whether

PAGE 276

Chapter 12: Interest Groups|269 groups are healthy or harmful. Members of Congress rely on intere st groups to provide them with information about subjects being considered for legislation. Legislative committees take testimony from interest groups during committee hearings. Groups do provide a great deal of information to th e public and to polic ymakers in both the legislative and executive branch es of government. And like political partie s, interest groups are linkage organizations that can increase political efficacy, the individual sense that participation matters, that participation can make a difference, that membership in a group increases citizen control ov er public policy in a democracy. 12.8 | Additional Resources In order to get an idea of the number and type of intere st groups see the list of some of the more important interest groups in the U.S., a list that is organized by the issues they represent or the public policy areas in which they lobby: Political Advocacy Groups: A Directory of United States Lobbyists. American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) offers information on the entire Bill of Rights including racial profiling, womens rights, privacy issues, prisons, drugs, etc. Includes links to other sites dealin g with the same issues. AFL-CIO is the largest trade union organizatio n in America. Its Web site offers policy statements, news, workplace issues, and labor strategies. Richard Kimbers Worldwide Index of Politic al Parties, Interest Groups, and Other Social Movements Mexican American Legal Defense and Edu cation Fund (MALDEF) Web site offers information on Census 2000, scholarships, jo b opportunities, legal programs, regional offices information, and more. Native American Rights Fund (NARF) Web site offers profiles of issues, an archive, resources, a tribal directory, and treaty information, as well as a lot of other information. The National Association for the Advancem ent of Colored People (NAACP) Web site offers information about the organization, membership, and issues of interest to proponents of civil rights. It also has sections on the S upreme Court, Census 2000, and the Education Summit and include s links to other Web sites. The National Rifle Association (NRA) offe rs information on gun ownership, gun laws, and coverage of legislation on associated issues. National Organization of Women (NOW) Web site offers information on the organization and its issues/activities includ ing women in the military, economic equity,

PAGE 277

270 | Chapter 12: Interest Groups Study Questions 1. What factors make an interest group successful? Provide examples. 2. Discuss and provide examples of how interest groups attempt to influence election outcomes. 3. Should there be additional limits on interest group participation in American politics? 4. What do interest groups do? 5. What are the different types of interest groups? 6. Should interest groups be protected under the First Amendment? Why or why not? and reproductive rights. It offe rs an e-mail action list and the ability to join NOW online. There is also a page with links to related sites. In the Library Berry, Jeffrey and Clyde Wilcox. The Interest Group Society. Longman, 2008. Biersack, Robert. After the Revolution: PAC s, Lobbies, and the Re publican Congress. Addison Wesley, 2000. Birnbaum, Jeffrey. The Money Men. Times Books, 2000. Broder, David S. Democracy Derailed. Harcourt Brace, 2000. Cigler, Allan J. and Burdett A. Loomis (eds ). Interest Group Politics. CQ Press, 2006. Dekieffer, Donald E. The C itizens Guide to Lobbying Congre ss. Chicago Review Press, 2007. Gray, Virginia and David Lowe ry. The Population Ecology of Interest Representation: Lobbying Communities in the American Stat es. University of Michigan Press, 2001. Hernnson, Paul S. Interest Group C onnection: Electioneering, Lobbying, and Policymaking in Washington. Congressional Quarterly, Inc., 2004. Keck, Margaret and Kathryn Sikkink. Activ ists Beyond Borders. Cornell University Press, 1998. Rosenthal, Alan. Third House: Lobbyists and Lobbying in the States. Congressional Quarterly, Inc., 2001. Strolovitch, Dara Z. Affirmative Advocacy: Race, Class, and Gender in Interest Group Politics. University of Chicago Press, 2007. Key Terms: interest group lobbyists Public interest groups economic interest groups grassroots lobbying Political Action Committee (PAC) agenda building Program monitoring

PAGE 278

Chapter 12: Interest Groups|271 1 See Allan J. Cigler and Burdett A. Loomis. 2007. Interest Group Politics Seventh Edition. Washington, D.C.: CQ Press. 2Quoted in Jackie Calmes. G.O.P. Group to Promote Conservative Ideas. The New York Times. (February 3, 2010). Available at 3 Chapter three of James Q. Wilson. 1973. Political Organizations New York: Basic Books. 4 See 5 al-center/about-the-legal-center/ 6

PAGE 279

CHAPTER 13: Public Policy Policy

PAGE 280

Chapter 13: Public Policy |273 13.0 | Public Policy The previous chapters looked at American politics and government from a systems perspective. The classic democratic system s theory describes pub lic opinion as the primary determinant of public policy. Th e chapter on public opinion studied the demand stage of the political process: how individu als and organizations a nd elections call the governments attention to issues or conditions or problems. The chapters on congress, the presidency, and the courts ex amined how these government institutions make decisions. This chapter examines the response stages of the process, the types of public policies, and some of the issues rela ted to social science ev aluation of public policy. Figure 13: The Classic Systems Theory 13.1 | What is Public Policy A policy is an official position on an issue or a pl an of action that is intended to achieve certain results. It includes official positions taken by a government body, a private sector organization, a corporation, or even an individual. The following are policies: A congressional statute that makes it a crim e for individuals to provide material support for organizations that the govern ment labels terrorist organizations. An executive order such as Dont Ask, D ont Tell that directs the Department of Defense not to ask members of the military whether they are gays. Workplace safety rules and regulations. Corporate marketing practices for advert ising tobacco or alcohol products to children. A companys personnel employment pract ices for hiring, firing, and promotion. An interest groups position on the environment or crime or some other issue. The personnel practices of non-profit organizations. A churchs budget priorities or community outreach. A universitys academic integrity code. A professors grading of student class work. Government Decision making Process Public Opinion Public Policy

PAGE 281

274 | Chapter 13: Public Policy The term public policy refers to governmental programs, rules, and courses of action. Public policies are stated in statutes, regulat ions, judicial rulings, executive orders and executive agreements, and even budgets. The st udy of public policy includes the process of decision making ( who makes decisions and how they are made), the substance of a policy ( what the official position is), and the analys is of its impact (whether a policy is effective). Public policy is also an academic and professional discipline that is studied and practiced in academic institutions and th ink tanks. The professional association of public policy practitioners, researchers, schol ars, and students is the Association for Public Policy Analysis and Management. The academic discipline of public policy includes a broad range of social science fiel ds including political science, economics, sociology, and public administration. A government action is a public polic y, but so is government inaction. A government decision not to take action on a matter such as global warming or health care or poverty is a public policy. The policy making process includes efforts to get the government to act (offensive strategies) and e fforts to stop governme nt action (defensive strategies). Gun control organizations l obby for gun control laws while the National Rifle Association lobbies against them or even for public policies that expand the right to keep, bear, and buy and sell arms. Public policy is divided into two spheres: domestic and foreign policy. Domestic policy includes programs that affect individuals and organizations within a country. It includes a broad range of official positions on issues such as the economy, criminal justice, education, health care, transpor tation, energy production and consumption, and the environment. Foreign policy concerns a countrys relati ons with other countries. U.S. foreign policy includes the economic, technological, informational, military, health, trade, and environmental relations with othe r countries. Some public policies affect both domestic and foreign affairs. Immigration policy, international trade policy, and national security policy for instance affect both domestic and foreign affairs. In fact, globalism has blurred the distinctions betwee n domestic and foreign policy in a broad range of pub lic policies. 13.2 | Policy Stages The policy process has six stages: id entifying a problem, agenda setting, policy formulation, policy adoption, policy implementation, and policy evaluation. Political efforts to infl uence public policy through education, lobbying, campaigning, campaign contribu tions, or other methods occur at all stages of the policy process. policy is more like an endless game of Monopoly than a bicycle repair Deborah Stone. 2001. Policy Paradox: The Art of Political Decision Making, page 261. I

PAGE 282

13.21Prob l indi v som e poll u Defi n the f i 13.22 Age n prob l gove r pros p b asi c gove r how e viole n agre e orga n to p a kind maki n | Problem R e l em definiti o v iduals, inte r e thing a pr o u tion, taxes, n ing a probl e i rst stage in t | Agenda Se t n da setting i s l em on the r nments t o p erity, provi d governme n r nments a g e ver. The in c n ce on the g Some iss e ment that t h n izations m a a y attention of traffic co n Agenda s e n g a privat e e cognition o n and reco g r est groups, o blem that t inflation, fo e m and rec o t he policy p r t tin g s the secon d governmen t o -do list. M d ing nation a n t responsi b g enda. Getti n c reased nu m g overnment u es are har h ey are issu e a y have to m to public t r n trol device e tting is the e issue a p u T h g nition is t h business i n t he govern m fo od and dr u o gnizing tha t r ocess. d stage. A ge t s agenda f M aintaining a l security, a b ilities so n g agreem e m ber of mas agenda bu t d to get o n e s that gove r m ount camp a r ansportatio n or the nee d process of t r u blic issue. h e Po l h e first stag e n terests, or m ent shoul d u g safety, c t it is appro p e nda settin g f or action. I t safe street s a nd maintai n it is usua l e nt on wha t s shootings, t specific p o n the gover n r nment sho u a igns and lo b n health ca r d for a park o r ansformin g It requires l icy PChapter 1 e of public p even gove r d solve. Th e c rime, or b a p riate for g o g is putting a t is easy t o s providin g n ing good p u l ly not ha r t policy to particularl y o licy propos n ments ag e u ld be invol v b bying effo r r e, an unsa f o r civic recr e g a private m convincin g roces s 1 3: Public P p olicymaki n r nment offi c e problem a d roads or o vernment t o a n issue, a c o o get some i g economic u blic order a r d to get t adopt is a n y at schools s als remain c e nda becaus e v ed with. In r ts to get th e f e street tha t e ation cente r m atter into a p g people th a s P olicy |2 7 n g. It is wh e c ials consid e might be a bad school o address it o ndition, or i ssues on t h stability a n a re consider e t hem on t h n other matt e has put g u c ontroversi a e there is n dividuals a n e governme n t needs so m r p ublic matt e a t an issue 7 5 e n e r a ir s. is a h e n d e d h e e r, u n a l. n o n d n t m e e r, is

PAGE 283

276 | Chapter 13: Public Policy political and that the government should enact a public policy to address it. Is workplace safety a public issue? The an swer often depends on whether a job is, or is perceived to be, dangerous. 13.23 | Sex and Violence in the Media and Music Public campaigns to get the government to regulate indecent or violent programming on broadcast television and radio illustrate how issues get on the gove rnments agenda and how they are kept off it. Individuals and organizations concerned about broadcast media depictions of sex and vi olence, and profane music lyrics, mounted sustained lobbying efforts to convince the government to put the issues on the governments agenda. The Federal Communications Commi ssion licenses and regulates the broadcast media. The public, and therefore the government, is especially concerned about the impact of such materials on children. In the 1980s, organizations including the Parents Music Resource Center lobbied Congress to put offensive music lyrics on the federal governments agenda. Tipper Gore, at that time the wife of Senator Al Gore, bought an album, Princes Purple Rain for her daughter. Tipper Gore mistakenly thought the album wa s a childrens album. She was offended by the explicit lyrics. In 1985, she testified before Congress that music s hould be labeled, primarily to protect children from an increasingly coarse culture where sex a nd violence were more explicit. The concerns about explicit lyri cs were prompted by earlier concerns that watching violent television programming cause d violent behavior in children. Congress listened to her testimony, complaints about th e lack of family va lues in the music industry, and the tes timony of musicians such as Fr ank Zappa who opposed government regulation of the music industry, and decided not to pass a law regulating music lyrics. Instead, Congress relied on the recording in dustry to voluntarily label music that contained offensive lyrics. This is an exampl e of an unsuccessful effort to put an issue on the governments agenda but it did pu t the issue on the public agenda. Think About It! Should the government require labeling music and video games and television and radio programs the way the government requires labeling of food? story/story.php?storyId=4279 560 Think about it! What are the deadliest jobs in America: s/money/2013/01/08/1688971 40/the-deadliest-jobs-in-america-in-one-graphic

PAGE 284

Chapter 13: Public Policy |277 The question whether watching violent television programming, playing violent video games, listening to vulga r music lyrics, or visiting o ffensive Internet sites has a negative impact on attitudes or behavior re mains an important public policy question. 13.24 | Indecency and the Internet Unlike the efforts to label music, efforts to put Internet indecency on the governments agenda have been successful. As was the case with broadcast indecency, the debate focused on children. Stories about children bein g exposed to, or havi ng access to indecent materials simply by doing a Google word search has prompted Congress to pass laws to protect minors from harmful material on th e Internet. The Comm unications Decency Act of 1996 protected minors from harmful mate rial on the Internet. The Act made it a criminal offense to knowingly transmit obs cene or indecent messages to any person under 18 years old. The Ameri can Civil Liberties Union ch allenged the law in court arguing that the First Amendment protected freedom of expression from such federal laws. In Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union 521 U.S. 844 (1997), the Court ruled that the law was unconstitutiona l. The Court had two main problems with the law. First, the law made it a criminal offense to send an indecent message, which was a severe penalty for such actions. Second, and more im portant, the Court c onsidered the penalty especially severe for sending an indecent me ssage because there is no agreement on what is indecent. Did the law make it a federal crim inal offense to email or twitter an off-color joke to a minor? The Courts ruling did not put an end to efforts to put Internet indecency on the governments agenda, and Congress passed the Child On-line Protection Act of 1998 to protect children from Internet material that was harmful to minors. This Act was also struck down. Congress responded by passing the Childrens Internet Protection Act of 2001. The Act was challenged by the American Li brary Association, which argued that it violated the First Amendment freedom of expression. In United States v. American Library Association (2003), the Supreme Court upheld the Act. Widespread public and parental concerns about the content of Internet materials that are available to minors keep the issue on the governments agenda. 13.25 | Global Warming Global warming is an especially interesti ng case study of agenda setting. Using data showing increases in temperature, scientists and environmental organizations have been lobbying the government to take actions to reduce emissions that contribute to global warming. Business groups and conservative organizations have been lobbying against such government action. The initial defensive strategy was to deny th e existence of global warning. Opponents of government action argued that temperature increases were part of natural, long-term cycles of temperature fluc tuations that sometimes resulted in ice ages and sometimes resulting in warm periods. As a result, global warming is an example of political scienceor more accurately politicized science. In fact, researchers worry that the politicization of global warming means that scientists cannot even use the term, that they will have to use the term climate change instead. This substitution of terms is

PAGE 285

278 | Chapter 13: Public Policy similar to the way that the scientific theory of evolution became so political that science textbooks refer rather meekly to life forms change. The Yale Project on Climate Change is an organization that is committed to bridging science and society on the matter of global warming. It includes an examination of how public opinion about global warming changed in response to the organize d efforts to challenge the science. 13.26 | Imported Goods The U.S. imports many consumer products. The safety of products imported from China became an issue when media reports of goods with the Made in China label included stories about imported pet food and toothpast e with chemical contaminants or other harmful ingredients, dangerous toys, drugs that were not tested the way that drugs with the Made in the U.S.A. were tested. These st ories attracted the attention of individuals and interest groups who lobbied government offi cials to 1) be more vigilant about the goods that were allowed into the country; and 2) increase government regulation and inspection of such goods. Parents who worry about imported toys with lead paint or heavy metals such as cadmium and importe d dairy products contaminated with the chemical melamine can be effective advocates for putting the safety of imported products on the governments agenda. There is now a Web site for parents concerned about the safety of toys imported from China. It is one thing to get the safety of imported food or toys or drugs on the governments agenda and get a policy enacted, it is another to provide funding for agencies such as the De partment of Agriculture, the Food and Drug Administration, or the Consumer Products Safety Commission that are responsible for inspecting such items. 13.27 | Food Policy The story of how food securi ty and nutrition were put on the governments agenda is another example of how issues become political In one sense, the consumption of food is a classic example of pr ivate good whose benefits can be li mited to those who are willing and able to pay for it. But food is also c onsidered an appropriate issue for government action. The case of policy is examined in greater detail in a separate chapter. 13.3 | Policy Formulation The third stage of the policy process is po licy formulation. Policy formulation is the government process of developing a policy to address the problem th at has been put on its agenda. A broad range of political actors typically participate in forming policy. The issue network for a particular area of public policy includes the congressional committee, the executive department(s), and the interest gr oups. A key factor in policy formation is defining the problem because how a problem is defined can have a significant impact on the substance of the policy. The following are examples of how political problems can be, and often are, defined in very different terms. The price of gasoline. Is th e price of a gallon of gasolin e too high or too low? Are gas price increases caused by high rates of consumption (Americans tend to drive

PAGE 286

In a l deter m of o v emp h polic the f o is de f 13.3 1 Poli c gove r evid e coul d calls Indi v evid e subs i pro m big cars exploit a l Health C access t o are payi n the prob (Obama c defined t individu a Unempl o lack of i n the struc t Crime. C poverty. Outsour c worker w l of the ab m ine what p v e r -consum p h asizing co n i es that em p o rmation of p f ined in ord e 1 | Policy Ad o cy adoption r nments pr e nce of the n d include he a for feedbac k v iduals and e nce that re g i dizing it, t h m ote the acti v and SUVs l l sources o f C are. Is the o health care ? n g for some lem? Supp o c are) define d t he health c a l freedo m o yment. So m n dividual in i t ure of the m C rime can b c ing. Do A m w ages are to o ove examp l p olicy soluti o p tion leads t o n servation. D p hasize pro d p ublic polic y e r to control o ption is the ma k ocess of d e n eed for go v a rings to ta k k from the p organizatio n g ulation is n h en the fo c v ity. The p o that do not f energy (D r high cost o ? Do consu m of the cost o o rters of T h d the probl e c are acts m m e people d i tiative. Oth e m odern econ o b e d efined a m erican bu s o high or be c l es a probl e o n is appro p o energy p o D efining th e d uction. The y work hard the substan c k ing of a la w e ciding upo n v ernment ac t k e testimony p ublic, lobb y n s may pr o n ot needed. c us is on g e o licy adapt a get good g r ill, baby, d r o f health ca r m ers overus e o f health in s h e Patient P e m in terms m andate to b d efine unem p e rs define u n o my. a s a proble m s inesses se n c ause of tax e m can be d p riate. Defi n o licies that a e energy pr o individuals to maintain c e of the pol w or laws t h n a course o t ion. In Co n about the n a y ing by inte r o vide evide n If the publi c e tting the g a tion stage c syst e poi n (in pro c deci sub c b od y b ra n incl u Chapter 1 g as mileage r ill!)? r e caused b e health car e s urance? Or P rotection a n of access a uy insuran c p loyment a s n employme n m caused b n d jobs ove incentives t o d efined in v n ing the ene r a re intended o blem as in a and organi z n control ov e l icy that is u l h at give th e o f action i n n gress and t a ture of the r est groups, n ce of the c policy is t g overnment c an be very e m of gov e n ts at which s particular) c ess. In sion-makin g c ommittees, y of each n ch decisio n u de execu t 1 3: Public P ) or by de c b y too muc h e because th e are health c n d Afforda b a nd covera g c e as an in fr s a proble m n t as a probl e b y personal e rseas beca u o do so? v ery differ e r gy problem to solve th e a dequate su p z ations who e r how the p o l timately ad o e policy leg n cludes deli b t he executiv e subject bei n citizens, or need for r t o promote a to support lengthy bec e rnment cre a s upporters a can partic Congress g stage s committees house. T h n making t ive depar t P olicy |2 7 c isions to n o h or too litt l e ir employe r c are provide r b le Care A c g e; opponen t fr ingement o m caused by e m caused b values or b u se Americ a e nt ways th a as a proble m e problem b p ply leads t participate i o licy proble m o pted. al force. T h b eration ov e e branch, th n g considere d corporatio n r egulation, o a n activity b policies th a ause the U. S a tes so ma n a nd opponen t ipate in t h alone, t h s inclu d and the f u h e executi v process c a tm ents wi t 7 9 o t l e r s r s c t t s o n a b y b y a n a t m b y t o i n m h e e r is d n s. o r b y a t S n y t s h e h e d e u ll v e a n t h

PAGE 287

280 | Chapter 13: Public Policy policy authority over the proposed policy. The policy adaptation stage culminates with the passage of a law or administrative regulation that identifies the official purposes of the policy. Elected officials often publicly appear at the signing of a popular law, for example, and bureaucratic officials may support a public policy that increases the agencys budget or rule making authority over their area of expertise. 13.32 | Implementation The fifth stage is implementation. Implementa tion is what happens after a policy is put into effect. Implementation is neither au tomatic nor simple. There are three common problems with implementation: ambiguity, communication, and resistance. The first common problem is ambiguity Some policies are not very cl ear or precise: the statutory language may be vague or general. When a st atute or regulation is vague, the individuals responsible for implementing the policy may not know what the policy requires. This problem is fairly common when Congress pass es a general law that described its goals only in very general terms, and then requires the experts or specialists in the bureaucracy to actually define what the law requires or to determine the way to implement the goals of the law. An example of this problem is a law passed by Congress declaring that federal policy supported clean air and clean water. These goalsclean air and clean water require specific definitions that are provided by those authorized to implement the policy of clean air and clean water. Another example of the importance of implementation is the debates surrounding the use of enhanced interrogation as part of the war on terror. The governments official position is that torture is illegal, but the individuals who are conducting field interrogations are sometimes left to define what treatment is torture and what is not torture knowing that there is some suppor t for tough questioning that may cross an unclear line. In fact, police officers, military police, or the FBI and CIA interrogators may not even know what the policy is con cerning legal methods of interrogation. Having an official or general policy agai nst torture does not eliminate the need to define what is, and what is not, torture. In fact any large organization needs clear communication of instructions throughout all of its levels if policies are to be implemented as intended. A common probl em in government and private sector bureaucracies is need to clearly communi cate policies throughout the organizations chain of command, from the top of the organi zation (the policy makers) to the bottom of the organization (the policy followers).

PAGE 288

Chapter 13: Public Policy |281 In addition to the problems of ambiguity and communication, resistance is a third problem with implementation. The implementation problem here is that the individuals who are entrusted with the responsibility to implement or carry out the intentions of the policy may not support it. Resistance or opposition to a policy can make implementation difficult. The police officer may oppose a Su preme Court ruling that the Constitution requires that individuals who are suspected of committing a crime must be notified of their rights before being questioned by the po lice. A public school teacher may oppose a Supreme Court ruling that that prohibits organized, spoken pr ayer in public schools or at school events. The political appointee on the Consumer Products Safety Commission may be opposed to further government regulatio n of business. The head of the Food and Drug Administration may claim that the F DA has the authority to regulate nicotine despite the tobacco lobby successfully stopped efforts to get Congress to pass a law that specifically authorized the FDA to regulate nicotine as a drug.1 The U.S. system of government create s special implementation problems that many other countries do not ha ve. A country with a unitar y form of government does not have to worry about independent local, state, or regional governments that may or may not implement a national policy. A country like the U.S. with a federal system of government has to take into consideration th e fact that a state may not support a national policy and therefore not implement it. Furthe rmore, separation of powers means that the branch of government that makes a law (Congre ss) is not the branch of government that implements or carries it out (the executive) and the branch that makes a law is not the branch that interprets a law when there is a le gal dispute about what it means (the courts). For example, a Democratic Congress may pa ss a law that a Republican President does not support, or simply interprets in a way that differs from the way the Congress understands the law. In contrast, a country w ith a parliamentary system does not have to worry about separate branches of governme nt because the legislative and executive branches are formally connected. A good exam ple of problems with implication is the 2007 political debate about the role of the Co nsumer Products Safety Commission in inspecting goods (ranging from pet foods to pharmaceutical ingredients to toys) imported from China. Republican President George Bush reflected the generally pro-business position of the Republican Party when he appointed an acting head of the CPSC who was did not support increased government regulation of the import busine ss. Democrats in Congress supported increased re gulation of import businesses, particularly those that imported dangerous toys from China where i ndustry inspections and regulation are not a strict as in the United States.2 13.33 | Budgeting In order for a policy to be succe ssful it has to be built into the budget. Take the case of global warming. One way to a ddress global warming is to increase spending on research to develop energy that less harmful to the environment. But if the problem definition stage has identified business, consumer, and id eological opposition to such efforts, then any energy policy that is adopted should incl ude provisions to ensure compliance with the policy. For instance, an en ergy policy that included increased research might have a legal provision authorizing the Environmental Protection Agency to fine energy companies that do not spend a certain pe rcentage of their research budgets on

PAGE 289

282 | Chapter 13: Public Policy environmentally friendly policies. Such a le gal provision has budgetary impacts, and in order to be successful Congress would ha ve to allocate money to the EPA for enforcement of the law. 13.34 | Policy Evaluation The above description of the stages of the polic y process explains why politics does not start with government decision making and it does not stop with the adoption of a policy. Politics includes what happens af ter a bill has become a law. Policy evaluation is determining whether a policy is working as intended. This can be difficult because the subject can be complex (e.g., determining the cause of crime) and because of politics. Some evaluation is based on anecdotal evidence. Anecdotal evidence is stories from a few people that make their way to the ears of an evaluator. Politicians often cite compelling personal stories as evidence that a policy they support is working, or as evidence that a policy they support is not working. Sometimes horror stories and success stories are cherry-picked from the data Evaluation also so metimes relies on public opinion. The political assumption is that a popular policy must be a good policy and an unpopular policy must be a bad policy. But public opinionconventional wisdomcan be mistaken. Social scientists value evaluation that is based on empirical evidence : the systematic analysis of data. However, polic ies are assessed by a va riety of individuals from a variety of perspectives and with a vari ety of goals in mind so it is not surprising that different methods of evaluation are used. 13.35 | Unintended Consequences Public policies frequently have side effect s or unintended consequences. Because policies are typically intended to apply to complex adaptive sy stems (e.g. governments, societies, large companies), making a policy change can have unintended or counterintuitive results. For example, a government may make a policy decision to raise taxes, in hopes of increasing overall tax revenue. Depending on the size of the tax increase, this may have the overall effect of reducing tax revenue by causing capital flight or by creating a rate that is so high that citizens have incentives to NOT earn the money that is taxed. The policy formulation process typically include s an attempt to assess as many areas of potential policy impact as possible, to lesse n the chances that a given policy will have unexpected or unintended consequences. Because of the nature of some complex adaptive systems such as societies and governments, it may not be possible to assess all possible impacts of a given policy. Policies are intended to affect human be havior. When thinking about how to get people to do what you want, it makes sense to think about their motiv ations. One of the most frequently used motivators is money: individuals are paid m oney to do things we want them to do (e.g., work) and fined for doing things we dont want them to do. But money is an imperfect motivator.3 A good example of unintended conseque nces is the public policy supporting wearing a helmet while riding a bicycle. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration recommends that bicyclists wear he lmets as a safety measure to protect against head injuries. Parents often require children to wear bicycle helmets. Should

PAGE 290

Chapter 13: Public Policy |283 local governments require bicyclists to wear helmets while riding on bike paths? The intended consequence is reducing head inju ries. The unintended consequences include increased rates of obesity, incr eased heart disease, and increa sed rates of di abetes because requiring helmets reduces bicycle riding (exercise). Some American cities are adopting bike sharing programs to increase the use of bicycles for urban transportation. Helmets present a problem for such programs. When a major considers a law requiring wearing helmets, the benefits (reduced head injuri es) should be consider ed against the costs (decreased bicycling). 13.4 | Types of Policy Public policies are intended to affect 1) the conditions under which people live and work; and 2), the human behavior of individuals a nd organization. Policies affect conditions by creating safe streets, nationa l security, domestic public order, and economic stability. Policies affect behavior by creating incentives or disincentives to behave in certain ways. Public policy is intended to influence th e decisions that people make. Two broad classifications of public policy are di stributive policy and regulatory policy. 13.41 | Distributive Policies Distributive policies provide goods and services. Gove rnment programs that provide welfare, public education, highways, public safety, or other benefits such as tax deductions and credits are distributive policies. One subcategory of distributive policies that is politically controversial is redistributive policy. A redistri butive policy takes resources from one group of individuals or states (e.g., wealthier, younger, employed, or urban) and transfers them to another group of individuals or states (poorer, older, unemployed, or rural). Social welfare programs are redistributive policies in which money or in-kind services such as food stamps or health care (under Medicaid) are provided to individuals who ca nnot provide them for themselves or to promote income equality and income security. Tax policies that provide for home mortgage interest deductions or reduced tax rates for interest income are also redistributive. One of the most important social welfare policies is Social Security. The Social Security Administration (SSA) Web site provides historical information about the creation of the program and its funding, as well as current information about social security rules, regulations, and policies. The fiscal stability of Social Security has become part of contemporary political debates about entitleme nts in an era where demographic changes are increasing the average ag e of the American public. 13.42 | Regulatory Policies Regulatory policies are those that are intended to change the behavior of individuals or organizations. These policies are generally thought to be best ap plied in situations where good behavior can be easily defined and bad behavior can be easily regulated and punished through fine s or sanctions. Examples of Think about it! Should the government take from one group of people (or states) and give to others?

PAGE 291

284 | Chapter 13: Public Policy regulatory policy include speed limits laws, s in taxes on alcohol, tobacco, or gambling, or tax credits for consumers who buy hybrid ve hicles. Many countri es have population policies, which are intended to either encourage people to have more children or discourage people from having more children. Population policies are important components of a countrys economic policy beca use demographics is such an important factor linked to, among other things, a count rys economic development. Demographics include the age distribution of a countrys population. Having a larger or smaller percentage of younger or older people has great implications for public policies. Chinas one-child policy is an example of a nationa l population policy whose primary objective was to control population increase. Howeve r, policies intended to solve one problem often have other, unintended consequences Chinas one-child policy has controlled population growth, but it has created other problems that are just now emerging. Limiting births has serious long-term implications for a countrys demographics because it affects the ratio of working age indi viduals to the young, el derly, and retired. One policy response to the Great Recession was proposals to increase the regulation of the financial services sector of the economy in order to prevent another crisis in financial services that is so seve re that it threatens to bring down the entire economy, and therefore requires a governme nt bailout. The Obama administration proposed the creation of a Consumer Financia l Protection Bureau. Democratic President Obama appointed Elizabeth Warren as a specia l assistant to create a Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Her testimony (May 24, 2011) before the House of Representatives Subcommittee on TARP and Financial Servi ces of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform revealed sharp partisan differences on government regulation of financial services. In 2012, Warren was electe d as a U.S. Senator from Massachusetts.

PAGE 292

Chapter 13: Public Policy |285 13.5 | Public Policy Issues 13.51 | Social Policy Social policy includes a broad range of public policies: soci al welfare policy (income or service support), health care, and education. Social policy is often distributive policy insofar as it entails taking resources from one group and providing them to another groups, or from a general population to a particular population. Because of the relationship between economic resources (inc ome or wealth) and opportunity, social scientists study the impact of economic inequality. The relationship between income/wealth and education is particularly important because so much emphasis is placed on education as the key to economic oppor tunity and political equality. Studies of performance on standardized tests that are us ed to determine admission to colleges, for example, reveal consistent correlations between family income and performance on standardized tests.4 The importance of education is also reflected in the fact that states have compulsory schooling laws and impose taxes to support public education. In terms of public policy, there are important differen ces among primary, secondary, and college education. Primary and secondary education are considered public goods in the sense that society and the students benefit from the education. College is more complicated. Receiving a college degree is a private good in the sense that it provides an individual with certain benefits, but colle ge is also a public good in the sense that higher education is often part of a states economic development strategy. In fact, re ductions in state tax support for college reflect a nationwide trend to ward education policy that treats college as more of a private good than a public good. This policy shift is occurring against the background of another major change in thinki ng about education policy. More analysts are questioning the economic wisdom of assu ming that everyone should go to college. Is there an education bubble similar to the real estate bubble that played an important role in the Great Recession? Both sectors of the economy benefited from and relied on the perception that valuesproperties and degree swould continue to increase? Are subprime mortgages, which played an important role in bringing about the Great Recession, analogous to sub-prime college degrees? President Obama with Elizabeth Wa rren, a Harvard Law Professor who participated in crafting legislation to regulate the financial industry. Think About It! What is the value of a college degree? See the Public Broadcasting story Assessing the Value of College Education at

PAGE 293

2 2 86 | Cha p 13.5 2 One gove r The U coun t U.S., gros s and D syste m Fro m syste m meas effec t p te r 13: Pu b 2 | Health important c r nments of a U .S. gover n t ries with si m measured a s domestic p D emocrats h m m a national m rates go o ures are use Costth e Access insuranc e Performa n Organiza t t ive health c b lic Polic y Care Poli c c omponent a ll the majo r n ment plays m ilar econo m a s a percent a p roduct, has h ave disagre e policy per s o d, fair, or d to assess h e share of a c the percent a coverage. n cehealth t ions such a c are syste m y c y of a count r r industri a l d a smaller a m ic and pol i a ge of a fam i put health c e d on the b e s pective, a b poor. Th e h ealth care: c ountrys G r a ge of peopl e measures s u s The Com m One poli t r ys social d emocracies a nd differen t i tical syste m i lys budget c are reform o e st solutions b asic quest i e answer d e r oss Domes t e who have a u ch as infan t m onwealth F t ically rele v welfare po l s play a role t role than t m s. The hig h t and as a p e o n the polit i to the prob l i on is whet h e pends in p t ic Product. a ccess to he a t mortality a F und promo v ant fact w h l icy is hea l in providin g t he govern m h cost of hea l e rcentage of i cal agenda. l ems with t h h er the U. S art on whi c a lth care by a nd life expe te the creat i h en thinking l th care. T h g health car e m ents in oth e l th care in t h the country Republica n h e health ca r S health ca r c h of sever a for exampl e ctancy. i on of a mo r about heal t h e e e r h e s n s r e r e a l e r e t h

PAGE 294

Chapter 13: Public Policy |287 care (or virtually any other area of public policy) in the U.S. is federalism. The 50 states have their own role in the design and deliver y of health care. Want more information about your states health care system? The Commonwealth Fund State Scorecard 2009 provides an interactive map that enables a reader to quickly see where the state in which they reside ranks in terms of health ca re on various measures and by overall rank. The question whether the U.S. has a good health care system prompts another question: Compared to what? Comparison is valuable because it pr ovides benchmarks for evaluating policy. Health care systems can be studied from a number of different comparative perspectives. One comparison is historical : comparing the current system with the past system. A second approach is comparative : comparing the U.S. system with those in other countries. This comparative approach involves comparing and contrasting the health care systems in differe nt countries. A third way is to compare the health care sector of the American economy with other sectors of the economy. One comparison involves the use of me dical technology. The American practice of medicine is noted for its advanced t echnology. The reliance on medical technology is a mixed blessing. It can produce amazing outcomes but it is very expensive. The love affair with medical technology has made th e old-fashioned physical exam, a low-cost diagnosis, a dying art. Dr Abraham Verghese, a physician at the Stanford Medical School, described the problem in a semi-serious way: I sometimes j oke that if you come to our hospital missing a finger, no one will believe you until we get a CAT scan, an MRI, and an orthopedic consult. We dont tr ust our senses. Dr. Vergheses comment criticizes the modern medica l profession for becoming so de pendent on machines to tell them about the patient (the I-patient) that doctors do not pay very much attention to the actual patient in the hospital bed. A final comparison involves comparing hea lth care with other sectors of the U.S. economy. The U.S. economy has a manufacturi ng sector, an agri cultural sector, an Comparative Health Care Systems T. R. Reid compares the health care systems in countries with political and economic systems that are similar to th e U.S. and countries with different systems. The results provide valuab le benchmarks for determining the performance of different health care systems. wns/rundown.php?prgId=13&prgDate=824-2009 The comparative costs of health care are examined in this Public Broadcasting System story.

PAGE 295

288 | Chapter 13: Public Policy educational sector, a criminal justice sector, a hospitality sector, a telecommunications sector, and even a fast food sector Comparing the health care and fast food sectors may seem inappropriate because they are so diffe rent. But the fast food industry has developed and applied cost and quality control measures, as well as other organizational practices that might be applicable to the health ca re industry. The two sectors might seem so completely different that the one has little to say about the other, but from an organizational perspective, the attention that restaurant chains have paid to delivering a good (fast food) produce may be relevant to the delivery of a service (health care). Americans brought organizational skills to manu facturing, agriculture, and to the service sector (notably, through ch ain restaurants and lodging). But medicinedoctors and hospitalshave resisted the trend until recently. Doctors were self-employed; now threequarters are employees. Hospitals are also becoming parts of chains. In Big Med, Gawande describes how [restaurant] chains have managed to combing quality control, cost control, and innovation and asks whethe r their organizational principles can do the same for health care.5 Although health care is often described as a system it did not develop as a system but rather as a series of decisions made about indi vidual aspects of health care (e.g., hospital regulations; insurance policies; drug regulations; physician licensing) over a long period of time. For example, the sys tem is surprisingly dependent on tax policy. Taxes are used to raise money to fund gove rnment programs, to discourage certain activities (e.g., smoking), encourage certain be haviors (e.g., marriage; child rearing), or to redistribute wealth (progr essive income taxes). The federal governments health care tax exclusion has grown over time to be an important foundation of large employers provision of health care for employees. 13.53 | The Tobacco Wars One of the early fights over health care po licy was a political and legal campaign to regulate or even ban smoking and the use of other tobacco products. The term tobacco wars refers to the long-running battle between the tobacco industry (primarily growers, manufacturers, and sellers) and the anti-tobacco lobby (the American Medical Association, the American H eart Association, the American Lung Association, and other consumer and public health advocates). The fight over control of t obacco policy has been waged in all political arenas: city gove rnment, state government, and the federal government; congress, the executive branch, and the courts. In the past, the consumption of tobacco was considered a largely private choice to use nicotine. As the adverse health consequences of tobacco use were discovered, however, there was pressure to make tobacco a political issue, to put tobacco on th e political agenda. The efforts included the use of political litigation, or th e use of lawsuits that are inte nded to change public policy. Think About It! Is a tax break the best policy for s ubsidizing health insurance coverage? /12/04/1664342 47/the-huge-andrarely-discussed-health-insurance-tax-break

PAGE 296

Chapter 13: Public Policy |289 The result was a rather complicated system of regulation, which includes limits on the sale of tobacco products (not to minors) and limits on the advertising of tobacco products. In order to understand how much public attitudes to ward smoking have changed over the years it is useful to look at tobacco advertisements. What is especially striking about many of the early tobacco ads is that they explicitly claimed or strongly implied that smoking was healthful. Advertising cam paigns used doctors and nurses to sell cigarettes. They even used images of in fants who seemed to notice that mommy was especially enjoying a particular brand of ci garettes. These advertising campaigns seem shocking today. 13.54 | Environmental Policy American politics today is increasingly orga nized around issues, areas of policy such as civil rights, health care, abortion, crime, education, national security, and the environment. Environmental policy is an exam ple of issue politics. Environmentalism is a broad term that covers many areas of public policy such as air pollution, water pollution, and the conservation of land and other natural resour ces. Water policy has become a very important area of environmenta l politics. As the supply of clean water has become an increasingly scarce resource, wate r has become a contentious political issue for local, regional, state, a nd national government. Historically, water was fairly abundant in the Eastern part of the U.S. East of th e Mississippi River where water was plentiful wasting water meant consuming it needlessly or usi ng too much water. But in the arid regions west of the Mississippi River, where water was always a scarce resource, to waste water meant to not use itto allow rive r water to flow unimpeded and unused downstream and eventually into the ocean wa s considered wasteful. Much of western urban developmentbig cities such as Lo s Angeles, Phoenix, Las Vegas, and San Diegoand agricultural development was made possible by massive dams and irrigation projects that transported water over long distances and even over or around high mountains to where it was needed for thirsty people or thirsty crops. As a result, it was said that in the American West water flows uphilltoward money. Water flows over mountains to fields and cities in southern California.6 On the great plains, the Ogallala (or High Plains) Aquifer that lies beneath much of the country ranging from South Dakota to Texas supports la rge scale industrial agriculture, but this use of ground water can be considered mining as much as farming .7 Underground aquifers are mined for their wa ter the way other minerals such as gold, copper, silver, and coal are mined. The way we think about wa ter complicates efforts to reuse it. For example, the cognitive versus psychological co ntent of water presents a serious challenge for policymakers and private s ector organizations who want to change public opinion about recycling cleaned wastewaterparticul arly recycling sewage water for human consumption. The following National Public Radio story, Water, water everywhere but not a drop to drink ?, explains why people think that cl eaned wastewater is still dirty. Think About It! Water, water everywhere but not a drop to drink? 08/16/139642271/why-cleanedwastewater-stays-dirty-in-our-minds

PAGE 297

290 | Chapter 13: Public Policy As water became a political issue organizations have arisen to advocate on behalf of various water policies and pr actices. For example, the WateReuse Research Foundation is a non-profit corporation whose mi ssion is to conduct and promote applied research on the science of water reuse, recycl ing, reclamation, and desalinatio n. Water politics is not just about conservation or being green. It is a vital resource that has national security implications. 13.55 | Energy Policy The U.S. is a high-consuming natio n. It is not just that the U. S. uses a lot of energyit is, after all a country with a large population. The U.S. is a high-consuming country because Americans have a high per capita use of energy. The following World Bank data compares the per capita consumpti on of energy in various countries.8 The U.S. per person consumption of energy is high compared to other countries. U.S. dependence of foreign oil has been an issue since the 1970s Arab Oil Embargoes. The U.S. has been talking about the need for energy independence ever since then. Energy policy is about producing enough energy, conservation of resources, environmentalism, national security, and econom ics. The discussion of renewable energy is part of a broader concern about sustainabi litywhether it is en ergy sources, fisheries, forestry, mineral deposits, or water supplies. In fact, the discu ssion has included some provocative comments about whether modern civilization as we know it is even sustainable. For a satirical view on political rhetoric about the importance of U.S. energy independence see The Daily Shows An Energy-Independent Future.

PAGE 298

Chapter 13: Public Policy |291 13.56 | Sustainability Sustainability is an important concept in environmental policy. Sustainable forestry practices harvest trees while keeping enough and healthy forest s. Sustainable agriculture refers to farming practices that incorporat e productivity with concern for maintaining water and soil quality. Marine su stainability refers to fishing practices that maintain sustainable stocks of fish and h ealthy natural fisheries. The Marine Stewardship Council is a global organization that works with fisheries, companies, scientists, conservation groups, and the general public to promote su stainable fisheries by labeling seafood as certified sustainable seafood. Do you care whether the fish you in the market or eat in a restaurant is obtained using sustainable fishin g practices? Is the cer tified sustainable label about science or economics? 13.6 | Additional Resources 13.61 | Internet Resources Congress funds the Congressional Research Se rvice, which provides detailed descriptions and analyses of public polic y issues. The Web site The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) Web site offers Congr esss opinions on budget matters including statistics, reports, budget reviews, testimony, and more. The American Enterprise Institute is a conserva tive think tank that addresses a variety of issues. Its Web site offers information on thei r calendar of events, a variety of articles, and links: Think About It! What Does Sustainable Fishing Mean? Think About It! Is modern civilization sustainable? Is civilization a bad idea?

PAGE 299

292 | Chapter 13: Public Policy The Brookings Institution is th e oldest think tank in Ameri ca and has the reputation of being fairly moderate. Its Web site offers policy briefings, articles, books, The Brookings Review, discussion groups, and links. The Cato Institute is a libertarian think tank promoting free market ideas. Its Web site offers a variety of articles and links. U.S. Department of Health and Human Servi ces offers information about public policies related to health and other issues under their purview. Almanac of Policy Issues has a wide array of information about policy related issues and has numerous links to more information. 13.62 | In the Library Arthur Benabie. Social Securi ty Under the Gun. Palgrave, 2003. Rebecca Blank et. al. (eds). The New World of Welfare. The Brookings Institution, 2001. Robert Bryce. Gusher of Lies: The Dange rous Delusions of "Energy Independence". Public Affairs, 2009. Paul K. Conkin. The State of the Earth: E nvironmental Challenges on the Road to 2100. University Press of Kentucky, 2008. Peter A. Diamond and Peter R. Orszag. Savi ng Social Security: A Balanced Approach. Brookings Institution Press, 2004. Diana M. Dinitto and Linda Cummins. Social Welfare: Politics and Public Policy. Allyn & Bacon, Inc., 2004. Barbara Ehrenreich. Being Nickeled and Di med: On (Not) Getting By in America. Metropolitan Books, 2001. Peter J. Ferrara and Michael Tanner. A New Deal for Social Security. The Cato Institute, 1998. Neil Gilbert and Amitai Etzioni. Transforma tion of the Welfare State: The Silent Surrender of Public Responsibility. Oxford University Press, 2002. Michael Katz. The Price of Citizenship: Redefining the American Welfare State. Metropolitan Books, 2001. David Kelly. A Life of Ones Own: Individual Rights and the Welfare State. The Cato Institute. 1998. Sally Kneidel. Going Green: A Wise Consum er's Guide to a Shrinking Planet. Fulcrum Publishing, 2009. Jennie Jacobs Kronenfeld. The Changing Federal Role in U.S. Health Care Policy. Praeger Publishing, 1997. Kelly Lee et. al. (eds). H ealth Policy in a Globalising World. Cambridge University Press, 2002. Sanford Schram. After Welfare: The Culture of Postindustrial Soci al Policy. New York University Press, 2000. Robert Stevens and Rosemary Stevens. Welf are Medicine in Amer ica: A Case Study of Medicaid. Transaction Publishers, 2003.

PAGE 300

Chapter 13: Public Policy |293 Study Questions 1.How do issues get on the political and government agendas? 2. What issues are most likely to make it onto these agendas? 3.What are the stages of the policy process? 4.What are the challenges in implementing policy? 5.Describe the problem of unintended consequences. 6.How has policymaking changed over time? Joseph White. False Alarm (Century Foundation Book Series): Why the Greatest Threat to Social Security and Medicare is the Campaign to Save Them. Johns Hopkins University Press, 2003. David Zucchino. Myth of the Welfare Queen: A Pulitzer Prize-Winning Journalists Portrait of Wo men on the Line. Touchstone Books, 1999. 1 ty/recalls/default.htm 2 For an idea of the many kinds of consumer produ cts that the CPSC reviews see 3 See 4 See 5 Atul Gawande, Big Med, The New Yorker (August 13, 2012): 53-63. 6 Quoted in Richard Knox, The Dy ing Art of the Physical Exam, All Things Considered, Morning Edition, National Public Radio (September 20, 2010). tion=1&t=1&islist=false&id=129931999&m=12998429 6 7 lains/OHP/index.shtml Key Terms Policy Public policy Domestic policies Foreign policy Agenda setting Policy adoption Policy evaluation Distributive policies Regulatory policies

PAGE 301

294 | Chapter 13: Public Policy 8 See _pcap_kg_oe&idim=country:USA:ALB:AUS:ARG:BHR:IRN to examine the energy use of additional countries. The original data is available from

PAGE 302

CHAPTER 14: Economic Policy

PAGE 303

296 | Chapter 14: Economic Policy 14.0 | Economic Policy What does economics have to do with politic s? What is the relationship between capitalism and democracy? And how does th e government make economic policy? These are important questions about govern ment and the economy in all forms of government but the answers vary a great de al depending on the countrys economic and political systems. This chapter examines th ree related issues about government and the economy. The relationship between economics and politics. It can be useful to think of the economic system as independent of the pol itical system (in the same way that it can be useful to think of the legal system as separate from the political system) but economics like law) is not completely separate from politics. Government includes politics, economics, and law. This chapter explains how these systems work together. Economic Policy. The chapter examines fiscal policy and monetary policy, the two main components of economic policy th at the government uses to achieve its goals. The relationship between economic power and political power. Does economic power create political power? Does economic inequality create political inequality? Does the distribution of inco me and wealth affect justice? These are all aspects of the power problem with economics. 14.1 | The Market Model and the Government Model One aspect of the power problem is finding th e right balance between the private sector and the public sector. The private sector is basically the market model for maintaining good social order, providing goods and servic es, and allocating scarce resources. The public sector is basically the government model for providing these functions. The tensions between the private sector/marke t model and the public sector/government model have been one of the re curring themes in American po litics from the earliest days of the republic. The current debates about the size of the federal government, and the belief that government has gotten too big, can be traced to what happened to the size of the government during the 20th Century. It got bigger relati ve to the private sector. In Government versus Markets: The Changi ng Economic Role of the State (2011), Vito Tanzi compares government spending as a sh are of a countrys national income in 1870 and 2007.1 The numbers explain why the size of the national government and the size of the national debt have become such important political issues in American politics.

PAGE 304

Chapter 14: Economic Policy | 297 Table 14.1 Country Share of National Income By Year 1870 2007 U.S. 7.3% 36.6% Great Britain 9.4% 44.6% Germany 10.0% 43.9% France 12.6% 52.6% The numbers reveal a clear trend toward bigge r government, measured as a share of gross domestic product, in western democracies. There are two main concerns about the expansion of government. The first concern is that the expansion of governmentthat is, the public sectorresults in th e contraction of the private sector (that is, business and civil society). A second con cern is that this expansion of government occurred during a period of population increases and high ra tes of economic growth and population increases in western countries. But times have changed. These same countries now face three new conditions that, taken together, pr esent serious challenges for the economic and political systems. The first problem is lo w rates of population growth. Low rates of population growth also contribute to the second problem: comparatively low rates of economic growth. Third, demographic changes, specifically aging populations, mean that the countries will have an increase in the proportion of older workers and older citizens who require more social services such as Soci al Security and health care (Medicare). An aging population means a decrease in the ratio of working age people (the producers) to non-working age people (the consumers). The population increases, increases in productivity, and high rates of economic growth produced prosperity. Pr osperity and the belief that the pie was continually getting bigger and bigger meant that politics did not se em to be about scarcity and the need to allocate scarce resources. Economic conflicts between liberals and conservatives, Democrats and Republicans, were muted. The prospect of austerity has sharpened the debates and the conflicts becau se politics now seems to be a zero sum game where one persons (or sides) increase means another persons (or sides) decrease. 14.12 | Politics and The Market One indication of the importance of economics is the large number of interest groups, think tanks, policy organizati ons, professional associatio ns, and trade groups whose organizational missions include economic issu es. Economic interest groups of all kinds lobby on behalf of their members: business, labo r, professional associations, agriculture, manufacturing, service industries, and intellectual property. In fact, economics is so important that The Market is used as a metaphor for the economy, Wall Street is used as a metaphor for the financial serv ices sector of the economy, and Main Street is used as a metaphor for the small business sector of the economy.

PAGE 305

298 | Chapter 14: Economic Policy 14.13 | The Relationship between Politics and Economics The 19th Century term political economy described the close relations hip of politics and economics. Today the term economic policy is more commonly used to describe government positions on economic activities related to the production of good and the provision of services. The close relationship between politics and economics is reflected in public opinion polls that regularly ask pe ople what they think are the most important issues facing the nation. The surveys consistently identify three issues: Crime (policies to provide public safety) Economics (policies to provide st ability and prosperity) National security (foreign and defense policy) The ranked order of the importance of these three issues varies depending upon circumstances. During good economic times, vot ers consider national security or crime policy more important than economics. During bad economic times (recessions, depressions, high inflation, or high unemploym ent), economics is likely to be ranked number one. During times of war, the threat of war, or terrorism, the public is most concerned about national security. And when crime rates are high or increasing, worries about public safety make crime a high prio rity issue. People everywhere expect protection them from foreign threats, crime, and economic insecurity. They can provide the protection themselves (e.g., self-defense or private security guard s), they can rely on civil society organizations to provide it (e.g., neighborhood watch groups or militia), they can rely on businesses to provide it, or they can re ly on the government to provide it. National security, crime, and economics are political because they are basic responsibilities that governments everywhere are crea ted to address. The American political experience demonstrates the strong connections between economics and politics from the founding era until today. What is the Dow Jones Industrial Average? The Dow Jones Industrial Average is one indicator of how the economy is doing. But the DJIA is no longer comprised of stock prices of industrial companies, as the name implies? The components of the Dow are changed every few years to reflect the breadth of the U.S. economy and to drop companies that are not doing well. In 2011, the 30 DJIA companies included four financial firms, two giant retailers, one restaura nt chain, five consum er-products makers, two telecommunications firms, three drug companies, five high-tech firms and an entertainment conglomerate. It had only five traditional manufacturers Caterpillar, Alcoa, United Technologies, 3M and General Electric plus a couple of energy companies. The Dow is not merely a collection of the largest U.S. firms. It does not include Apple which trades places with Exxon Mobil as the biggest company in America or Google, which has a larger market capitalization (the number of shares outstanding multiplied by price) than Wal-Mart, which is listed on the Dow. And these companies are multin ational companies that do business globally

PAGE 306

Chapter 14: Economic Policy | 299 14.2 | Economic History 14.21 | The Founding Era Economic conditions played an important ro le in the founding of the Republic when economic instability, including steep increases in the cost of living, contributed to political instability. When Benjamin Franklin returned to America in 1762 after spending almost five years abroad he wrote: The e xpence of living is greatly advancd in my absence. Rent of old houses, and the value of landsare trebled in the past six years. Franklin was describing an early American real estate bubble An economic bubble occurs when the value of an asset increases so fast that its price gets so high compared to other economic measures such as income that the price cannot be sustained and ultimately collapses. When the real estate bubble that Franklin described finally popped, credit was tightened, and a recession ensued. These were some of the bad economic times that caused political discontent that eventu ally contributed to the American Revolution.2 Scholars still debate the relative im portance of political ideas and economic conditions on the American Re volution. Some scholars stress the importance of the colonists commitment to political ideas including freedom, democracy, equality, and justice. Others stress the importance of ec onomic conditions and the economic interests of the wealthy or property owning classes. Regardless of whether political ideas or economics were more important, economics co ntributed to the founding of the republic. Shays Rebellion is an often told story. In th e fall of 1786 and winter of 1787, Daniel Shays and other Revolutionary War veterans conducted an armed march on the capital of Massachusetts. They were protesti ng mortgage foreclosures of their farms and businesses due to bad economic times, and de manded debt relief from the government. Political leaders were worried that bad econom ic conditions were creat ing political unrest that included mob violence. The fear of such unrest was one of the reasons for calling the Constitutional Convention in the summer of 17 87. The national governments role in the economy was debated during the Convention. The Constitution they wrote gave the national government important economic powers, including the power to tax and spend, the exclusive power to coin money, the po wer to regulate interstate and foreign commerce, and the power to quell the domestic disturbances that resulted from bad economic times. Economic issues remained important durin g the early years of the republic when political debates centered on the national gove rnments role in the economy. In fact, differences of opinion about economic policy played an important role in the emergence of the first political parties. The Federali st Party supported a nati onal government with a strong and active role in economic developm ent. Alexander Hamilton was a Federalist who, as Secretary of the Treasury, advocated using the national governments power to develop a national economy. The other majo r political party, the Jeffersonians or Democratic-Republicans, believed that economic matters were the primary responsibility of the state governments. The two major partie s still debate the govern ments role in the economy. 14.22 | The Industrial Revolution

PAGE 307

300 | Chapter 14: Economic Policy Dorothea Lange. 1936. Migrant Mother In the U.S., the Industrial Revolution occurred in the middle years of the 19th Century. It changed the economy from a primarily agrari an and small-business economy, dominated by landowners and small entrepre neurial craftsmen, to an industrial economy where large corporations dominated various sectors of the economy. Big corpora tions developed in transportation (railroads), ma nufacturing (steel), energy (oil), and finance. The Industrial Revolution also changed the social and political systems. 14.23 | The Progressive Era The Progressive Era extended from around 1890 until 1920. Progressives were social reformers who tried to address some of th e problems caused by the Industrial Revolution. They believed that big government was necessary to regulate big busin ess (corporations). Progressives advocated social welfare legi slation to protect in dividuals from the economic insecurities of the marketplace. Progressive Era legislation included child labor laws, minimum wage and maximum hour la ws, and workplace safety laws. The Progressive Era laid the groundwork for the expa nsion of the social welfare state in the 20th Century. 14.24 | The Great Depression In the 19th Century economic downturns were aptly called panics because they caused people rush to withdraw their money from banks, and when banks could not meet the demands of such runs on banks, panic ensued. The 1920s were called the Roaring Twenties because of the good economic times. The good times ended with a stock market crash in late October of 1929. A worldwide economic downturn in the 1930s was called the Great Depression The Great Depression changed th e relationship between government and the economy in the U.S. and elsewhere. The severe economic downturn depression caused high unemployment, bank and factory closings, bankruptcies, and a The struggles between small bus iness (local and mom and pop hardware stores, electroni c stores, clothing stores, and grocery stores) and big business occurred long before WalMart and other big box stores put local businesses out of business. Listen to the stor y of The Great A&P and the Struggle for Small Business in America. list=false&id=139848775&m=139870174

PAGE 308

Chapter 14: Economic Policy | 301 collapse of farm prices. The American peopl e did not merely accept these hardships as part of the normal boom-and-bust business cy cle. They expected government to do something about the shortage of jobs, food, and shelter and the government responded to public opinion with a major change in economic policy. Nineteenth Century economic policy promoted economic development: the settling of the frontier; the expansion of th e railroads; the developm ent of manufacturing and oil industries; and the promotion of exports. Economic policy encouraged and rewarded entrepreneurial risk-taking more th an protecting individuals from the economic insecurity of the business cycle, youth, old age, or infirmity. The New Deal policies of the Roosevelt administration (1933-1945) emphasized income security by providing disability benefits, unemployment insuranc e, and retirement benefits. Today these programs are collectively referred to as the social welfare state. 14.25 | Ideology and the Role of Government in the Economy The Great Depression also challenged the prevailing laissez faire economic theory, which held that the government should not interv ene in the marketplace because market competition will naturally provide order, stability, and prosper ity. An ideology is a set of beliefs. One of those beliefs is about th e governments role in the economy. The following describes four economic theories about the size and role of government in economic affairs. Government and the Economy Size Small Medium Large Theorist Adam Smith John Maynard Keynes Karl Marx Type of economic system Free Market Model (Laissez faire) Mixed Economy Regulated and Subsidized Managed Controlled Government Model Adam Smiths The Wealth of Nations (1776) is considered the most important early modern work describing a market altern ative to the prevailing economic theory of mercantilism. Mercantilism is an economic th eory that the government should direct, manage, and license economic activity for th e good of the nation. The British Empire was built by mercantilist policies. The Brit ish government licensed economic activity in the American colonies for the good of the empi re. Mercantilism is a statist theory because it relies heavily on government management of economic activity. Adam Smith was a revolutionary thinker because he challenge d the prevailing wisdom of the day that government management of economic activity was essential to maintaining good social order, political stability, and economic prosperity. Mercantilism assumed that the government created order. In The Wealth of Nations Smith argued that the free market, while appearing chaotic and unrestrained, is actually guided by an invisible hand to produce the right amount and vari ety of goods. A natural pr ice for a product is set by the following marketplace dynamics: A product shortage will increase the price, thereby

PAGE 309

302 | Chapter 14: Economic Policy stimulating more production; overproduction w ill decrease price, thereby causing less production until equilibrium is reached. Smith assumed that humans were by nature self-interested. But he did not think that government power was the best way to co ntrol people. He believed that individual selfishness and greed were checked and bala nced by other self-interested individuals. Competition, not government control, kept individuals in check and coincidentally benefited society as a whole. In this respect, Smith made selfishness an economic virtue the way that James Madison made selfishness a political virtue. According to Smith, Adam Smith (1723-1790) laissez faire theory challenged mercantilism which was the prevailing economic theory of the 18th Century. John Maynard Keynes was a British political economist who challenged laissez fa ire theory in the first half of the 20th Century. In The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money (1936), Keynes argued that governments should use fiscal policy (the taxing and spending powers embodied in the budget) to achieve economic stability and prosperity. His theories influenced President Franklin Delano Roosevelts New Deal programs that used fiscal policy to end the Great Depression of the 1930s and Lyndon Johnsons Great Society programs in the 1960s. John Maynard Keynes lent his name to Keynesian economic theory which assumes that the government can and should intervene in the economy to 1) regulate the extremes of the boom-and-bust business cycle; and 2) provide economic stability. It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their rega rd to their own interest. We address ourselves, not to their humanity but to their self-love, and never talk to them of our own necessities but of their advantages. [As every individual strives to use his capital and his labor to greatest advantage] he neither intends to promote the public interest, nor knows how much he is promoting it.[H]e intends only his own gain, and he is in this, as in many other cases, led by an invisible hand to promote an end which was no part of his intention. By pursuing his own interest he frequently promotes that of society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it. I have never known much good done by those who affected to trade for the public good. It is an affectation, indeed, not very common among merchants, and very few words need by employed in dissuading them from it.1

PAGE 310

Chapter 14: Economic Policy | 303 The belief that Keynesian economic theory im plemented during the New Deal helped the country out of the 1930s Depression made Keynesian economics the new prevailing theory of government and the economy. 14.3 | The Great Recession The severe economic downturn that began in late 2007 was initially considered just another stage in the regular business cycle of expansion an d contraction. The boom and bust business cycle is a familiar economic experience. Figure 14 below illustrates the business cycle with specific economic dow nturns noted, most notably the Great Depression, a severe and long-lasting econom ic downturn, and the Great Recession. The Great Recession officially ended with a retu rn to economic growth. But the rate of growth has remained comparatively low, job creation has lagged be hind other recoveries, and wages have remained stagnant. The li ngering bad economic times suggest that the Great Recession was not part of the normal business cycle of expansion and contraction but rather an indication of a broade r, structural change in the economy. Figure 14.3 The Business Cycle (of Expansion, or Booms, and Contraction, or Busts) Expansion Contraction 19th Century 1930s 1970s 2007-2009 Panics Great Depression Stagflation Great Recession 14.31 | Whats In a Name? What is a recession, and how is it different than a depression? And wh at is so great about the Great Depression and the Great Recession? In the 19th Century, financial crises were called panics because they often included a run on bank deposits. After the Great Think About It! Some new ideas in the sciences have cross-over appeal in the social sciences. Was Charles Darwin the fath er of economics? What does natural selection have to do with economics? iness/july-dec11/makingsense_1118.html

PAGE 311

304 | Chapter 14: Economic Policy Depression, economic downturns were call ed recessions partly because the word recession did not recall the bad memories of the 1930s. Government officials are not encouraged to use the word recession eith er because it reminds voters of bad economic times. In 1978 President Carters economic advisor Alfred Kahn was chided by the administration for warning that efforts to fight inflation were likely to produce a recession. President Carter did not want one of his leading economic advisors talking about a looming recession during a reelection campaign. So when Kahn spoke publicly about the likelihood that fighti ng inflation would cause a rece ssion, he simply substituted the word banana for the word recession. He warned, Were in danger of having the worst banana in 45 years.3 The organization that officially designates economic conditions a recession is the National Bureau of Economic Research. The National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) defines a recession as a significant decline in economic activity spread across the economy, normally visible in real GDP real income, employment, industrial production, and wholesale-retail sales. The NBERs Business Cycle Dating Committee maintains a chronology of the U.S. business cy cle that identifies th e dates of peaks and troughs that frame economic recession or expansion. The period from a peak to a trough is a recession and the period from a trough to a peak is an expansion. According to the chronology, the most recent peak occurred in March 2001, ending a record-long expansion that began in 1991. The most recent trough occurred in November 2001, inaugurating an expansion. A recession begins just after the economy reaches a peak of activity and ends as the economy reaches its trough. Between trough and peak, the economy is in an expansion. Expansion is the normal state of the economy. Most recessions are brief and they have been rare in recent decades. The NBER reported that the Great Recession officially started in December 2007 and ended in June 2009. 14.32 | A Structural Change in the Economy? The depth and length of the economic downtur n made economists and political officials wonder whether the downturn was not merely the normal business cycle but rather a structural change in the U.S. economy. A structural change is a major economic transformation similar to the Industrial Revolution, which br ought about the change from an agrarian to an industrial economy, and th en the post-industrial transformation from a manufacturing economy to an informationand service-economy. Figure 15 (above) leaves the direction of economic expansion and the shape of the next business cycle open because of uncertainty about whether the end of Great Recession will bring a return to the regular business cycle or whether the Great Re cession marked a structural change in the economy. To date, the economic recovery has pr oduced disappointing job creation numbers and unemployment remains high by historical standards. One reason why the economic recovery has not produced more jobs is technology and the increased economic productivity it brings. In The Great Stagnation: Why Hasnt Recent Technology Created More Jobs? economists explain why t echnology can cause unemployment. The managing director of a U.S. manufacturin g company, Vista Te chnologies, bluntly explained why his company and other companies prefer to buy equipmen t rather than hire employees.4 He dreaded the hiring process: si fting through poorly written resumes;

PAGE 312

Chapter 14: Economic Policy | 305 interviewing applicants; paying for drug te sting and mandated safety programs; and training new employees. Furthermore, during the period after the Great Recession the cost of capital became relatively much cheaper than the cost of labor because the federal government adopted monetary policy that kept interests rate (the cost of money) at historically low levels. The increase in labor costs was not due to wage increases as much as increased costs of employee benefits, mainly health care costs. One common business strategy to control costs is to purchase equi pment and automate produc tion rather than to hire new employees. This is why the compar atively lower cost of capital has had a negative effect on job creation. The negative impact is com pounded by the fact that much of the equipment has been purchased from fo reign manufacturers. Capital costs are also lower than labor costs because public policie s such as accelerated capital depreciation provide tax breaks for capital investments. There are two reasons why manufacturing no longer produces the jobs that it once did for: globalization and technology. Globa lization has meant that U.S. manufacturing jobs have been sent abroad to low wage countriesfirst to Japan and more recently to China and India and other regions of the world. Technology has meant the increased use of computer-aided industrial production. Modern factories use robotics rather than more workers to increase production. The elimin ation of jobs and th e resulting downward pressure on wages has had a significant im pact on the American dream of upward mobility. In Making It in America, Adam Davidson describes the remnant workforce, the smaller workforce remaining in manufacturi ng in the U.S. He argues that this remnant workforce must be highly trained. During much of the 20th century, simultaneous technological improvements in both agricu lture and industry happened to create conditions that were favorable for people w ith less skill. The development of mass production allowed low-skilled farmers to m ove to the city and get jobs in highly productive factories. The change from an agricultural to an indus trial economy adversely affected the highly skilled craftsperson. By contrast, the loss of manufacturing jobs is ending one of the ways that low-skilled workers could join the middle class.5 14.33 | Why the U.S. Business Cycle is So Clo sely Related to the Electoral Cycles The Great Recession had an immediate imp act on politics and government. The initial reaction was a massive government bailout of businesses. The bailouts were followed by fiscal and monetary policies that were intended to stimula te the economy. One result of these economic policies was massive government deficits. The initial political reaction to the economic crisis and the massive increases in deficit spending was voter dissatisfaction. Barack Obama (Democrat) won the 2008 presidential election promising economic change. Voter anxiety about the economy resu lted in big Republican gains in the 2010 mid-term and state electionsRepublicans gained 69 seats in Congress. The political lesson of the Great Recession is that voters hold the government accountable for economic conditi ons. The public expects the national government to take decisive action in times of economic crisis to stabilize the economy. Think about it! I want to have as few people touching our products as possible. Everything should be as automated as it can be. We just cant afford to compete with countries like China on labor costs Dan Mishak, Managing Director, Vista Technologies

PAGE 313

306 | Chapter 14: Economic Policy The political impact of economic downturns is greater in the U.S. than in other western democracies because the U.S. has a smaller social welfare safety net. In the U.S., the loss of a job means the loss of income. The problem of job and income loss is compounded by the fact that the U.S. has a system of health care insu rance that is based on employment. The loss of a job often means the loss of health care insurance. As a result, unemployment greatly de creases income security in the U.S. This economic insecurity has made the U.S. political system very sensitive to the unemployment rate. Furthermore, two major parts of the soci al welfare system, Social Security and Medicare, are not even designed to s upport unemployed young people. They provide income security primarily for the elderly. Thes e aspects of the U.S. social welfare safety net explain why high rates of long-term unemployment for young people present such a serious economic and political challenge. One additional factor strengthening the link between the business and political cycles is the fact that the U.S. economy is a consumer ec onomy. Around two-thirds of the gross domestic product is consumer spending. The decades prior to the Great Recession were marked by high rates of individual consum ption, high rates of de bt, and low rates of savings. Economic downturns have a direct impact on personal income, thereby reinforcing downturns rather than working as a countervailing force. The belief that the Great Recession is part of a long-term structural change in the U.S. economy, and not merely yet another business cycle, has stimul ated interest in changing economic policy to encourage production and saving rather than c onsumption. In order to be successful, a pro-production economic policy will have to ch ange economic behavior. One strategy for increasing savings ra tes is increasing financial literacy. Even Sesame Street is being used to teach children (and adults) about financial literacy and the importance of delaying gratification in order to increase savings rates. 14.4 | A Regular Cycle of Economic Crises? The Great Recession began in the financial se rvices sector of th e economy. It had an immediate impact on government and politic s. The passage of the Troubled Asset Recovery Program and the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 are evidence of the close relationship between economics and politics. Economic problems tend to become political problems, and severe eco nomic problems become major political problems. In the latter part of the 19th Century, economic downturns created populist and nativist reactions that included hostility toward immigrants Catholics, Jews, and Blacks. The worldwide economic downturn in the early 1930s resulted in totalitarian governments in Germany, Japan, and Italy. In the 1970s the U.S. suffered from two economic problems that do not usually occur to gether: inflation and low growth. Inflation usually results from high growth, not low gr owth. The unusual combination of a stagnant economy and high inflation was caused by am ong other things an oil embargo that Are U.S. Wages Enough to Live On? wn/2012/05/are-us-wages-enoughto-live-on.html

PAGE 314

Chapter 14: Economic Policy | 307 greatly increased energy costs and decreased economic growth. A new term, stagflation, was coined to describe the unusual economic conditions. The economic problems of the 1970s d ecreased public confid ence in American government and private sector institutions. The Great Recession produced a similar decrease in public confidence in institutions. But it has also had a significant impact on generational wellbeing, class, and social st atus. It has created a unique group: the formerly middle class. These are people who ach ieved middle-class status at the tail end of the long economic boom, and then lost it wh en they became the fi rst ones to drop out of the middle class because they were the la st ones whose upward mobility allowed them to join the middle class. This is polit ically significant because downward mobility conflicts with the American belief in upward mobility Upward mobility is almost considered an American birthright, part of the American dream: if you have ability and work hard then you will prosper. Downward mobility includes career setbacks, lifestyle setbacks, housing setbacks, a nd social capital re versals. David Brooks, a conservative commentator, concluded that the loss of a social identity, the loss of the status symbols that suggest an elevated pl ace in the social order will likely produce a lienation and a political response. If you want to know where the next big social movements will come from, Id say the formerly middle class.6 The Great Recession has renewed questi ons about why the U.S. experiences repeated cycles of crises in the financial sector of the economy that require government bailouts. In the 1980s, the Savings and Loan industry required a government bailout. A dot-com bubble in the high-tech sector burst in 2000. The Gr eat Recession was caused by, among other factors, banking and investment practices that included risky behavior, corruption, scandals, and fraud. It produced em ergency legislation such as the Troubled Asset Relief Program whose government bail out provisions were intended to avoid a financial meltdown. This pattern of busine ss crises followed by government bailouts is not the normal working of the marketplace where the rise and fall of businesses is considered natural. Why do corporate executives engage in risky or bad business practices that jeopardize their company and the economy? The first answer that comes to mind is that even smart people make some mistakes. But this individual-level explanation overlooks organization-level explanations. The first organi zational explanation is that some decision makers are insulated from the adverse conse quences of their bad decisions. The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (the FDIC) is a federal program that guarantees bank deposits in savings accounts. A second organizational explanation is even more important in explaining risky corporate be havior particularly in the financial services sector of the economy: the separation of ownership and mana gement in modern corporations. In the good old days of small business, the people who owned a business were the people who actually ran it. They were risking their money. The typical co rporation is run by managers rather than owners. The managers of financial services companies are not using their own money. They are play ing with (or risking) othe r peoples money (investors). People in the financial services sector of the economy are more likely to engage in riskier behavior. This is not a new problem. It is an organizational problem that was recognized as early as 1932 in Adolf Berles The Modern Corporation and Private Property. It is one of the reasons why the government provides insurance for bank deposits through the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC).

PAGE 315

308 | Chapter 14: Economic Policy A second explanation is the moral hazard The moral hazard refers to a situation where a decision maker does not assume the cost s or responsibilities of a decision and is therefore likely to make riskier decisions or mo re decisions than they would make if they knew that they would be responsible for th eir bad decisions. The fact that the FDIC insures bank deposits, and the fact that some companies are considered too big to be allowed to fail, means that th e government is protecting bank ers or other business leaders from the negative consequences of their risky or bad decisions. This is the moral hazard. The moral hazard is one explanation for the modern era pattern of financial crises and bailouts. 14.41 | Follow the Money When the Washington Post reporters Bob W oodward and Carl Bernstein were investigating the Watergate s candal in the early 1970s, they were advised by a secret source to follow the money. Money often leaves an interesting trail. In 2008, New York State Governor Eliot Spitzer, an amb itious Democrat with a promising national career, unexpectedly resigned his office. The media focused on the scandal angle of a high-profile political figure paying a great deal of money to high-priced prostitutes. The rest of the story was also interesting because it exposed to the general public how extensively the government monitors financial transactions. The government used sophisticated computer software that tracks Think About It! Does the Moral Hazard explain why bankers become banksters? Banksters is the title of an Economist article (July 7, 2012) about British bankers illegally manipulating an important interest rate called the LIBOR (London Interbank offer rate). /21558260 Are the recurring financial crises evidence of recidivism? Massachusetts Institute of Technology Finance Professor Andrew Lo discusses the recurring cycles of financial crises and government bailouts in the Public Broadcasting System story, Evaluating and Preventing a Massive Financial Crisis

PAGE 316

Chapter 14: Economic Policy | 309 almost all financial transactions to discover that Spitzer paid large sums of money to high-priced prostitutes. Large cash trans actions are easy to spot because banks are required to report transactions over $10,000. Computer software also tracks small financial transactions in order to detect pattern of suspicious activity.7 The ability of the private sector and the government to track al most all financial transactions for good or ill raises serious questions about the use of such information in an age where information is power. 14.5 | Governments Economic Tool Box: Fiscal Policy Fiscal policy is the governments use of taxing and spending powers to achieve policy goals. Fiscal policy is reflected in the budget. A budget is a political document because politics can be defined as the authoritativ e allocation of scarce resources. The budget is where you see policy priorities. Senator and later Vice-president Joe Biden often people of his fathers saying: Dont tell me what you value. Show me what your budget is and Ill tell you what your values are. The federal governments fiscal policy is reflected in the federal governments annual budget for the fiscal year, which begins October 1st. A states fiscal policy is reflected in the states budget. 14.51 | Who Makes Fiscal Policy? Congress and the president make fiscal policy Until the early years of the 20th Century, Congress exerted almost complete control ove r fiscal policy because it has the power to tax and to spend. Congress passed the annua l federal budget. Today the president plays an extremely important role in making fiscal policy. For instance, the president begins the annual budget process by introducing the administrations budget in Congress. Congress then holds committee hearings on the va rious budget proposals, debates the various provisions of the administratio ns budget priorities assesses the administrations taxing and spending policies, and th en adjusts the administrations priorities to reflect congressional priorities. Congr ess then enacts the federal budget for the fiscal year. The politics of the budget includes debates about literally thousands of programs for law enforcement, social security, educatio n, health care, national security and trade policy. But the most politically salient debates about the bud get and fiscal policy center on the budget deficit. Deficit spending occurs when government spending exceeds revenue in a fiscal year and the year ends with red ink. If the government spends more than it taxes, the fiscal year ends with a budget deficit. The national debt is the cumulative budget deficits. 14.52 | Budget Deficits Budget deficits are not usually accidents, mi stakes, bad mathematics, or the result of incompetent accountants or emergencies. Th e red ink of budget deficit (spending more than tax revenue in a fiscal y ear) is usually intentional. Fi scal policy is the use of the taxing and spending policies to achieve pub lic policy goals. Keynes believed that government should use fiscal policy to mana ge the business cycle, to moderate the

PAGE 317

310 | Chapter 14: Economic Policy extremes of expansion and contraction, to avoid the boom (the rapid economic expansion that leads to inflation) and bust (recessi on or depression). The term Keynesian economics refers to the government using ta xing and spending policies to manage the economy. The logic of using fiscal policy to moderate the business cycle and achieve economic stability is fairly simple. During a time of rapid economic growth (a boom period), the governments fiscal policy c ould increase taxes and/or cut government spending. Increasing taxes and decreasing spending remove money from the economy, thereby slowing economic growth. It has a deflationary effect on the economy. During a downturn in the business cycle fiscal pol icy could decrease taxes and/or increase government spending. Cutting taxes and increa sing spending puts more money into the economy, thereby stimulating economic growth. Deficit spending has an inflationary effect on the economy; austerity budgets have a recessionary effect on the economy. Fiscal policy is intended to have a count er-cyclical effect on the business cycle. 14.53 | Taxes Taxes are used for a variety of purposes: to raise money; to subsidize behavior or goals; to regulate behavior; to redistribute resources. Raise Money The main purpose of taxing is to raise money to pay for the things that the government does: gas taxes provi de money to build roads and bridges; real estate taxes provide money for school s; and income taxes provide money for fighting crime, fighting fires, and for national security. Subsidize. The governments power to tax is also used to subsidize behavior that the government wants to encourage or goals that it promotes. Tax policy can subsidize marriage, having and raising children, religious and charitable contributions, or conservation of nationa l resources by promoting green energy sources. Taxes for these purposes are primar ily to subsidize behaviors rather than to raise money. Regulate The government also uses taxes to discourage or regulate behavior that it wants to discourage. The term sin tax refers to using tax policy to decrease smoking or gambling or drinking alcohol. Carbon emission taxe s are intended to reduce air pollution. Redistribution Tax policy is also used to redistribute wealth from some individuals or groups to others. Taxes can be used to redistribute income or wealth from richer persons to poorer persons, from younger individuals to older individuals, from wealthier states or regions of the c ountry to poorer states or regions. Tax money used for social we lfare purposes is redistributive. The Budget Deficit and the National Debt

PAGE 318

Chapter 14: Economic Policy | 311 Good tax policy, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder. Economists generally prefer taxes that raise money to fund government pr ograms with minimum disruption of market forces. The Tax Foundation is an organization that advo cates for what it considers the principles of good tax policy: fa irness; efficiency; and clarity. Efficiency and clarity are easier to measure than fairness because fairness, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder. For example, in the U.S. system of federalis m, federal tax revenues are taken from some (wealthier) states and redistributed to other ( poorer) states based on a concept of fairness. Some states are net contributors and others are net benefactors of federal tax policies. One of the ironies of the patte rn of distribution of federal tax policies is that the Red states tend to be benefactors, and Bl ue states tend to be contributors. Red states benefit, while Blue states pay At an individual level, taxing and spending policies are also intended to affect behavior, to encourage certain behaviors by subsidizing them and discouraging others by taxi ng them. What do behavioral economists say about such efforts? 14.54 | The Federal Budget Process Congress and the president make fiscal polic y. The federal budget pr ocess is a long and complicated process whose participants in clude Congress (including committees), the president (including various execu tive agencies, but most notably The Office of Management and Budget ). The Center on Budget Priorities provides a good description of the three main stages of the federal budget process: 1) the Office of Management and Budget submits the administrations proposed budget to Congress; 2) Congress adopts a budget resolution; and 3) reconciliation of th e budget resolution. The process is described in greater detail in the two boxes below: What is behavioral economics and what do behavioral economists know about politics? nc/BehavioralEconomics.html The Federal Budget Process As Described By The Office of Management and Budget: The Center on Budget Priorities:

PAGE 319

312 | Chapter 14: Economic Policy 14.6 | The Governments Tool Box: Monetary Policy The Federal Budget: Timelines and Participants Early fall The executive departments and agencies send initial budget requests to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). November/December/January The OMB reviews the initial requests, modifi es them, and sends them back to the agencies. The OMB hears ag ency appeals. The OMB resolves appeals and assembles the final budget request. February/March The president submits the budget request to Congress. Administration and agency officials testify in support of the budge t request before the House and Senate appropriations subcommittees (House and Senate ). Public witnesses also participate in the hearings. May The House and Senate adopt budget resolu tions prepared by the Budget Committees. The House and Senate Appropriations Committe es make 302(b) allocations. (b) is the section of federal law that describes how each appropriations committees divides the overall level of discretionary spending provided in the Budget Resolution among its thirteen subcommittees. June The House Appropriations Subcommittees prep are appropriations bills and the Senate Appropriations Subcommittees revise them. July-August The House passes spending bills and the Senate passes revised spending bills. September Conference committees resolve differences be tween the House and Senate bills and agree on final versions of spending bills. The president signs or vetoes final bills. October 1 The start of the fiscal year. If Congress has not passed all the appropriations bills, it passes continuing resolutions to maintain funding for any agencies whose funding has not been passed by the beginning of the fiscal year.

PAGE 320

Chapter 14: Economic Policy | 313 Monetary policy is defined as using the mone y supply to achieve economic goals such as controlling inflation and maintaining employ ment. The money supply is the amount of money in private hands. Increas ing or decreasing the money supply affects the rate of inflation and the amount economic activity. Monetarists argue that monetary policy, not fiscal policy is the key to controlling econom ic activity. Monetary po licy is based on the assumption that the price of money, which is another way of saying the interest rate, is the key to economic activity. The price of money is another term fo r interest rates. Monetarists think that increasing the cost of money is likely to decrease economic activity, and decreasing the cost of money is likely to increase economic activity. Consequently, monetarists advise increasing in terest rates during boom times in order to prevent or control inflation, and decreasing interest rates in bust times to prevent a recession or to get out of one. The Federal Reserve Board has primary control over m onetary policy. The Fed is an independent agency in the sense that C ongress and the presiden t have limited control over it because the members of The Fed are appointed for lengthy terms of office that do not coincide with presidential or congression al election cycles. This insulates The Fed from political, or more accurately, partisan control. The Federal Reserve Board (of Governors) consists of seven members who ar e appointed for 14-year terms. It includes an Open Market Committee, which consists of 12 Members (seven Governors and the heads of five regional banks. The Fed is authorized to regulate banks and to set monetary policy. It is responsible for using monetary policy to achieve two economic objectives: Price Stability (controlling inflation) and Maximum Employment. Beginning in the fall of 2007, uncertainty in the financial markets created concern that the problems caused by subprime mortgage practices would turn into a fullblown nationwide or even global panic. Critics called the Troubled Asset Recovery Program (TARP) the Toxic Asset Recovery Program because the government was authorized to buy troubled financial asse ts. The Federal Reserve Board aggressively inte rvened in the capital markets in order bring about a measure of st ability. The conservative Ben Stein reacted to the Feds decisive action by saying, God Bless the Fed. The sense of relief that the Chair of the Federal Reserve Board acted decisively to avert a collapse of the financial system, and perhaps a broader economic collaps e, is an indication of the importance of The Feds role in the U.S. economic system. Stein also used an interesting metaphor to explain why he supported the governments fi nancial rescue packag e. Faced with the terrifying prospect of an indus trial economy that was not working well, we must turn to the federal government for relief. The private sector is the patient, not the doctor.8 Who is EDGAR, and what is he accusing me of? God Bless the Fed Ben Stein Information about how the government measures the rate of inflation/cost of living is provided in Why Your Salary May be A ffected by the Price of Lettuce, s/money/2010/11/11/131251 848/why-your-salary-may-be-affected-by-the-priceof-lettuce

PAGE 321

314 | Chapter 14: Economic Policy 14.61 | The Undemocratic Fed One of the basic democratic principles is that policymaker s should be elected representatives of the people. In democraci es, elections choose to policymakers and hold them accountable. But The Fed is a policymaking body whose members are appointed for long terms. In this respect, The Fed is an undemocratic institution. In fact, supporters of The Fed defend it because it is not political The Fed is designed to insulate economics from partisan politics. Although the Fed is an independent agency with some insulation from direct political control, it is a mistake to think of The Fed as an apolitical institution. Its views of what to do about inflation a nd unemployment are very political. The Fed makes choices about how much inflation is too much and how much unemployment is acceptable. This is how The Fed makes polic y. The members of The Fed are bankers who bring a banking perspective to monetary polic y. The Fed has been controversial since its creation. Libertarian Representati ve Ron Paul (Republican-Texas ) is a vocal critic of The Fed. Does he make good points a bout its role in a democracy? 14.7 | Poor Economic Vision? The Great Recession caught most people by su rprise even though th e boom and bust of the business cycle was very familiar. This ra ises an interesting question. Why were some of the best and brightest minds working in the financial sector of the economy so shortsighted that they failed to foresee the problem that their actions were causing? There are at least three reasons for poor eco nomic vision (or myopi a): self-interest; ideology; and over-confidence. 14.71 | Self-interest The first reason is self-interest The financial services industry has an incentives structure that rewards risk-taking behavior. If an industry rewards making risky loans and selling high-risk financial produc ts because they bring higher profits than safer loans and investments, then it is rational for people who work in the fina ncial services to engage in such riskier rather than safer economic behavior. 14.72 | Ideology Think about it! Is The Fed guilty of the charges made against it by critics such as Ron Paul:

PAGE 322

Chapter 14: Economic Policy | 315 A second reason is ideology An ideology is a set of beli efs about how the world works. The economic beliefs are about how the economic world works. But what if the beliefs are mistaken? During the economic boom times of the late 1980s and 1990s Alan Greenspan, who was the Chair of the Fede ral Reserve Board from 1987 until 2006, was lionized as a great man with a deep unders tanding of how the financial (and broader economic) system worked. Then the Great Recession hit! Greenspan was forced to acknowledge that there were fundamental fl aws in his ideological model of how the economic world worked. One flaw is the way the financial services sector was de-regulated: bankers were allowed to make riskier investments but the government kept in place government protections against depositors losing money. Business deregulation is considered an element of conservative and Republican economic policy, but Democratic President Carter began the federal trend toward de regulation by deregulating the airlines and natural gas industries. Then in 1980 Monetary Control Act eliminated regulations of interest rates and usury laws and the 1982 Garn-St. Germai n Depository Institutions Act allowed Savings and Loan Institu tions, which had historically b een in the safe business of home loans, to get into riskier and ther efore sometimes more profitable financial dealings. And in 1999, President Clinton fu rther deregulated banking by signing the Financial Services Moderniza tion Act, which repealed Depression Era limits on banking. The problem is that the government dere gulated risk-taking while continuing to subsidize financial security. For example, ba nk deposits are insured against loss in order to maintain public confidence in the banking system. In 1982, the Garn-St. Germain Depository Institutions Act deregulated savings and loan banks. Prior to 1982, these thrift banks were allowed to make reside ntial (home) loans but not riskier commercial loans. They were also prohibited from usi ng customer deposits to invest in the stock market. The savings and loans banks lobbied co ngress to change the law to allow them to use deposits for riskier and generally more pr ofitable, investments. The ensuing savings and loan crisis of the 1980s required a massive government bailout to protect depositors from losing their money. Business deregulation expanded because conservatives and liberals came to support business deregulation but for very di fferent reasons. Conservatives supported deregulation because they thought government regulation was ineffective and counterproductive and limited growth. Libera ls supported deregulation because they thought government regulators were actually se rving powerful corporate interests rather than protecting consumers or the environment. The Capture Theory explains why regulators do not do what they were created to do. According to the capture theory, govern ment regulators are created to regulate an industry but they eventually are captured by the interest that they were created to Alan Greenspans Confession ishearing_10-23.html

PAGE 323

316 | Chapter 14: Economic Policy Ben Bernanke regulate. This happens because regulators work with the regulated and eventually come to identify with them and the industry. It is a variation on the Stockholm Syndrome where hostages come to identify with their captors. The capture theory often creates a revolving door: government regulators quit th eir jobs to go to work in the industry they regulated. In effect, they change teams. Former air lines regulators go to work for the airlines industry. Former Internal Revenue Service officials go to work for tax and accounting firms. Goldman Sachs was called Governme nt Sachs because so many former and future government officials worked for it. The capture theory a nd the revolving door explain why the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Commodities Futures Trading Commission, and even the Fed grew so close to the financial services sector that they were supposed to be regulating that they seemed to be repr esenting Wall Street interests rather than protecting the public interest by regulatin g the industry. And then the government bailed out the industry when things went bad. Since the 1980s Savings and Loan crisis the financial services industry developed innovative products such as s ecuritized loans. Financia l engineering and marketing offered high rates of return on financial products that were sold as low risk investments but which were actually very risky. Govern ment bailouts once again prevented financial losses. But once the immediate crisis passed, a nd the collapse of the financial system was averted, Wall Street once again went back to bus iness as usual. Paul Volcker, the former chair of The Fed, believes that financial regula tion is necessary because of Wall Streets recidivist tendencies. According to Volcker, the lesson of the history of financial crises is that bankers will use their positions to line their pockets.9 14.73 | Over-confidence A third reason for the cycles of economic crises is over-confidence. Modern economists and government officials assumed that the development of knowledge of how markets and economies worked had become so advanced that technical expert ise could be applied to manage the business cycle and stabilize eco nomies. This created the belief that severe economic downturns like the Great Depression were a thing of the past. In hindsight, over-confidence in the theories of individual rationality and market rationality blinded observers to the risks of assumi ng markets were self-correcting.10 The three main economic policy architects of the Bush administrations response to the Great Recession were the Secretary of the Treasury (Hank Paulson), the Chair of the Federal Reserve Board (Ben Bernanke), and Timothy Geithner (President of the New York Federal Reserve Bank). This three functioned as an economic SWAT team or first responders who formulated and coordina ted the fiscal policy (i.e., bank bailout and troubled asset relief program) and the monetary policy (e.g., lowering interest rates) response to the financial crisis. The fact that President Obama, a Democrat, basically continued the economic

PAGE 324

Chapter 14: Economic Policy | 317 Timothy Geithner policies of President Bush, a Republica n, was not surprising because the Obama administrations response to the Great Recession was formulated by Ben Bernanke, the Chair of the Federal Reserve Board, and Timoth y Geithner, the Secretary of the Treasury. Bernankes and Geithners backgrounds provide insights into their ideas about what the government should do when f acing a financial crisis. Bernanke is an economist whose research expertise is the Great Depression of the 1930s. His study led him to conclude that the Depression was prolonged and worsened by the governments weak and inconsistent resp onse to the economic crisis. The lesson he learned from the history of the Depression is that government must act swiftly, decisively, and with greater ra ther than lesser fo rce when facing a major economic crisis. He brought this background to the Bush admi nistrations policy discussions of how to respond to the financial crisis. Geithners public service began in 1988 as a civil servant in the Treasury Department. These were economic boom times in the United States. A long Bull Market made Wall Street and the Department of the Treasury very influential power centers for federal economic policy. Their ideas seemed to work. But Geithners formative experience was in figuring out how to contain the series of upheavals that swept the international financial community in the 1990s, from Japan to Mexico to Thailand to Indonesia to Russia, and threatened the boom.11 These international financial crises revealed a new and unexpected vulnerability in the global financial system: one countrys financial problems could quickly affect (or in fect) countries halfway around the world. Globalism increased economic interactions, which could increase economic efficiency and prosperity, but it also made a country vulnera ble to infections from abroad. Geithners policy experience included defending the long boom, the extended period of economic growth in the U.S., against foreign financ ial threats. His expe rience made him an institutionalistan economist who thinks that government and private sector institutions (non-government organizations or NGOs) play important roles in preventing financial meltdowns. Geithner believed that a massive governme nt response to the financial crisis was necessary. It was supposed to operate like an economic SWAT team that used monetary policy, fiscal policy, and priv ate money to recapitalize the financial markets in order to promote bank lending. Geithner came to believe in the need for a massive response to the economic crisis because of the lesson he lear ned when Japans real estate bubble burst in the early 1990s. He believed that the governments wrong response to the economic crisis produced a lost decade of economic growth. He did not want that to happen in the U.S. As a professional student of international economic crises, particularly financial crises, Geithner made an interesting observation about what lessons are to be learned from crises: You learn much more about a country when things fall apart. When the tide recedes, you get to see all the stuff it leaves behind. One of the conclusions to be drawn from the experience of the vari ous international financial cris es that have occurred during

PAGE 325

318 | Chapter 14: Economic Policy the era of globalization is that none of the governmentswhether in Japan or Mexico or Indonesia or the U.S.treated the problem as an economic problem that had nothing to do with government and politics. 14.8 | Economic Issues 14.81 | Globalization During the latter years of the 20th Century and the early years of the 21st Century, a central element of the federal governments economic policy was the promotion of international trade. With the end of the Cold War, international trade became an increasingly important part of U.S. forei gn policy. The General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (known as GATT) was created to promot e international trade by reducing tariffs. It was in effect from 1949 until 1993. GATT was replaced by the World Trade Organization in 1995. The WTO was created to su pervise and libera lize international trade. It includes a framework for negotiati ng and formalizing trade agreements and a framework for resolving trade disputes. More than 150 countries are currently members of the WTO. The U.S. political and econo mic systems are still adjusting to the opportunities and challenges of gl obalization in part because the interrelated economies diminish domestic American control over economic conditions. Globalization and the development of international trade systems have increased economic uniformity in international trade, but countries still have unique economic, political, and social systems that affect ec onomic interactions. The development of a world economy is still facing fault lines or domestic pressures that resist uniformity. These include income and wealth inequalit y, trade imbalances, and financial systems with very different rules. For example, the financial systems in some countries emphasize formal rules and regulations while others operate with in formal relationships. These differences can make it difficult to understand the rules of the international trade game. In Fault Lines: How Hidden Fracture s Still Threaten the World Economy, Raghuram G. Rajan describes how different sets of nati onal and international rules and incentive structures are now rubbing against one anothe r in ways that made the Great Recession, which he describes as an economic earthquak e, a likely economic disaster. Even within the U.S., the incentive structure in the fina ncial services sector effectively reduced the price of taking risks by providing very large financial rewards for profits.12 14.82 | Global Economic Competitiveness The increase in international business and trade has increased the attention paid to comparative economic data. One of the sources of information about how the U.S. compares to other countries is the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) The OECD provides basic inform ation on how countries provide social and economic policies. There have historically been tensions between U.S. domestic economic policy and its international trade policy. The U.S. political system, like the political systems in other countries, responds to domestic political pres sures by passing laws that benefit domestic business interests and disadvantage foreign in terests. The term economic protectionism

PAGE 326

Chapter 14: Economic Policy | 319 describes policies that favor domestic busines s over foreign business, or favor in-state business over out-of-state business. One co mmon type of economic protectionism is tariffs. A tariff is a tax on imports, goods that are brought into a country. Import taxes can start trade wars, where countri es retaliate against one an other by passing tariffs. One amusing trade war involved a tax that France levied on chickens that were grown in the U.S. and imported to France. The U.S. then retaliated against France by taxing certain motor vehicles that were imported to the U.S. Since then, however, the auto industry has become global, and car parts are imported and vehicles are assembled in so many countries that it is sometimes hard to tell whether a car in a domestic or import. An American car company, such as Ford, has exte nsive foreign manufacturing plants, and it can actually be hurt by laws that place tariffs on imported vehicles or parts. Globalization has increased attention paid to what makes a country competitive in the global economy. Where does the U.S. rank in an index of competitiveness? And what criteria are used to measure competitiveness? The World Economic Forum creates an annual Global Competitiveness Report. The Report for 2010-2011 ranked the U.S. fourth among the nations of the world. Th e bailout of the American automobile manufacturers as part of the Troubled Asse t Recovery Plan focused attention on the comparative costs of manufacture in the U.S. David Leonhardts article Dollars and Hour: Adding it Up, compares the cost of auto manufacturing in the U.S. with other countries. The differences in wage rates, benefits, and retirement are significant.13 Globalization has meant that each nations ec onomy is more closely tied to others. Western democracies share common problems with budget deficits and national debt. Big budget numbers prompt the ques tion, How big is big? A comparative perspective on national debt and deficit helps put economic data in perspectives. 14.83 | Markets and Values Markets allocate scarce resources. The market model is a way to efficiently determine the price of valuables, bu t what about values? 14.83 | Equality The U.S. is a democracy. Equality is a demo cratic value. But Americans have always accepted a great deal of economic inequalit y. Why? Americans accept inequality if it based on merit: a meritocracy (or natural ar istocracy based on ability) is considered compatible with democracy; inequality ba sed on privilege is not. And an economic Think about it! Would it be more efficient to have one world currency? President Nixon and Bretton Woods:

PAGE 327

320 | Chapter 14: Economic Policy system that produces inequali ty is not considered unjust or unfair if it provides for economic mobility so that pe ople can work their way up the ladder. Economic equality and economic mobility have become very important terms in current political debates about economic policy. Have liberals and Democrats declared war on the rich? Have conservatives and Republicans declared war on the poor? The debates are prompted by absolute measures of poverty and relative m easures of mobility. PEW Charitable Trusts Center on the States describes family mobility and its political significance for the American dream in the wake of the Great Recession. The data from the PEW research project on mobility are discussed in the National Public Radio story, Moving on Up More Difficult in America Growing inequality is not just an issue that affects individuals. It is an issue that has an aggregate impact on the economy. At so me point, inequality has a negative impact on an economy, society, and political system. The increasing inequality in the U.S. over the last four decades is no w a matter of debate about economic policy. The high costs of inequality are examined in a Public Broadcasting System Newshour story Inequality Hurts (aired September 28, 2011). How much inequality is too much? One way to answer this question is to compare the U.S. w ith other countries. The Central Intelligence Agency produces a great deal of informa tion about the countries of the world. One interesting index is a meas ure of equality. See the Distribution of Family Incomethe GINI Index. Where does the U.S. rank in terms of income equality? Is there a relationship between a countrys distribution of income (t hat is, its equal or unequal distribution of income) and justi ce or the sense of fairness? 14.84 | Morality Conservatives advocate both the market model and traditional values. Is the free market consistent with the preservation of traditi onal values? Markets are based on freedom of choice in selecting goods and services. Moral regulatory policy has traditionally limited freedom of choice in order to preserve and maintain moral values. The Heritage Foundation is a leading conservative think a nd do tank. It advocates both markets and morality by advocating the morality of markets 14.85 | Summary This chapter examined the relationship between economics and politics. It described the historical impacts that economics have had on politics, the two major components of economic policy (fiscal and monetary policy) and it examined whether economic power and political power, with specifi c reference to questions abou t inequality and perceptions of justice. 14.9 | Additional Resources 14.91 | Internet Resources Fear the Boom and Bust: A Hayek vs. Keynes Rap Anthem

PAGE 328

Chapter 14: Economic Policy | 321 Study Topics 1. Why are economics and politics related? 2. Define fiscal policy and monetary policy. 3. Is The Fed an undemocratic institution? 4. What is the business cycle? The von Mises Institute presents the theo retical argument for minimal government involvement in the economy: President Franklin Delano Roosevelts Ma rch 12, 1933 Fireside Chat on Banking. ws/index.php?pid=14540#axzz1NlGuPlqw 15.92 | In the Library Adam Smiths The Wealth of Nations (1776) 1 Government versus Markets: The Changi ng Economic Role of the State (2011). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 2 Quoted in Tim Arango, The Housing-Bubble Revolution, The New York Times (November 30, 2008): 5WK. view/30arango.html?scp=1&sq=Housingbubble%20revolution&st=cse 3 Quoted in Diagnosing Depression, The Economist (December 30, 2008). displaystory.cfm?story_id=12852043 4 Quoted in Catherine Rampell, Compa nies Spend on Equipment, Not Workers, The New York Times (June 9, 2011). Accessed at 5 Adam Davidson, The Atlantic January/February 2012. pp58-70. 6 David Brooks. The Formerly Middle Class. The New York Times November 17, 2008. Accessed at Key Terms The Industrial Revolution Social welfare policies Fiscal policy Monetary Policy The Business Cycle

PAGE 329

322 | Chapter 14: Economic Policy 7 For a good description of how monitoring occurs, liste n to the following report on National Public Radio: story/story.php?storyId=88116176 8 Ben Stein, What if a Slowdown Is a Never-Ending Story? The New York Times (November 23, 2008), BU8. 9 John Cassidy, The Volcker Rule, The New Yorker 25-30, at 28 July 26, 2010. 10 ugman%20economists&st=cse 11This analysis is based on Joshua Green, Inside Man, The Atlantic (April 2010): 36-51, 38. 12 Rajan G. Raghuram (2010). Fault Lines: How Hidden Fractures Still Threaten the World Economy (Princeton University Press). 13 ess/economy/10leonhardt.html?_r=1&hp

PAGE 330

15.0 | Food Policy I s Ketchup a vegetable? Are too many people getting food stamps? Is the government planning to take away my Big Gulps and make me eat broccoli? These are just some of Do the food nazis want your Twinkies? Should the government be the nutrition police? btnfrrr

PAGE 331

tnfrrr 324 the unusual ways that we talk about the politics of food. In 1981 the Department of Agriculture considered a proposal to reduce federal spending by defining ketchup as a vegetable for the federally subsidized school lunch program. The proposal was widely ridiculed by food activists who were promoting childrens nutrition. Stories about welfare queens using food stamps to buy sodas and candy have been told for decades by critics of the welfare state who think that a program to help the truly needy has expanded beyond its original purpose. More recently, government policies to promote nutrition and good diet in order to reduce increasing rates of obesity have prompted worries about government plans to take our Twinkies, Big Gulps, and French fries. During a 1990 press conference, President George Herbert Walker Bush confessed that he had disliked broccoli ever since he was a child and now that he was president he was not going to eat it anymore. (The statement did not make broccoli growers very happy!) Then broccoli played a surprisingly central role in the political and legal debates over the constitutionality of The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (better known as Obamacare). Critics argued that argued if government could require a person to buy health insurance it could also require people to eat broccoli. In her concurring opinion in the Supreme Court ruling that upheld the constitutionality of Obamacare, Justice Ginsburg described the argument against the individual mandate as a parade of broccoli horribles.1 This chapter examines the politics of food policy. Food policy is an area of federal policy that is often overlooked because the public, the political parties and interest groups, and the media pay more attention to higher profile issues such as national security, the economy, crime, and other issues such as education and health care. The governments role in ensuring food security (that is, an adequate supply of food) and food safety is not controversial. People expect the government to ensure that they have enough food and safe food. But food policy has become controversial as the government has begun to promote healthy diets by regulations that require labeling menus and limit portion sizes and proposals to tax certain items such as sweetened drinks. The chapter focuses on three aspects of food policy. First, it describes food policy. Second, it describes how diet and nutrition were put on the government agenda (i.e., the politics of food). Third, it describes the main government and non-government actors who make food policy as participants in the food issue network. 15.1 | Is Food a Private Good or a Public Good?

PAGE 332

tn Food Policy W hy is food even a political issue? In one sense food is a classic example of a private good. Food is a divisible good (one whose benefits can be limited to those who pay for it). Private goods are available in the private sector based on the ability to pay. Food is a matter of private choice: an individual decides what to eat, how much to eat, and how much to pay for it. These decisions are based on a persons ability to pay and personal tastes. In this sense, food is provided according to the market model rather than the government model But food is not considered a completely private good that is available only to those who can afford to pay for it. Food is also considered a public good that the government provides for some people regardless of their ability to pay for it. The governments food policy goals include food security, food safety, promotion of American agriculture, and healthy food During the Great Depression of the 1930s unemployment, poverty, and hunger were nationwide problems. President Franklin Delano Roosevelt captured the scope of the problem in his Second Inaugural Address (January 20, 1937): I see a great nation, upon a great continent, blessed with a great wealth of natural resources. But here is the challenge to our democracy: In this nation I see tens of millions of its citizensa substantial part of its whole populationwho at this very moment are denied the greater part of the necessities of life. I see millions of families trying to live on incomes so meager that the pall of family disaster hangs over them day by day. I see millions whose daily lives in city and on farm continue under conditions labeled indecent by a so-called polite society half a century ago. I see millions denied education, recreation, and the opportunity to better their lot and the lot of their children. I see millions lacking the means to buy the products of farm and factory and by their poverty denying work and productiveness to many other millions. I see one-third of a nation ill-housed, ill-clad, ill-nourished. [Emphasis added] It is not in despair that I paint you that picture. I paint it for you in hopebecause the Nation, seeing and understanding the injustice in it, proposes to paint it out.The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little. Freedom from want includes freedom from hunger. Today, food security is provided by the food stamp program and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), two social welfare programs that provide food support for low-income people. The U.S. Department of Agriculture defines food security as access to an adequate and safe supply of food: access by all people at all times to enough food for an active, healthy lifein U.S. households and communities. In 2008, 85 percent of U.S. households were food-secure throughout the entire year, and 14.6 percent of households were food insecure at least some time during that year, up from 11.1 percent in 2007. This is the highest recorded rate of food insecurity since 1995 when the first national food security survey was conducted.2 The government also has responsibility for ensuring a safe food supply. Food is more political today than in the past because todays consumers are much more dependent upon others to provide their food. Most people are dependent on others for their food: they are consumers of food rather than producers of food. And people are not getting their food from family, friends, or neighbors; they are getting it from national and international commerce. Consumer protection is one of the functions of government. Protecting food consumers, ensuring a safe food supply, is also a government function.

PAGE 333

tnfrrr 326 Unsafe, tainted, contaminated food, and outbreaks of E. coli, salmonella poisoning, and other food borne illnesses and deaths are public health issues. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reports on food borne illnesses in the U.S. illustrate why food safety is a political issue. From a political science perspective, food is a public good in the sense that governments everywhere are responsible for insuring an adequate, affordable, and safe supply of food. Food is also made a political issue by events such as droughts, crop failures due to diseases, health threats from unsafe foods or food borne-illnesses, and high rates of inflation. A century ago, food consumed a large share of the typical American familys budget. In 1900, more than 40% of a familys income was spent on food.3 But federal food policy has emphasized increasing farm production, which has resulted in cheap food. The result has been a dramatic reduction in the food share of the average American familys budget. Today, the efficient production of an adequate food supply is not a serious problem for federal food policy. The new food issues are safety and nutrition and health. 15.12 | The Politics of Food There is broad consensus that the federal government has a legitimate role in ensuring the safety of the food supply. But the governments role in promoting health and nutrition is much more controversial. The federal government does have a long history of promoting diet. One early government campaign promoted good diet as a patriotic contribution to the effort to win World War I. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention CDC Estimates of Food Borne Illness in the United States In 1999, 76 million ill, 325,000 hospitalized, and 5,000 deaths in the U.S. from food borne illnesses. In 2011, 48 million illnesses, 128,000 hospitalizations, and 3,000 deaths. timates.html Food Safety News t-meaningfulfood-borne-illness-outbreaks-picked-out-of-so-many/ Food and the War Effort Food Will Win the War: On the Homefront in WWI

PAGE 334

tn Food Policy T he Department of Agriculture also sponsored one of the earliest radio programs, Aunt Sammy, (the domestic equivalent of Uncle Sam) as part of a government campaign to get farmwives to promote healthy diets. 15.2 | The Food Issue Network T he term issue network describes participation in the formulation of public policy. An issue network consists of the two main government participants (the congressional committees and executive departments/agencies with authority over a particular issue) and the various non-government participants (the interest groups who are interested in a particular issue). The food issue network consists of the House and Senate Agriculture Committees (and subcommittees), which are the primary congressional food policy makers; the Department of Agriculture (and the Food and Drug Administration); and interest groups. The following describes the traditional and modern food issue network. 15.21 | The Traditional Food Issue Network The traditional food issue network consisted of the House and Senate agriculture committees, the Department of Agriculture, and agri-business interest groups that primarily represented farmers and ranchers (the food producers). The Traditional Food Issue Network Think About It! How Uncle Sam Helps Define Americas Diet National Public Radio

PAGE 335

tnfrrr 328 15.22 | The Modern Food Issue Network But today another set of interest groups have worked their way into the food issue network. In the past, food producers and food processing companies were the main private sector participants in making food policy. Today, however, consumer groups, environmentalists, and public health advocates have joined the food issue network. They provide a different perspective on the goals of federal food policy. The Modern Food Issue Network Department of Agriculture House & Senate Agriculture Committees Farming, ranching, and food processing businesses

PAGE 336

tn Food Policy These new participants in the policy making process have made food policy more contentious because consumer, environmentalist, and public health groups have different interests than the food producers and processors. The following sections describe the three main types of participants in the modern food issue network 15.23 | Congress: The House and Senate Agriculture Committees Congress makes food policy. The House of Representative Agriculture Committee (and subcommittees) and the Senate Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry Committee (and subcommittees) have jurisdiction over bills, programs, and issues related to agriculture as well as supervision of the Department of Agriculture and other agencies with jurisdiction over food programs. The following describes the agriculture committees and subcommittees in the 112th Congress. The House Agriculture Committee had six subcommittees, one of which was the Subcommittee on Nutrition and Horticulture which had jurisdiction over nutrition policy. The Senate Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry Committee had five subcommittees, one of which was the Subcommittee on Nutrition, Specialty Crops, Food and Agricultural Research. Its legislative portfolio included provisions of the Food, Conservation and Energy Act of 2008; domestic and international nutrition and food assistance and hunger prevention; school and child nutrition programs; local and healthy food initiatives; food and agricultural research, education, economics and extension. A letter from the ranking member of the Senate Agriculture Committee (Kansas Republican Senator Roberts) to the Secretary of Agriculture illustrates how the Senate Agriculture Committee interacts with the executive branch to advocate on behalf of

PAGE 337

tnfrrr 330 agricultural interests. The October 3, 2012 letter entitled Senator Roberts Concerned School Nutrition Programs Dont Meet Needs of Active Students expressed concern that the Department of Agriculture was developing healthy food standards that provided insufficient calories for active students. In 2010 Congress passed the Healthy, HungerFree Kids Act. The Act required the Department of Agricultures Food and Nutrition Service to revise rules for the National School Lunch Program and the School Breakfast Program to promote healthy foodin effect, to provide healthier school meals that included more vegetables and fruits and grains and fat-free or low-fat milk. Senator Roberts was concerned that the healthier food would increase student plate waste, increase costs, and not provide enough calories for active students.4 15.24The Department of Agriculture The second government participant in the food issue network is the Department of Agriculture. In the U.S. and elsewhere one of the basic functions of government is to ensure that people have enough food to eat and that the food supply is safe. The origins of the federal governments food policy can be traced to President Lincolns creation of an agricultural department in 1862. Lincoln called it the peoples department. Agriculture is sometimes called the nations first industry; it was here before manufacturing. The department that Lincoln created eventually became one of the Cabinet agencies when the Department of Agriculture was created in 1889. Historically, the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) has functioned as a clientele agency A clientele agency is an agency that is created to serve the needs or represent the interests of a specific group. The departments of Labor, Education, and Commerce are also clientele agencies that were created to represent labor, education, and business, respectively. The USDA was created to advocate for its major clientele farmers and ranchers. In the 1920s, the USDA promoted industrial farming to increase production. The Green Revolution greatly increased agricultural production and in 1960 the USDA produced a video extolling the Miracles from Agriculture that made many of the amenities of modern life possible. The Department of Agricultures mission has been broadened beyond merely increasing production as federal food policy has expanded to include goals other than the promotion of agriculture. Today the USDA has the following areas of policy responsibility: promoting and marketing agricultural products at home and abroad; food safety and nutrition; conservation of natural resources; rural and community development; and providing job and housing assistance. However, the following short story about Pizza Politics reveals that the USDA is still a clientele agency that sees its mission as promoting American agricultural products. Dominos Pizza had falling sales. The International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center (CIMMYT) played a pivotal role in the Green Revolution and continues to be a major research center working on increased productivity.

PAGE 338

tn Food Policy A consumer survey of national pizza chains revealed that the Dominos pizzas tied for last in taste. In order to turn the sales trends around, Dominos worked with an organization called Dairy Management to develop a pizza with 40% more cheese. Dairy Management paid for a $12 million marketing campaign. The Pizza Turnaround television ads that were part of the Dominos marketing campaign. The advertising campaign for the new cheesier pizza worked. It produced doubledigit sales increases. This business case study is interesting but it would be irrelevant to the study of food policy except for the fact that Dairy Management is not a private industry business consultant. Dairy Management is an organization that was created by the USDA. Dairy Management worked with other restaurant companies to increase the amount of cheese that was on restaurant menus.5 But the USDA also sponsors a healthy diet campaign that recommended lowering the amount of milk fats in the American diet! The cheese story illustrates how the USDAs dual missionto promote American agriculture (in this instance, dairy products but in other instances beef or wheat or corn) and to promote healthy dietssometimes conflict. 15.25The Food and Drug Administration A third main government participant in the food issue network is the Food and Drug Administration (the FDA). The FDA is an independent regulatory commission but for the purposes of issue networks it is considered an executive agency because it implements legislation. Food safety was put on the federal governments agency in the early years of the 20th Century. In 1906 Congress passed the Pure Food and Drugs Act of 1906, which prohibited companies from interstate commerce in misbranded and adulterated foods, drinks and drugs. The 1906 Act was a response to two works that focused the publics attention on problems in the nations food supply. Upton Sinclair published The Jungle in 1906, and a ten-part study by Harvey Washington Wiley on additives and chemicals in the nations food supply. The Jungle was a novel that exposed the terrible conditions of the meatpacking industry. It focused on the plight of workers in meatpacking plants. Sinclair had gone undercover in meatpacking plants in Chicago and wanted to expose the American public to the problems faced by blue-collar workers. But the publics attention was captured by Sinclairs prose describing the unsanitary conditions in which their food was being handled in an industrial system that they did not associate with food. Sinclair wrote: [T]he meat would be shoveled into carts, and the man who did the shoveling would not trouble to lift out a rat even when he saw onethere were things that went into the sausage in comparison with which a poisoned rat was a tidbit. There was no place for the men to wash their hands before they ate their dinner, and so they made a practice of washing them in the water that was to be ladled into the sausage. There were the butt-ends of smoked meat, and the scraps of corned beef, and all the odds and ends of the waste of the plants, that would be dumped into old barrels in the cellar and left there. Under the system of rigid economy which the packers enforced, there were some jobs that it only paid to do once in a long time, and among these was the cleaning out of the waste barrels. Every spring they did it; and in the barrels would be dirt and rust and old nails and stale waterand cartload after cartload of it would be taken up and dumped into the hoppers with fresh meat, and sent out to the publics breakfast. The Jungle Chapter 14, page 1.

PAGE 339

tnfrrr 332 A poster of the 1913 movie adaptation of Sinclairs novel Congress created the Food and Drug Administration (the FDA) in 1930. The FDA is the primary federal regulatory agency with authority over food safety, although the Department of Agriculture also plays an important role in making federal food policy. The USDA promotes American agricultural production and sales abroad as well as ensures a safe food supply by inspecting food-processing plants. Today, the FDA has regulatory authority over about 25 cents of every dollar the consumer spends. And of course significant portion of that dollar is spent on food consumed outside the home. The average person consumes about one-third of their calories on foods prepared outside the home.6 As a result, the FDA has proposed new regulations that require labeling the calorie content of food served in restaurants and vending machines. The regulations would apply only to chain restaurants or vending machines companies with 20 or more locations as a concession to small businesses. The FDAs focus on food consumed outside the home reflects changes in patterns of consumption. But the FDA has not kept up with one change in where Americans get their food (and drugs). The U.S. now imports a larger share of its food. In the past, certain foods such as fruits and vegetables were only available seasonally. Today peaches and asparagus are available during the winter months in northern states because they are imported from other countries. But the FDA inspects only about 1% of imported food. Public concerns about the safety of the food supply have increased pressure to have the FDA expand its inspection of imported foods. The FDA has proposed placing more inspectors in the foreign countries from which we import food and drugs, rather than waiting until they enter the U.S., and it has opened an office in Beijing, China. But expanding the scope of the FDAs operations is controversial. It requires increasing the FDAs budget and increasing federal regulations. Addressing the food safety problem requires more than hiring more inspectors and doing more testing; it requires creating a regulatory system that works to provide food safety.

PAGE 340

tn Food Policy 1 5.26Interest Groups The third category of issue network participants is interest groups. Traditionally, these were groups that represented farming and ranching or food processing and distributing companies. Agribusinesses such as the Archer Daniels Midland Company have a vested interest in food policy and are important participants in the food network. Today, however, a broad range of interest groups participate in the food issue network. Take, for example, consumer groups. Consumer groups represent individual consumers (i.e., people who buy food) and business consumers (e.g., companies such as The CocaCola Company, PepsiCo, Mars Incorporated, and The Hershey Company) that buy commodities such as sugar and corn syrup. Two groups that take opposing positions on food issues such as labeling the caloric and nutritional content of food, limiting the size of food portions, or taxing sodas are the Center for Science in the Public Interest and the Center for Consumer Freedom The former organization generally plays offense: i t is a consumer group that advocates for more government regulation of food. The latter organization generally plays defense: it is an industry group that opposes more government regulation of food. Public health advocates also generally support more government regulation to provide consumer information and to promote public health by reducing the consumption fat, salt, and sugar. The food industry worries about the general trend toward treating sugar or fat, for example, the way that tobacco and alcohol have been treated. Tobacco and alcohol have been subjected to sin taxes. A sin tax is a tax on a vice such as smoking or drinking. The American Beverage Association for instance, has mobilized industry opposition to treating sweetened beverages the way that tobacco and alcohol have been treated. The policy proposals to tax sugar or certain fats as harmful are based on the belief that consumption can be discouraged by taxing and regulating consumption. 15.3 | The Farm Bill and the Food Aid Program The Food Movement And Genetically Modified Organisms In 1992 the FDA issued a rule that GMO were not materially different from other foods. ch/Gene WatchPage.aspx?pageId=393

PAGE 341

tnfrrr 334 The Farm Bill is a major component of the federal governments food policy. The Farm Bill, which is enacted every five years, is a nearly $300 billion dollar federal program. It was originally intended to promote food production, to promote marketing of U.S. food products abroad, and to keep food prices low. Crop subsidies are one of the primary ways that these goals were achieved. The USDA has commodity programs that subsidize growing wheat, corn, rice, cotton and a few other crops. The USDA also subsidized sugar prices and dairy prices, primarily milk price supports. 15.31 | The Food Aid Program One component of the Farm Bill is the Food Aid Program. The Food Aid Program is a good example of a public policy that is both domestic policy and foreign policy. In 2007, the Food Aid Program was a $2 billion dollar program to provide food aid to other countries. The Food Aid Program began in 1954 as a way for the U.S. to dispose of surplus crops abroad. The Green Revolution which began in the 1940s, greatly increased agricultural production. It was the result of the following developments: Biology. Scientific research produced more fertile and productive plants and animals. Chemistry. The chemical industry created more effective herbicides, pesticides, and fertilizers, which increased food production. Management. The industrial revolution transformed manufacturing before it reached agriculture, but eventually the agricultural sector changed from small family farms to large-scale corporate, agribusiness, or factory farming. The result was increased efficiency in growing, processing, and transporting foods. The Green Revolution made American agriculture so productive that food policy had to address the problem of surplus, not scarcity or hunger. Food scarcity has not been the most important problem for food policy for decades. American agriculture produces far more food than can be consumed domestically. The economy of scale associated with factory farming made agriculture more efficient and more productive but it also contributed to the decline of the family farm. The family farmer is now analogous to the cowboy. Both are important symbols in American cultural heritage but they are no longer central figures in the economy. There are other critics of the Green Revolution. The Institute for Food and Development Policy which is also known as Food First, advocates self-sufficiency and food sovereignty rather than dependence on international agribusiness companies. 15.32 | Food Policy is both Domestic and Foreign Policy Domestic and foreign policy are often considered distinct areas of public policy. However, the food aid program is a good example of how domestic policy and foreign

PAGE 342

tn Food Policy p olicy are linked. The food aid program includes provisions requiring 75% of the food aid be shipped in U.S. vessels, 25% of the food aid be shipped from Great Lakes ports, and mandating that the food aid be in the form of food (that is, American agricultural commodities such as dairy products, grain, or corn) not money. These requirements apply even when the food aid is a response to emergencies such as drought or disease. These requirements build domestic political support for the food aid program because American farmers, food processing companies, and transportation companies benefit from the program. The domestic political support is important because foreign aid is often welfare for other countries and therefore vulnerable during times of tight federal budgets and deficits. But the food aid programs requirements to buy American and ship American also create problems. One problem is that the high transportation costs of sending grain grown in the American Midwest (e.g., Kansas) to countries on the other side of the globe, and the time it takes to deliver food to where the food aid is needed, limit the effectiveness of the food aid program. A second problem is that federal corn subsidies keep the price of corn high and therefore reduce the amount of corn purchased for the food aid program. A third problem is that ethanol subsidies have resulted in corn being used for fuel rather than human or animal consumption. A Government Accounting Office (GAO) study found that it takes five months to get a new food aid to the country where it is needed. This means that the food aid may not be timely. In addition to timeliness, international food aid programs can also have a negative unintended consequence for local growers and producers. International aid can disrupt the local economy by displacing local producers when U.S. products flood the market in a country that receives foreign food aid because of a drought or other food supply problem. The food aid can solve an immediate problem but driving local companies out of business is an unintended consequence that has a negative long-term impact on a countrys (or regions) ability to feed itself. These problems of timeliness and impact on the local market have caused a new set of interest groups to participate in the creation of the food aid program in the Farm Bill. The new participants are lobbying government policy makers to pay more attention to nutrition, environmentalism, and international economic development as elements of the federal governments food policy. These new participants complicated federal food policy. The traditional food policy focused primarily on ensuring an adequate food supply in the U.S.7 For example, CARE is a private international humanitarian organization that was created after WWII to alleviate poverty. It is one of the new participants in the food issue network that questions the effectiveness of the Food Aid Programs efforts to alleviate poverty in other countries.8 The United Nations Food Program and the World Bank are two international programs that provide emergency aid and economic development that is intended to help countries grow enough food to feed their own people. The United Nations Food Program provides food aid and The World Bank provides aid that will help countries achieve food self-sufficiency. In Africa, The World Bank programs have encouraged countries to eliminate fertilizer subsidies in favor of free market programs. One unintended consequence of The World Banks program is a steep increase in fertilizer prices which can actually decrease food production. The United States Agency for International Development has also focused on promoting the private sectors role in providing fertilizer and seed, and considered government subsidies an impediment to the

PAGE 343

tnfrrr 336 development of a private market in African countries such as Malawi, where famine has required extensive foreign food aid.9 The U.S. and international aid organizations have a major impact on the way that government officials in other countries think about food policy because are associated with advanced technological and organizational skills that increase productivity. 15.33 | International Food Policy The Green Revolution refers to the steep increase in agricultural production that began with wheat in Mexico in the 1940s. The Green Revolution contributed to economic development by making it possible for countries that were not able to produce enough food to feed their own people to produce enough food to feed their people or even surplus production to be sold abroad. Food security means producing enough food so that the government can assist during times of drought, conflict, or natural disasters in order to avert starvation. One standard way that governments achieve food security is to regulate food prices in order to ensure that producers were profitable so that they were able to stay in business. Some developing countries created food marketing boards which regulated the food industry. The boards managed the industry to stabilize commodity and food prices at levels that allowed businesses to be profitable while ensure that consumers had an affordable and adequate supply of food. The boards also bought commodities and stored them as insurance against a crop failure or inflation. These are examples of how the market model works. 15.34 | The Marketization of Food Beginning in the 1980s, international aid agencies such as the World Bank and the IMF changed the goals of their programs. They strove to get countries to adopt food policies that reduced the governments role in achieving food security and increased reliance on market approaches. In effect, the international aid agencies urged countries to move away from the government model and toward the market model. This change in policy has been called the marketization of food The marketization of food is part of the broader trend toward privatization in other areas of domestic public policy. Privatization refers to the policy of returning government functions to the private sector or having services such as waste removal provided by private sector companies rather than government workers. The government model relies on regulations and subsidies to provide an adequate and safe food supply. In recent decades, the international aid community has begun to reconsider the government model which has relied on price supports; subsidies for the costs of fertilizer, herbicides, and pesticides, or high-yield crop seeds; and tariffs on imports. As economic development in general has promoted private sector activity, the international food aid

PAGE 344

tn Food Policy c ommunity has considered the government model for food an unwise intervention in the marketplace. As a result, economic development policies have promoted market efficiency rather than government regulation. The marketization of food meant that development aid encouraged countries to adopt policies that supported growing cash crops rather than food crops. Cash crops could be sold in the international or global marketplace. Food crops are grown primarily for domestic consumption. One result of international aid programs that emphasized marketization is that farmers grew crops like cocoa instead of staples such as maize, rice, or corn. Governments often encouraged international private investors to enter the marketplace in search of profits. Marketization and globalization are based on assumption that each country or region of the world should grow for the international marketplace what it can most efficiently produce, based on its distinctive climate or local soil. International food aid therefore emphasized economic development as measured by international trade in commodities rather than food self-sufficiency. The results are now evident in some unusual data. For instance, there has been a marked increase in the concentration of production of certain commodities. Fewer than five countries now account for around 90 percent of the corn exports and around five countries now account for around 80 percent of the worlds rice exports. The increase in global efficiency has been accompanied by a global vulnerability to disruptions in trade or production. The increase in private investment has not entirely compensated for the public disinvestment As a result, policy makers are rethinking the emphasis on market efficiency, and making food policy that encourages agricultural self-sufficiency as well as market efficiency. This will mean some government management of the agricultural sector of the economy. Food crises produce political crises (e.g., food riots) that governments are expected to respond to even if the politics does not. Some countries with rapidly growing populations and changes in patterns of food consumption are buying foreign land for growing crops to import. Think About It! How Many Earths Do We Need? The Global Footprint Network is an alliance of scientists who research the food supply necessary to sustain populations. The organization calculates, among other things, how many earths will be required to sustain human life at 1) current population levels and rates of consumption; and at 2) projected increases in population levels and consumption. The GFN measures consumption and waste at both individual level data and country level data.

PAGE 345

tnfrrr 338 15.4 | The Price of Food A long with clothing and shelter, food is a basic commodity. It is one of the major items in the household budget. But the share of the average household budget that is consumed by food has steadily declined over the last half-century or so. See the following figure from U.S. Department of Agriculture data: 10 The decline in the food share of a households disposable income explains why food security is not a high-profile issue in the U.S. However, a long-term change in food consumption patterns has made food more political: the increased share of food that is now consumed outside the home. In 1970, 26 percent of all food spending was on food away from home; by 2005, that share rose to 41 percent. A number of factors contributed to the trend of increased dining out: A larger share of women employed outside the home; More two-earner households; Higher incomes meant more disposable income; More affordable and convenient fast food outlets; Increased advertising and promotion by large foodservice chains; and The smaller size of U.S. households. The continuation of these economic and demographic trends is expected to keep boosting the percentage of American income spent on eating outside the home.11 Restaurants now account for almost half of the average households food expenditures. As a result, food safety and nutrition are on the governments agenda. Consumers expect the government to inspect restaurants and food processing companies. And consumers are beginning to b bb bt n n n n t tb tt n btnfrbnnbt tnnfrbnb tb frffff frfffrf frff

PAGE 346

tn Food Policy expect restaurants to provide consumers with more nutrition information about the items on the menu. 15.5 | Public Health Interest Groups and the Food Wars T he increase in rates of diabetes and obesity has prompted public health advocates lobby to add nutrition to the traditional emphases of federal food policy. Getting nutrition on the governments agenda has been an ongoing effort by individuals and organizations. Previously, such groups successfully lobbied the national government to make regulation of tobacco products a public issue after it was learned that nicotine was an addictive drug. Media campaigns play an important role in convincing government officials that they should act. The 2004 documentary Super Size Me (Directed by and starring Morgan Spurlock) called attention to the adverse health consequences of consuming fast food. Interest groups representing the food industry, consumers, and health advocates have put food policy on the governments agenda by emphasizing two issues: food safety and public health. Food safety periodically becomes a high profile issue when outbreaks of E. coli, salmonella, botulism or some other foodrelated illnesses capture the publics attention. The demand for government action to ensure a safe food supply rises and falls with these episodic crises. Concerns about the health of the American population have also prompted calls for government action. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention periodically conduct Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys.12 The surveys show increased weight: In the early 1960s, 24 percent of American adults were overweight, defined as a body-mass index greater than 27. In 1980 the survey showed 33 percent were overweight. The weight increase presents an interesting research question: what caused the increase? The answer is essential to any policy solution. Explanations of the cause vary. Some natural scientists attribute the increased weight to biology: our brains have been developed to eat a great deal during times of plenty so that the body stores fat for lean times when the fat stores are consumed. Social scientists identify other causes. Economists blame public policies that make cheap food widely available.13 The Green Revolution did make food cheaper relative to other goods and services that people purchase therefore people could consume more foodand chose to do so. Soft drinks, for example, are now part of daily calorie intake. Some public health advocates attribute the weight increase to addiction.

PAGE 347

tnfrrr 340 David Kessler is a former head of the Food and Drug Administration who advocated government regulation of nicotine as an addictive drug. Kessler maintains that the food industry has been reengineering food in ways that appeal to other kinds of human hunger.14 The food industry has successfully used marketing that emphasizes eatertainment rather than nourishment. It produces fun products, interesting products, social products, products that are craved. Kessler calls the industry approach conditioned hypereating. He compares the consumption of sweet and fatty foods with the conditioned response to gambling or substance abuse. McDonalds discovered that re-portioning (or super-sizing) was a very effective marketing strategy because the average consumer doesnt think in terms of calories, doesnt count calories, but rather thinks and counts in terms of the number of portions consumed. In fact, neither consumers nor food manufacturers seem to think in terms of nutrition. Most food marketing is not about nourishmentlarge food companies such as Pepsico, for instance, advertise the aspirational or lifestyle goals of consuming their product. The Pepsico Web site markets its brands as bringing fun and refreshment to consumers for over 100 years. This is one reason why the comparison of the tobacco wars and the food wars is both appropriate and revealing.15 The role that large multi-national corporations play in providing food has caused some concern about their control over the food supply. After the Supreme Court ruled that life forms could be patented, companies began aggressively asserting property rights to, among other things, seeds. The documentary, Food, Inc ., describes the role that the chemical company Monsanto has played in this movement. Monsanto now has property rights over 90% of the soybean seeds and asserts those rights in court to maintain control over the growing of soybeans. Governments are resorting to some innovative and controversial public health approaches to regulating diet. One such approach is the use of zoning laws to limit the number of fast-food establishments. In July of 2008, the Los Angeles City Council adopted an ordinance that established a one-year moratorium on the building of new fastfood establishments in a 32-square mile area of the city, including South Los Angeles which has around 900 restaurants (many of which are fast-food), and high rates of both adult obesity and diabetes. As more than two-thirds of American adults are fat, declaring war on junk food is politically risky; the government has to be careful about declaring war on junk food. Will the metaphorical war on junk food work like the war on drugs or the war on tobacco? 15.51 | Is sugar the new nicotine? T he following is based on an interview with New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg about his portion control proposal to ban sweetened drinks in containers larger than 16 ounces.16 Mayor Bloomberg has become famous (or infamous) for his proposals to require restaurants to provide nutrition labeling on menu items and to ban supersized soft drinks. A journalist asked Mayor Bloomberg about his campaign against the sugarindustrial complex, the responsibilities of government and the responsibilities of individuals, and how he decides to pick his fights (priorities). Bloomberg replied that the government should not to ban goods; it should provide consumers with information and then let them make decisions about what to buy. He considered calorie counts and portion

PAGE 348

tn Food Policy c ontrol two ways to provide such information about how much sugar is being consumed. Is eating like smoking? One persons weight does not hurt another person the way that one persons smoking hurts other people in the same area (second-hand smoke), but obesity does cost society which pays for health care. There is general agreement that government should prevent certain harms. Are sugary drinks like asbestos? The government would immediately pull people out of a building with an asbestos problem. The answer to the question, should the government regulate sugary drinks, is that it depends on the public-health issues. Bloomberg commented that obesity is an unusual public health problem because it is a disease that has gone from a rich persons disease to a poor persons disease: For the first time in the history of the world, this year, more people will die from the effects of too much food than from starvation. He decided to make health an issue as mayor and for his foundation, Bloomberg Philanthropies, because he likes to tackle problems that others consider too political or too complexguns, for instance. The portion-size question is interesting because of the correlation between the rise in obesity and the consumption of sugar. Look, the beverage companies arent stupid. Coca-Cola is run by a very smart guy; PepsiCo by a very smart woman. They see this train coming down the tracks at them. And thats why theyre trying to get people to move over to Coke Zero or Diet Coke or PepsiDiet Pepsibecause down the road, the public is going to say N o mas The cost of treating obesity is just out of control. McDonalds sued New York City when it first required the calorie now they are voluntarily providing them. The City is not proposing banning big drink it is proposing portion control: All were saying is that restaurants and theaters cant use cups greater than 16 ounces. So if you want to buy 32 ounces, you can buy 32 ounces, you just got to carry it back to your seat, or your table, in two cups. The public and the food industry initially opposed smoking bans. But now cities, states, and countries are creating smokefree places. 15.6 | Environmentalism A merican agriculture is extremely productive. The modern corporate, factory-farming model is very productive but it is also very energy and chemical intensive. The environmental movement has focused attention on the environmental costs of the industrial model of producing food. American agriculture requires a large amount of energy to produce crops such as corn and wheat and to produce commodities such as meat. Government crop subsidies increase food prices, increase food consumption, and increase environmental damage. The average American consumer eats 8 ounces of meat per day. About 30 percent of worlds ice-free land is used directly or indirectly for livestock production, according to the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization. Livestock production generates 20 percent of worlds greenhouse gases, which is more the greenhouse gases produced by a more familiar source of pollution: transportation. If Americans reduced meat consumption by 20 percent, the energy saved would be equivalent to their switching from a standard sedan (say a Toyota Camry) to a hybrid (say a Toyota Prius).17 15.7 | Final Food for Thought

PAGE 349

tnfrrr 342 Food security Modern food policy Clientele agency Green Revolution Marketization of food The story of foods transformation from private decisions that individuals and families make to a major public policy issue illustrates how the U.S. system of politics and government works. Changes in economic conditions, patterns of consumption, the environment, or health can prompt individuals and organizations to put food on the governments agenda. These organizations then join the food issue network as participants in making food policy. These individual policy entrepreneurs and organizations are playing offense. Other individuals and organizations play defense and work to keep food policy off the governments agenda. The American Beverage Association and the National Restaurant Association generally oppose more government regulation of their industries. But government inspections that prevent food-borne illnesses can actually protect the food industry by ensuring a safe food supply. Nutrition is another issue. The initial opposition to menu labeling has softened as public opinion has supported it. Portion control is still opposed because it raises anew the central issue in the tobacco wars and the food wars (or the food fights): the political debates about the proper size and scope of government as much as the proper size of soft drinks. 15.8 | Additional Resources E arth Policy Institute: Behavioral Economics and Getting Children to Eat Healthy: =130732347 Sinclair, Upton. 1906. The Jungle Available at: 15.12 | In the Library F inkelstein, Eric A. and Laurie Zuckerman 2008. The Fattening of America How The Economy Makes Us Fat, If It Matters and What To Do About It New York: John Wiley & Sons Kessler, David. 2009. The End of Overeating: Taking Control of the Insatiable American Appetite New York: Rodale Books Lindstrom, Martin. 2008. Buyology: Truth and Lies About Why We Buy. London: Crown Business

PAGE 350

tn Food Policy 1 National Federation of Independent Businesses v. Sebelius 567 U.S.___(2012). 2 See Food Security in the United States at 3 Atul Gawande, Testing, Testing, The New Yorker (December 14, 2009), 34-41, at 34. 4 tor-roberts-concerned-school-nutritionprograms_dont-meet-needs-of-active-students Accessed November 19, 2012. 5 Michael Moss, While Warning About Fat, U.S. Pushes Cheese Sales, The New York Times November 6, 2010. At dominospizzainc 6 7 =16053196&sc=emaf 8 See the CARE White Paper on Food Aid Policy, (June 6, 20006). s/food_aid_whitepaper.pdf 9 Celia W. Dugger, Ending Famine, Simply by Ignoring the Experts, The New York Times (December 2, 2007: p.1,6. 10 res/Data/Expenditures_tables/table7.htm 11 and 12 13 Finkelstein, Eric A. and Laurie Zuckerman 2008. The Fattening of America How The Economy Makes Us Fat, If It Matters and What To Do About It. New York: John Wiley & Sons 14 2009. The End of Overeating: Taking Control of the Insatiable American Appetite New York: Rodale Books. 15 See Martin Lindstrom. 2008. Buyology: Truth and Lies About Why We Buy. London: Crown Business. 16 the-bloomberg-way/309136/ Accessed November 23, 2012. 17 Mark Bittman, Rethinking the Meat-Guzzler, The New York Times (January 27, 2008, 1WK, 4WK).

PAGE 351

CHAPTER 16: Crime Policy

PAGE 352

Chapter 17: Public Policy: Crime |345 16.0 |Public Policy: Crime This textbook began with the question Why do we have government? One answer to the question is that governments are created to protect people from threats to their life, liberty, and property. Creating and maintaining public safety is one of the most important government functions. Crime prevention, inve stigation, prosecution, and punishment are basic responsibilities of governments everywhere. In th e U.S., public opinion polls indicate that crime, along with the economy and national se curity, is usually mentioned as one of the most important problems facing the nation. This chapter has three main purposes. Firs t, it explains ideo logical thinking about crime. The crime control and due process models of justice are used to explain conservative and liberal views on the causes of crime and criminal justice policies that are intended to fight crime. Second, it introduces basic criminal law provisions in the Bill of Rights and, to a lesser exte nt, statutes. Third, it describe s the main criminal justice officials (the police, the courts, and correctio ns) and the main criminal justice issue (the need to balance individual rights and gove rnment power). The main theme of this textbook is the power problemthe need to strike the right balance between granting government enough power to addr ess the issues th at the people expect government to solve and limiting government power enough to hold it accountable. The power problem is central to crime policy because the governme nts criminal justice powers include the power to take a persons life, liberty, and propertyas long as the person is provided due process of law. Source: Gallup. July 8-11, 2010. What do you think is the most important problem facing this country today?

PAGE 353

346|Chapter 16: Public Policy: Crime Americans, like people in other countries, expect government to provide safe homes, streets, subways, and parks. For mo st of the nations history, these were almost exclusively the responsibility of state and local governments because the federal government dealt with national defense, forei gn policy and interstate commerce. Today, however, all levels of governmentlocal, state, national, and increasingly even international institutionsare involved with crime policy. 16.1 | The Politics of Crime An ideology is a set of beliefs and a program for acting on them. One of the beliefs is typically about crime. Crime policy is one of the issues that have consistently divided liberals and conservatives over the decades. Li berals and conservatives have differences of opinion on the causes of crime, the purpo ses of punishment, a nd the way criminal justice officials fight crimes. What causes cr ime? This is an important social science research question. There are two basic theories of the cause of crime. One theory is that crime is caused by human nature. The human nature theory assumes that the individual is the primary cause of crime and therefore the individual should be held responsible for their criminal acts. The human nature theory has two variants. One variant is the belief that some people are simply born badthey are simply bad seed or have an evil nature. Another variant of the human nature theory is that human beings are rational actors who make a choice to commit a crime rather than to obey the law because they think they will gain from the illegal act. According to this variant, individuals calculate the costs and benefits of different courses of action and choose crime. The social theory of crime assumes that social circumstances or cultural values cause people to commit crime. In effect, th e causes of crime are social. Criminals are made not born: people are not born crimin als they are made criminals by social circumstances such as poverty, violence, discrimination, neglec t, bad upbringing, poor education, or other negative conditions or treatment. Ideological beliefs about the causes of cr ime have a major impact on crime policy, particularly sentencing po licies. The purposes of punishment include deterrence, incapacitation, retribution, and rehabilitation. The belief that criminals are evil justifies punishment policies that emphasize incapacitation and retribution. The belief that criminals are rational actors justifies policies that make the costs of crime higher than the benefits. The belief crime is caused by povert y or discrimination justifies punishment policy that encourages rehabilitation. The American political cu lture of individualism

PAGE 354

Chapter 17: Public Policy: Crime |347 creates support for punishment policies that ho ld individuals responsible for their actions, including crimes. But the social theory of crime plays an interesting role in American popular culture, which includes memorable images of outlaws who are portrayed as people who were driven to their lives of crime by injusti ce. The social injustice (economic or political exploitation) transforms the victim into a Robin Hood figure who steals from the rich and powerful and gives to the poor and powerless. This is the mythology surrounding some of the notorious criminal figures in American history: Jesse James, Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid, Bonnie and Clyde (pictured), a nd even Al Capone. The enduring appeal of their criminal exploits is at least partly due to their images in popular culture as victims of social circumstances or outsiders who challenge a corrupt establishment. In terms of the politics of crime, liberals generally support the social theory of crime. It has exposed liberals to the charge that they are blame society firsters who are soft on crime. Conservatives generally support the human nature theory. The fact that they blame individuals for their criminal acts and support punishment rather than rehabilitation has resulted in the fact that conservatives ar e considered tough-on-crime. 16.12 | Two Models of Justice: Crime Control and Due Process The difference between liberal and conservative thinking about crime policy can be understood by co mparing two different models of how the criminal justice system should operate: the Due Process and Crime Control Models of Justice were developed by Herbert L. Packer.1 According to the crime control model, the governments primary responsibility is crime controlthe protection of the law-abiding citizenry is the highest priority and the protection of individual rights is an important but sec ondary responsibility. Advocates of the crime control model of justice believe that effectiv e and efficient law enforcement is the key to protecting against crime. The due process m odel of justice emphasizes the importance of protecting individual rights by pr oviding due process of law ev en at the cost of making the criminal justice system less efficient. The due process model is reflected in the sayings that a person is innocent until proven guilty and that it is better for 100 guilty to go free than one innocent person found guilty. Crime control and rights protection are both values. The due process model emphasizes the protection of rights; the crim e control model emphasizes effective crime fighting. When thinking about crime policy, it is important to remember that a person does not have to support EITHER the due pro cess model OR the crime control model of justice. These are two models or sets of ideas that represent the extreme ends of a spectrum of ideas about crime. Members of the general public, government officials, and even judges are called conservative or liberal b ecause they tend to be located at one or the other end of the scale. Liberals generally support using due process of law to check the power of police and prevent abuses of government power. Conservatives generally defend the power of police and prosecutors as key figures in the war on crime. Unless of course the liberal is a crime victim a nd the conservative has been arrested! A conservative is a liberal who has been mugged. A liberal is a conservative who has been arrested. Tom Wolfe, Bonfire of the Vanities (1987)

PAGE 355

348|Chapter 16: Public Policy: Crime 16.13 | Punishment Policy: Incarceration Although incarceration (imprisonmen t) is not the only form of punishment, it is certainly the one that receives the most public attenti on. Trials capture the publics imagination. So do prisons. The rate of incarceration is one of the most common measures of sentencing policy. The following describes some changes in punishment policy over roughly the last century. Table 16.1 RATE (PER 100,000 RESIDENTS) OF SENT ENCED PRISONERS IN STATE AND FEDERAL INSTITUTIONS [ Sourcebook of Criminal Justice Statistics, 1985 ; and Bureau of Justice Statistics] Year Rate (per 100,000 Residents) 1925 79 1930 104 1935 113 1940 131 1945 98 1950 109 1955 112 1960 117 1965 108 1970 96 1975 111 1980 138 1985 201 1990 292 2000 481 2002 702 2005 737 2010 500 The above table shows the RATE of incar ceration for various years. The total prison population on December 31, 2010 was 1,612,000. The 2010 RATE (500/100,000) is the first dec line since 1972! The federal rate of imprisonment actually increased but the state rates have decreased. What explains the dramatic change in the ra tes of imprisonment over time, particularly the increased rates of incarceration? And what is the likely cause of the recent decrease in

PAGE 356

Chapter 17: Public Policy: Crime |349 state rates of incarceratio n beginning around 2010? These ar e some social science questions about imprisonmen t and sentencing policy. Are these rates of incarceration high or low? One way to determine whether sentencing rates are high or low is to examine histor ical rates, look at tr ends, and to compare sentencing rates in the U.S. with other countries. http://www.sentencingproject.o rg/template/page.cfm?id=107 publications/inc_co mparative_intl.pdf Were Number One! U.S. Inma te Count Dwarfs Rest of World on.html?_r=1&scp=2& sq=rate+of+incarce ration&st=nyt&oref=slogin What causes a countrys rate of incarceration? What explains a countrys rate of incarceration? Why does the U.S. have such a high rate of incarceration? These are social science research questions. There is a causa l relationship between crime rates One would expect there to be a causal relationship betw een crime rates and imprisonment. And one would expect that the increase in the rate of imprisonment to be caused by an increase in the crime rate, but the relationship is more comp licated than simply changes in the rate of crime (increases or decreases) produces changes in the rate of incar ceration (increases or decreases. For the last several decades the crime ra tes have been stable or even declining while the rate of imprisonment continued to increase. Why? What other variables might explain rates of imprisonment? Do media stories about crime affect the popular perception of crime independent of actual crime rates? Does ideology (conservative thinking about crime) explain the continued rise? What about economics? What about privatization? Privatization is the policy of turning gove rnment functions over to the private sector. When he left office, President Dwight Eisenhower warned the country about the creation of a military-industrial complex. The military-industrial complex is a term for the defense issue network among the congressional defense committees, the department of defense, and the aerospace and defense i ndustries that have political and economic relationships that keep defense budgets high. Today, the high rate of incarceration has raised similar concerns about the creation of a prison-industrial complex The term prison-industrial complex refers to the special interests that benefit from maintaining a large prison population. The complex includes pr ivate companies (a prison industry that benefits from prison building and prison serv ice contracts); local government officials who view prisons as part of their economic development pl ans; and prison guard unions that lobby to protect prison jobs. State and local governments see prisons as economic development policy. The building of for-profit prisons in communities such as Walnut Grove, Mississippi, or lies-on-troubled-youth-prison-forprofits states such as Louisiana where pr isons are a growth industry, or

PAGE 357

350|Chapter 16: Public Policy: Crime ly-run-juvenile-prison-in-louisiana-isattacked-for-abuse-of-6-inmates.html Texas where privatization of prisons has created community dependence on for-profit prisons for jobs and taxes, a dependence that did not create problems as long as the rates of incarceration were increasing: /28/134855801/privateprison-promises-leave-te xas-towns-in-trouble 16.14 | Civil Liberties and Criminal Justice The Bill of Rights includes provisions that protect against unreasonable search and seizure, self-incrimination, violations of due process, and cruel and unusual punishment. It also guarantees the right to trial by jury, the assistance of counsel, and the right to confront the accuser. Why do so many of the provisions of the Bill of Rights limit the governments criminal justice powers? Were the Founders soft on crime? Were the Founders trying to protect suspects and criminal s? The answer to these questions is that the Founders were very concerned about th e government criminal law powers. Their concerns were rooted in their political experiences. The governments criminal law powers are indeed worth thinking about b ecause the government can take a persons property, liberty, and even life as long as it provides due process before it does it. The Founders had lived through th e period when the English King and colonial governors used criminal law powers for political pur posesto punish opponents or critics. The political use of criminal justice powers e xplains why the Fourth Amendment declared that individuals had a right to be free from unreasonable se arches and seizures, why the Fifth Amendment guarantees due process of la w and the right against self-incrimination, why the Sixth Amendment guarantees the right to a jury trial, and why the Eighth Amendment prohibits cruel and unusual punishment The fact that thes e provisions of the Bill of Right are written in such general la nguage means that criminal cases have been such an important part of the Supreme Courts docket. 16.15 | The Fourth Amendment The meaning of the Fourth Amendment has changed over time. The Court originally interpreted the Fourth Amendm ent to places and things. The home and papers were given greater protection than ot her places and things. In Olmstead v. U.S. (1928) the Court ruled that the government did not have to get a search warrant before wire-tapping a suspect because a wiretap was not a physical search or an actual seizure. The Court considered wiretap technology something that enabled the government to listen to a telephone conversation without actually searchi ng or seizing anything. Technology has greatly increased the governments power to gather information w ithout ever physically seizing or searching anything. As a result, c ourts today interpret the Fourth Amendment more broadly. In Katz v. U.S (1967) the Court held that wiretapping was a search and seizure that triggered the Fourth Amendment warrant protections. 16.16 | What is a reasonable search and seizure ?

PAGE 358

Chapter 17: Public Policy: Crime |351 The Fourth Amendment provides constitutional protection against unreasonable search and seizure. But it does not defi ne what an unreasonable search isor what a reasonable search and seizure is. The Courts case la w defines these provisions of the Fourth Amendment. The general rule is that a search is reasonable if a wa rrant is obtained from an independent magistrate (a judicial branch official). In order to obtain a search warrant, the police must convince the magistrate that there is probable cause that search of person or place will produce evidence of the criminal ac tivity that they are investigating. This is the rule. There also is a long list of exceptions to the rule that a reasonable search requires a search warrant: Consent an individual can knowingly give up the right to have a warrant. Stop and frisk a stop is not really an arrest and a frisk is not really a search so a warrant is not required for a police officer to stop and frisk a person. (Terry v. Ohio ) Plain view if the police officer has a right to be where he or she is, then contraband and evidence can be seized wit hout first getting a search warrant. The plain view doctrine also app lies to concept of open fields, which includes fields, buildings, garbage put out at the curb, a nd material seized us ing technology such as helicopters, drones, and even infr ared technology when used to see or otherwise detect using thermal imaging marijuana grow houses. Incident to a lawful arrest a police officer may search the area under immediate control of a person in order to ensure officer safety or to preserve evidence. Hot pursuit a police officer in hot pursuit of a suspect does not have to stop the chase, get a search warrant, and then resume the pursuit. Motor vehicles the mobility of motor vehicles presents special problems so there are many circumstances where warra nt-less searches are allowed. Motor vehicles, telephones, cell phones, and computers are examples of how technological developments have change d reading of the Fourth Amendments protection of persons, houses, papers a nd effects from unreasonable searches. Drug testingthe government has a compelling interest in public safety, therefore certain employees such as railway workers and customs officials can be required to submit to drug tests w ithout warrants, pr obable cause, or individualized suspicion. Schools schools are special institutions, ther efore the standard for justifying the search of a students locker or backp ack is merely whether the search was reasonable rather than the higher standard of probable cause that the search will produce evidence of criminal activity. Administrative searches Fourth Amendment rights are not as strong in settings other than criminal justice, such as enforcement of game laws by searching coolers or freezers, business regulation and inspection, food safety inspections of restaurants, immigration law enforcem ent, and enforcement of public housing rules. National security Fourth Amendment protections are weaker than in other areas of law. The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 created a special legislative court system, the foreign intelligence surveillance court (FISC), which

PAGE 359

352|Chapter 16: Public Policy: Crime reviews government requests to gather intelligence without having to show probable cause. The USA PATRIOT ACT removed the wall of separation between intelligence gathering and crimin al prosecution. The Federal Bureau of Investigation can issue National Security Letters demanding that individuals or companies produce requested information, and the National Security Agency has conducted secret intelligence surveillance.2 The general rule is that the Fourth Amendmen t requires a search warrant for a search and seizure to be const itutional. The large number of exceptions to the rule raises an interesting question. Is it still a ccurate to say that search warrants are re quired in order for a search to be constitutional? The rule is misleading. Would it be more accurate to say that there is a new rule: a warrant is not requ ired for a search to be constitutional except under certain circumstances? 16.17 | The Exclusionary Rule The Fourth Amendment declares a right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures. But it does not provide a remedy for violations of that right. The Supreme Court has provided one (for violations of the Fourth Amendment or the 5th Amendment due process of law). The remedy is called the Exclusionary Rule. The Exclusionary Rule is a judge-created policy that eviden ce obtained illegally cannot be used in court to obtain a conviction. The Exclusionary Rule was first created and applied to federal courts in Weeks v. U.S (1914). In Mapp v. Ohio (1961) the Warren Court a pplied the Exclusionary Rule to state courts. Conservatives have consis tently opposed the Exclus ionary Rule for several reasons. First, the Exclusionary Rule is a legal policy that the Supreme Court created. As such, it is an example of judicial activis m or legislating from the bench. Second, the Exclusionary Rule allows the guilty to go free on what conserva tives consider legal technicalities such as the failu re to get a search warrant or a warrant with a typographical error. The Exclusionary Rule does indeed sometimes allow a person to get away with murder. In those cases where a confession or a gun or a weapon is ruled inadmissible in court because the evidence was illegally ob tained, a guilty person gets off on a legal technicality. Critics of the ER do not think th at evidence should be given the death penalty merely because of the way it was obtained. Finally, conservatives oppose the Exclusionary Rule because they prefer givi ng police officers broad discretion to use their judgment to decide how best to go about doi ng their job. This difference between liberal and conservative views on how the criminal just ice system should work is the reason for Tom Wolfes quip in The Bonfire of the Vanities, the 1987 satirical nov el about greed, race, and class in New York City, that a c onservative is a liberal who was mugged (and want to get tough on crime), and a liberal is a conservative who was arrested (and quickly lawyers up). It also reflects the differences between the crime control and due process models of justice. In fact, since the Warren Court the Cour t has become more conservative and significantly limited the ER by creating exceptions to the rule that illegally obtained evidence cannot be used. The exceptions include:

PAGE 360

Chapter 17: Public Policy: Crime |353 Grand jury illegally obtained can be presented to a grand jury. Harmless error if the police made a harmless error the evidence can be used. Civil court the ER does not apply to civil courts. Good faith if the police made a good faith mistake the evidence can be used. Independent source if the evidence could have bee obtained through another source, then it can be used. Inevitable discovery if the evidence would have b een discovered inevitably, it can be used. Public safety if the police acted illegally, but to ensure public safety, the evidence can be used. Preventive detention the ER does not apply to decisions about whether a person should be detained in or der to prevent a criminal act. Parole revocation the ER does not apply to decisions to revoke parole. Prisonersthe ER does not apply to disc iplinary hearings for inmates. Impeaching a witness illegally obtained evidence can be used to impeach a defendants own testimony or that of an accomplice. Physical evidence ? An emerging exception is fo r physical evidence (e.g., a gun a bullet or a knife) as distinct from testimonial evidence (e.g. a confession)? The growing exceptions to th e Exclusionary Rule raise the same question that has been raised about the rule that a search warra nt is required for a search to be reasonable: Does the long and growing list of exceptions to the ER mean that the exceptions have now become the rule? Both ex amples do illustrate how cha nges occur in the reading of the U.S. Constitutions protections for civil liberties. The words in the Constitution may not change but their meaning doesand the changed legal meanings reflect political (ideological) changes. 16.18 | The Fifth Amendment The Fifth Amendment includes a number of pr ovisions that protect individual liberties: protection against self-incrimination, protec tion against double jeopar dy, and a guarantee of due process of law: No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. Think about it! Conservatives thin k the Exclusionary Rule is an inappropriate remedy for violations of the Fourth Amendment. They recommend a tort law remedy: to sue the police for wrongful injury. Would this work?

PAGE 361

354|Chapter 16: Public Policy: Crime The provision protecting against self-incrimination has ancient roots in the English tradition of co mmon law. The right is central to one of the most important and familiar features of the U.S. legal system: the assumption that a pers on is innocent until proven guilty. The assumption of innocence places the burden of proof on the accuser (the government). The accuse d does not have to prove that they are not guilty as charged. The government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused did what they were accused of doing. Why place the burden of pr oof on the government? It would certainly be easier to obtain conv ictions if the accused had to prove they were innocent. The protection against self-incrimination can be traced to the reaction against relig ious investigati ons (inquisitions) that used torture in order to obtain confessions of sin. The story of John Lambert the heretic (1537) illustrates the revulsion against using torture to obtain confessions of sin (or otherwise): No man ever suffered more diabolical cruelty at the stake than this evangelical martyr, he was rather roasted than burnt to death; if the fire became stronger, or if the flame reached higher than they chose, it was removed or damped. When his legs were burnt off, and his thighs were reduced to mere stumps in the fire they pitched his broiling body on pikes, and lacerated his flesh with their halberds. But God was with him in the midst of the flame, and supported his spirit under the anguish of expiring nature. Almost exhausted, he lifted up his hands, such as the fire had left him, and with his last breath, cried out to the people, NONE BUT CHRIST! NONE BUT CHRIST! These memorable words, spoken at such a time, and under such peculiar circumstance s, were calculated to make a deeper and more lasting impression on the minds of the spectators, than c ould have been effected by a volume written on the subject. At last his remains were beat dow n into the flames, while his triumphant soul mocked their short arm, and, quick as thought, escaped where tyrants vex not, and the weary rest. 3 The religious justification for torturing a person was to ensure that sinners confessed before meeting their maker. The use of the third degree by police o fficers in order to obtain confessions of crime was traditionally considered a politica lly and legally acceptabl e practice. However, in Brown v. Mississippi (1936) the Supreme C ourt held that tort uring suspects was unconstitutionalin a case where the police to rture appeared to have produced a tainted confession by a man who simply wanted the pain to stop. The Court ruled that due process of law prohibits trial by ordeal: The rack and torture chamber may not be substituted for the witness stand. The Fifth Amendment provision prohibiti ng a person from being compelled to be a witness against himself is not limited to forced confessions. The Supreme Court has broadened the scope of the Fifth Amendment so that suspects have a constitutional right to be informed of their constitutional ri ghts prior to being questioned. This was the holding in the landmark case of Miranda v. Arizona (1966), which resulted in police officers reading suspects their Miranda Warnings This decision is probably depicted in popular culture (television po lice shows and crime films) more than any other Court ruling4 Think about it! Should police (or the military or the CIA) do whatever it takes to get information from a suspected criminal (or terrorist)?

PAGE 362

Chapter 17: Public Policy: Crime |355 16.19 | The Sixth Amendment The Sixth Amendment includes several provisi ons that provide rights in the criminal justice system. In all criminal prosecutions, the accused sha ll enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State a nd district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accu sation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence. The traditional reading of th e Sixth Amendment right to the assistance of counsel was that a defendant had the ri ght to pay for a lawyer if th e defendant could afford one, but the state had no obligation to provide a defendant with a lawyer. However, in the 1930s, beginning with Powell v. Alabama (1932), the Court began to require states to provide defendants with lawyers in cap ital punishment cases involving special circumstances. The special circumstances in cluded cases where there was evidence of racial hostility. Over time, number of special circumstances expanded to include cases involving very young offenders, poverty, illiter acy or a lack of education. The modern understanding of the right to the existence of counsel is that the right applies in all cases where an individual could lose his or her liberty. 16.2 | The Criminal Justice System The criminal justice is the system of policie s and institutions that are used to maintain public order, deter crime, investigate crimes prosecute and try the accused, and punish individuals who have been conv icted of crimes. Criminal justice was traditionally the responsibility of state and lo cal governments. Beginning in the 1930s, the federal government began to make crime a national is sue. The U.S. department of Justice and then the federal courts were concerned about corruption in state and local criminal justice systems, the emergence of organized crime that crossed local and state jurisdictions, and racial discrimination in law enforcement. The Warren Courts criminal justice rulings resulted in federal judicial supervision of state criminal justice policies. The liberal rulings expanded the rights of suspects an d prisoners. Then, beginning in the 1960s, the media called an increase in crime a crime wave. Crime was transformed from a You have the right to remain s ilent. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to speak to an attorney. If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed for you. Do you understand these rights as they have been read to you? Typical Miranda Warning

PAGE 363

356|Chapter 16: Public Policy: Crime local/state issue into a national political issuebut for different reasons. Liberals wanted the national spotlight focused on the social causes of crime. Conservatives wanted crime c ontrol. The national political debate was shaped by conservatives who blamed liberals and judges for expanding rights in ways that made it harder for police to fight crime. The result was further federaliza tion of crime, but now it was for getting tough on crime rather than providing more federal protection of the rights of suspects and prisoner s in the states. The 1967 Presidents Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of Justice was charged by President Johnson to devel op a plan that would allow us to banish crime The Commissions Report, The Challenge of Crime in a Free Society, made more than 200 recommendations as part of a comprehensive approach toward preventing and fighting crime. Some of the recommenda tions were included in a major new federal law, the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 This Act established the Law Enforcement Assistance Administration ( LEAA), which provided federal grants for research on criminology, including the study of the social aspects of crime. By the 1970s, there were 729 academic programs in criminology and criminal justice in the United States. Over time, scholars of criminal ju stice began to include criminology, sociology, psychology and other disciplines to provide a more comprehensive view of the causes of crime and the organization and operati on of the criminal justice system. The Omnibus Act recommended that the criminal justice system be made more effective by improving coordination among the thr ee main components of the criminal justice system: police, courts, and corrections The politics of the 1968 Omnibus Crime Control Act are very interesting. It was passed in spring of 1968 by a Democratic Congress that was worried that Democrats were going to do badly in the upcoming fall elections because they were increasing seen as soft on crime and a time when the public was becoming much more worried about str eet crime than police brutality. Republicans sensed the public fear of crime and t ook tough on crime positions while portraying Democrats as soft on crime. Republican Richard Nixons presidential campaign used getting tough on crime rhetoric and when he took office he began implementing crime control policies. Two criminal justice issues that divide the ideological right and left are gun control and capital punishment. Guns are an im portant part of Ameri can political culture therefore debates about the wisdom and the legality of using gun control to increase public safety are often heated. Liberals ge nerally support gun control as crime control. Conservatives generally oppose gun control as crime control. The debates are partly about effectiveness: the question whether gun co ntrol affects rates of crime and levels of public safety. The debates are also about rights. The Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear arms. For a seriously funny alternative to gun control as a way to reduce violence listen to comedian Chris Rocks routine recommending bullet control rather than gun control. Can the constitutio nal problems with gun control be avoided because the Second Amendment mentions the right to keep and bear arms but says nothing about the right to keep and use bullets? Think about it! Is Chris Rock right about the Second Amendment and bullet control? m/watch?v=OuXnFmL0II

PAGE 364

Chapter 17: Public Policy: Crime |357 16.3 | Criminal Law Law is a system of rules that are backed by sanctions for not complying with them. Sanctions mean that compliance is not voluntary. The U.S. le gal system is divided into two forms of law: civil law and criminal law. Civil laws are generally the rules that govern interactions between individuals or organizations. Civil law is sometimes called private law because it does not usually i nvolve the government. Business contracts, for example, are typically private law. Criminal laws are the system of rules that 1) define what behaviors are considered illegal and ther efore criminal; 2) the legal procedures used to investigate, prosecute, and try those who are accused of crimes; and 3) the punishments (i.e., the sentences) that are consid ered appropriate for convicted offenders. Criminal law is public law for two reasons. Fi rst, crimes are considered harmful to both the individual victim and soci ety in general: crimes are offe nses against the public order. Second, the government prosecutes and punishes offenders. The primary purposes of criminal law are to protect individuals from being harmed by others and to punish those who commit crimes. All countries have criminal laws. The oldest known codified law is the Code of Hammurabi which was established around 1760 BC in ancient Mesopotamia. Histor ically, criminal law was private law in the sense that individuals and groups pr ovided their own protection and punished offenders rather than relying on government to do so. The development of professional criminal justice officials (including police, prosecutors, and judges) and a system of codified laws (to replace common law), ha ve diminished the laypersons role in delivering justice. However, in recent year s vigilantism (individua ls or organizations taking the law back into their own hands) and the gun rights movement have expanded the laypersons role. 16.4 | The Criminal Justice System The criminal justice system c onsists of three main parts: (1) the police (sometimes called law enforcement; (2) the courts; and (3) corrections (jails and prisons). The police (including police officers and sheriffs), judges, and corrections officials (including guards and wardens) are all part of the criminal justice system. Anot her important set of criminal justice officials are prosecutors, w ho can be considered pa rt of the policing or law enforcement function. 16.41 | The Police A police officer is the criminal justice offici al that the typical person is most likely to have contact with. Police officers are in the community pa trolling neighborhoods, streets, and areas where people congregate. Th e police are also the first criminal justice officials that an offender will have contact with because it is the police who investigate crimes and make arrests. The primary f unctions of the police are to prevent and investigate violations of crim inal laws and to maintain public order. Police officers are empowered to use force and ot her forms of legal coercion and legal means to effect public and social order. The word police is from the Latin politia (civil administration),

PAGE 365

358|Chapter 16: Public Policy: Crime which itself derives from the Ancient Greek word for polis (city). The London Metropolitan Police established in 1829 by Sir Robert Peel is considered the first modern police force. It promoted the police role in preventing and deterring urban crime and disorder rather than the tradition reactive role of investigating crimes that had already been committed. In the United States, police de partments were first established in Boston in 1838 and New York City in 1844. Early polic e departments were not held in very high regard because they had reputations for being incompetent, co rrupt, and political. In the 1990s, the New York City Po lice Department de veloped CompStat ( ComputerStat istics) an information-based syst em for tracking and mapping crime patterns and trends. CompStat is also a t ool for holding police de partments accountable for dealing with crime. It has been replicated in police departments across the United States and around the world, and is an exam ple of computer information systems are applied to organizations related to policing. The Federal Bureau of Investigation is the pre-eminent law enforcement agency in the U.S. It is responsible for inves tigating interstate crimes and crimes violating fe deral laws. Although the FBI is the most prominent police organization, it accounts for only a small portion of policing activity in the U.S. Most policing activities such as order maintenance and services such as crowd control or security ar e actually provided by a broad range of state and local organizations (e.g., state highway patrols; count y sheriffs; city police; and school police). 16.42 | The Courts: Criminal Trials The courts are examined in a separate chapter so this section provides a brief description of criminal trials. A trial is, in its simplest terms, a fact-finding proc ess. In the U.S., the primary function of a trial court is dispute re solution. In the criminal justice system, the primary figures are the judge, the jury, the prosecutor, and the defense attorney. The courtroom work group also includes magi strates (who may perform some of the preliminary or ministerial functions of a tr ial), probation or parole officers, and other professionals who provide relevant informati on about a defendant or convicted offender. In the past, judges did not have to be lawyer s. Justices of the peace were elected members of the community similar to other local leaders. Today, how ever, a judge in a criminal case is a lawyer. The jury, however, consis ts of lay people. The U.S. uses this combination of professional and lay people more than most countries, which have decreased their reliance on lay juries. It is a reminder of the close relationship between politics and law in the U.S. administration of justice. The U.S. legal system is an adversarial system An adversarial system is one where each of the two parties, the adversaries, presents its side of the case and challenges the other sides version of the facts and understanding of the law during a trial or a hearing. A neutral third partya judge, a panel of judges (som e appeals courts hear cases with panels of judges), or a jurydecides th e case. The case should be decided in favor

PAGE 366

Chapter 17: Public Policy: Crime |359 Albert Ellery Berg, The Universal Self-Instructor (New York: Thomas Kelly, Publisher, 1883) 25. of the party who offers the most sound a nd compelling arguments based on the law as applied to the facts of the case. The adversarial process allows each side to present its case to the judge or jury. The judge or jury is the neutral third party. Having a ne utral party settle a dispute between two disputants is one of the oldest and most basic elements of justicethe belief that no one should be a judge of his or her own cause. Justice requires having a neutral third party deciding which side wins the case. In criminal justice, this means that a judge or jury determines whether a person is guilty or not guilty. In some American states, the jury verdict must be a unanimous decision; in others a majority or supermajority vote is enough to obtain a conviction. The prosecutor or district attorney is the government lawyer who brings charges against the person, persons or corporate entity accused of a crime. The prosecutor explains to the court, including the jury if it is a jury trial, what crime was committed and the evidence used to prove the charge. In the U.S. lega l system, prosecutors have a great deal of discretion. They can decide whether to charge an individual with a crime, what charge to file, when to go to trial and what kinds of cas es to prosecute, and what penalties to ask for upon conviction. For these reasons prosecutors are extremely important figures in the criminal justice system. They are not merely bureaucrats who follow orders or implement the law. Prosecutorial discretion makes prosecutors powerful figures. A defense attorney counsels the accused on the legal process, advises of the likely outcomes, and recommends legal strategies. The accused, not the lawyer, has the right to make final decisions on the most important aspects of their legal strategy, including whether to accept a plea bargain offer or go to trial, and whether to take the stand and testify at the trial. The defense attorney has a duty to represent the interests of the client, raise procedural and evidentiary issues, and hold the prosecution to its burden of proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Defense counsel may challenge evidence presented by the prosecution or present exculpatory eviden ce and argue on behalf of their client. At trial, the defense attorney typically offers a rebuttal to the prosecutors accusations. The Sixth Amendment right to the assistance of counsel was originally understood to mean only that a person had a righ t to a lawyer if they could afford to pay for one, a right that was gr adually expanded during the 20th Century. The right to a lawyer was first expanded to cases wher e a person could receive the death penalty (capital cases). Then the right was expanded to all cases where there were special circumstances such as very young defendants, uneducated defendants, or evidence of racial hostility. Then the righ t was expanded to all felony tria ls. And then it was further expanded to all serious cases. In the U.S. today, an accused person is entitled to a

PAGE 367

360|Chapter 16: Public Policy: Crime government-paid defense attorney, a public de fender, if he or she cannot afford an attorney and the charge is so serious that a conviction could result in loss of life or liberty. These changes occurred primarily because judges came to consider the assistance of counsel an essential element of the administration of justice. The vast majority of cases are settled by plea barg ains, not trials. Plea-bargaining is when the accused pleads guilty in exchange for a reduction in the number of charges or the sentence. Ideally, a plea bargain is a deal that benefits both th e prosecutor and the defense. The prosecutor saves time and money, avoids the risk of losing the case, and may include a requirement that the defendant cooperate with the police by testifying against others. The defendant typically gets a reduction in the number of charges, the severity of the charge offenses, a reduced sentence, and avoids the risk of a more serious loss of liberty or even life. Plea bargains settle over 90% of cases. Many na tions do not permit the use of plea-bargaining because it can coerce innocent people to plead guilty in an attempt to avoid harsh punishment. Plea-bargaining is also controversial because it cr eates the public impression that criminals are getting much less punishment than they deserve. Because a plea bargain usually involves getting a sentence that is substantially less than the maximum penalty for an offense, the public tend to think of plea bargai ning as evidence that the system is not as tough on crime as it might be. 16.43 | Barriers to Justice There are a number of ways that the cr iminal justice system can produce unjust outcomes. The police can coer ce confessions or make honest makes. Prosecutors may hide exculpatory evidence. Defense counsel can be inadequate. The judge or jury can acquit a guilty person or convict an innocent person. Or a person can be found guilty of a crime that is more or less severe than th e one they actually committed. These mistakes can be intentional (misconduct) or unintentional. Bias presents an inte resting case. Bias can undermine decision-making in any setting whether civil or cr iminal justice, employment, education, or health -care. Individuals can be biased for or against someone or something. A cognitive bias is the tendency to make systematic errors that are based on cognitive factors (what someone believes to be true) rather than the factual evidence. Cognitive biases are a common attribute of hum an thought, and often drastically skew the reliability of anecdotal and legal evidence. Biases can lead to discrimination. Prejudice on the part of the police, prosecutors, judges, or jurors can undermine the legitimacy and credibility of the legal process. A prejudice is a prejudgment, an assumption or belief that is made about someone or something without knowledge of the facts. Prejudice is commonly thought of a preconceived judgment toward a people or a person because of race, class, gender, ethnicity, age, disability, re ligion, or political beliefs. A prejudice can be a positive prejudice (a favorable predisposition) or a negative prejud ice (an unfavorable predisposition). Cognitive prejudice refers to what someone be lieves to be true. Affective Prejudice refers to what people like and dislike (e.g., attitudes toward members of a particular class, race, ethnicity, national origi n, or creed). Behavioral prejudice refers to Have you ever been called for jury duty? What did you think of the voir dire questioning of the jury pool?

PAGE 368

Chapter 17: Public Policy: Crime |361 beliefs about how people are inclined to be have. Prejudices are an extremely important issue during the select ion of juries. The jury selectio n process includes lengthy questions about individual backgrounds and attitudes in order to get a better sense of what prejudices might be indicated. If you have ever been called for jury duty you know how important discovering attitudes and biases is in the voir dire process of questioning the jury pool. Racism is a combination of racial prej udice and discrimination. It involves prejudging a person based on their race or ethni city. It attributes to individuals characteristics associated with members of a group. Trials are fact-finding processes that use elaborate rules of evidence partly to minimize the impacts of bias. One additional source of problems in the criminal justice system is inequality of resources. Legal representation is expensive. The lack of adequate financial or other resources puts a person at a si gnificant disadvantage at all stages of the criminal justice process, not just the trial. The states are required to provide public defenders for those who cannot afford legal counsel, but the stat e systems vary a great deal and public defenders are not paid well in some states. Th is is particularly troubling in death penalty cases. This is why capital punishment is jokingly explained by the quip, If you dont have the capital, you get the punishment. 16.44 | Corrections After conviction, an offender is turned over to correctional au thorities for in carceration in a detention facility (for juvenile s), a jail (for shorter terms, usually less than one year), or a prison. The types and purposes of punishme nt have changed over the years. In early civilizations, the primary form s of punishment were exile, execution, or other forms of corporal (bodily) punishment such as dism emberment (e.g., amputating the hand of a thief) or branding. Traditional societies also relied extensively on informal methods of social control. Laws are a formal method of social control that may be supplemented by other, informal methods of social control, such as religion, profe ssional rules and ethics, or cultural mores and customs. Punishment can also be formal or informal. Shame and shunning were ways to censure individuals whose behavior the community considered inappropriate. The Puritan stocks and the scarlet letter are examples of traditional methods of informal social control. Toda y, however, prisons a nd jails are the most important methods of punishment. Formal me thods of social controlprosecution for violating the lawhave replaced informal methods of social control and punishment. Monetary fines are one of the oldest forms of punishment and they are still used today. These fines may be paid to the state or to the victims as a form of reparation. Probation and house arrest are also sanctions that seek to limit an offenders mobility and opportunities to commit crimes without actually placing them in a prison setting. Many jurisdictions may require so me form of public service as a form of punishment for lesser offenses. Correctional reform in the United States was first initiated by William Penn in the latter part of the 17th century.5 Pennsylvanias criminal code was revised to forbid torture and other forms of cruel

PAGE 369

362|Chapter 16: Public Policy: Crime William Penn punishment. Quakers were among the princi pal advocates of penal reform. They advocated replacing corporal punishment with institutions where criminals could be rehabilitated or made penitent. Henc e the idealistic name penitentiary. The purposes of punishment have also changed over time. The Quaker movement is commonly credited with establishing the idea that prisons should be used to reform or rehabilitate criminals. Punishment serves four purposes: incapacitation (removing offenders from the general population; deterrence (sending a message that crime does not pay); rehabilitation (reforming offenders ); and retribution (payback). Many societies consider punishment a form of retribution, and any harm or discomfort the prisoner su ffers is just payback for the harm they caused their victims. A third purpose is rehabilitation or reform. One aspect of the shift fr om liberalism to conservatism has been the shift from liberal thinking about crime to conservative thinking about crime. Beginning in the 1970s, sentencing policy moved away from rehabilita tion and toward incapacitation, deterrence, and retribution. This policy change has resulted in the U.S. having the highest incarce ration rate in the world. The economic and social costs of maintaining such a large prison population has prompted new efforts to find out who really needs to be imprisoned. Can science be used to better predict who will commit crimes or who is really a psychopath? Think about it! Can we devel op a test to predict who is a psychopath? If so, should we use it to prevent crime? Listen to Can a Test Really Tell Whos a Psychpath? -a-test-really-tell-whos-apsychopath 16.47 | Capital Punishment Capital punishment is probably the most controversial punishment issue. Once widely used in the U.S., it is now limited to capital crimes.6 Concerns about wrongful convictions, inadequate legal re presentation, arbitrary or discri minatory application of the death penalty, and a general sense that executio n is no longer consiste nt with the values of civilized societies, have reduced the us e of the death penalty. However, efforts to declare it unconstitutional because it violates due process of law or is cruel and unusual punishment have been unsuccessful. One of the current legal and political i ssues questions about the death penalty is who should be eligible to be sentenced to death. Should mentally handicapped individuals be eligible for th e death penalty? At what point does a low IQ score make a person ineligible for the death penalty? Shoul d minors be eligible for the death penalty? Determining the age at which children become culpable for their behavior is a controversial question. It ra ises political, moral, and increasingly even scientific questions. Recent advances in brain science have greatly increased the understanding of brain development and the relationship between brain development and behavior, Think about it! Do humans have a three ice-cream scoop brain? Lister to Jon Hamiltons story From Primitive Parts, A Highly Evolved Brain, story/story.php?storyId=12902 7124

PAGE 370

Chapter 17: Public Policy: Crime |363 including the kinds of youthful risk-taking behavior that incl ude crime. Brain research has discovered that humans have a rather prim itive brain, primitive in the sense that the human brain developed from a jellyfish founda tion (which is charac terized by primitive neural networks), then added a serpents brai n (which is characterized by simple threat response), and then added the mammal brain (the ape brain). What does this have to do with crime policy? Brain science re search has had an impact on thinking about punishment. The Suprem e Court Justices tend to be empirical decision makers in the sense that they rely on evidence-based argument for or against a law. When considering the constitutionality of a law that limits television or radio broadcasts of offensive or indecent material, the Justices consider the empirical evidence of the governments interest in regulating pr ogramming. What is the evidence of harm? What percentage of the audience are childre n during the hours from 10:00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m.? The Justices will also take empirical evidence into consideration when deciding cases involving challenges to la ws that make minors eligible for the death penalty. What does the latest brain developmen t research say about the brai ns of adolescents? Should adolescents be held accountable for their violent actions in the same way that an adult is, and be tried as adults? In recent years the Supreme Court has struggled with the issue of punishing minors. Once the Court ruled that it was unconstitutional to execute minors it had to decide when someone was too young to execute. This required draw ing age lines. Could a person who committed a crime at 17, 16, 15, or 8 years of age be sentenced to death? In Eddings v. Oklahoma (1982), the Court set aside the death sentence of a 16 year old.7 In Stanford v. Kentucky (1989) the Court rej ected the argument that executing a person who was older than 15 but younger than 18 when they committed the crime violated the 8th and 14th Amendments.8 In Thompson v. Oklahoma (1988), the Court ruled that it was unconstitutional to execute a person who was under age 16, and then in Roper v. Simmons (2005) the Court ruled that a pers on who was under age 18 could not be executed. 16.5 | Resources One of the most valuable sources of information about crime and the federal criminal justice system is the U.S. Department of Ju stice (DOJ). One of the DOJ agencies that gathers and reports criminal and civil justice stat istics is the Bureau of Justice Statistics. The BJS data on crime rates and rates of in carceration and prison populations provide information about a broad range of subjects including public opinion.9 The BJS reports include the prison populati on, rates of imprisonment, and changes in rates of imprisonment. The BJS reports also provide information about cap ital punishment (i.e., Death Penalty). The high rate of incarcer ation during the years of getting tough on crime has made the U.S. the country with the highest rate of imprisonment in the world. The heavy reliance on imprisonment as punishment is a public policy issue because it is expensive to maintain prisons and because there are questions about its effectiveness.10 16.6 | The States

PAGE 371

364|Chapter 16: Public Policy: Crime As sovereign entities in a federal system of government, the states have substantial responsibility for crime policy. Each state can create its own criminal laws and criminal justice system. As a result, crime policies va ry widely. The rate of incarceration varies dramatically from state to state and region to region. The Southern states have the highest rates of incarceration. The map below indicat es the number of state prison inmates per 100,000 residents Incarceration Rates, 2006 Number of State Prison Inmates per 100,000 State Residents11 16.7 | Internet Sources The Code of Hammurabi. 1760 BC. The U.S. Department of Justice gathers and re ports criminal and civil justice statistics. The Bureau of Justice Statistics data on crim e rates and rates of incarceration and prison populations provides important informati on about criminal justice policies: Bureau of Justice Statistics. The Florida Office of the Attorney provide s information about crime in Florida at

PAGE 372

Chapter 17: Public Policy: Crime |365 The Florida Department of Corr ections also provides information about prisons in Florida at Information about Floridas Death Row (who is on death row, or what a death row cell looks like), is available at: http://www.dc.state.fl .us/oth/deathrow/index.html 1 Packer explained the two models in The Limits of the Criminal Sanction (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1968). 2 On the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act Courts, see For information about FBI National Security Letters see Domestic military operations also raise questions of constitutional protections. See 3 MemoirsReformers/MemoirsJohnLambert.htm Terms The Crime Control and Due Process Models of Justice Civil law Criminal law Federal Bureau of Investigation Federalizing Crime Rates of Incarceration Adversarial system Plea bargaining Prejudice LegalDiscrimination

PAGE 373

366|Chapter 16: Public Policy: Crime 4 960-1969/1965/1965_759 5 6 See Kennedy v. Louisiana (2008) at 7 l/historics/USSC_CR_0455_0104_ZO.html 8 l/historics/USSC_CR_0492_0361_ZS.html 9 See 10 http://www.pewcenteronthestates.o rg/report_detail.aspx?id=35904 11 http://www.pewcenteronthestates.o rg/ttw/trends_map_data_table.aspx?trendID=11&assessmentID=24

PAGE 374

17.0 | Global Affairs: Foreign Policy, Na tional Security, and War Powers How did the U.S., which was founded as a republic that was opposed to empires, become an empire? When did the U.S. become the world policeman? How did the president become the leader of the free world? Is the Caribbean Sea an American lake where the U.S. is largely free to do what it wants? What will the world be like in the year 2030? These are some of the questions that are examined in this chapter on global affairs, an area of public policy that presents special challenges for holding governme nt power politically or legally accountable. CHAPTER 17: Global Affairs

PAGE 375

368 | Chapter 17: Global Affairs The term global affairs includes foreign policythe federal governments plans to advance national interests in de aling with other nations; national securitypolicies and actions to protect against domestic and foreign threats to the U.S. government or the territorial integrity of the U.S.; and war powersthe use of military force. Like domestic policy, global affairs involve politics. However, there are two important differences between th e politics of domestic affairs and global affairs. One of the differences concerns the fact that the political system of accountability does not operate in global affairs the way it operates in domestic affairs; the other difference concerns the legitimacy of projecting government power abroad. The power problem in global affairs is accountability Global affairs present special challenges for the political systems mechanisms to hold government officials politically and legally accountable for their use of power. Th e accountability problem has been a recurring theme in debates about foreign affairs from th e founding of the republic to the war on terror. The Constitutional Convention. The delegates to the constitutional convention in 1787 extensively debated how to hold the governme nt accountable on matters related to war powers and external (foreign) affairs. The early years of the republic. The debate about accountability continued during the early years of the re public when the U.S. was a ne w nation that was surrounded by imperial powers that were ambitious to e xpand their sphere of influence and Native Americans that sometimes opposed American expansion westward. Becoming a world power. Accountability was an issue in the latt er part of the 19th Century when the U.S. developed into an economic and military power and used that power to acquire territory and exert infl uence beyond the nations original borders. Acting as the worlds policeman. In the early years of the 20th Century accountability was an issue when the U.S. assumed the role of world policeman and leader of the free world in the early years of the 20th Century. The Cold War. During the Cold War, the emphasis on secrecy and emergency powers in the global fight against communism weakened the ordinary methods of holding government (particularly executive officials) a ccountable for the use of power in national security affairs. The War on Terror. Congress delegated th e president broad power to make and implement counterterrorism policy. Holding pr esidential power polit ically or legally accountable has remained one of the most im portant and controversial issues in the debates about counterterrorism policy. Legitimacy is an important concept in political science. It is a normative term that refers to the belief that something is appropriate, legal, right, or just. A legitimate government, law, or public policy is one that is accep ted as appropriate. A democratic government is the legitimate authority to govern domestically. But what give s a governmenteven a democracythe right to project power abroad? This is a political question that has been asked from the founding of the republic to contemporary debates about U. S. involvement with global affairs. This chapter examines accountability and le gitimacy by discussing four main questions about global affairs policy. Should the U.S. be involved in global affairs? What should global affairs policy be? How is American power projected abroad? Who should make global affairs policy?

PAGE 376

Chapter 17: Global Affairs | 369 The first question is whether the U.S. should be involved in global affairs or stay out of external matters and concentrate on domestic affairs. This is basically the question of engagement or isolation. The second question is substantive: once the decision has been made to get involved with global affair s, what should public policy be concerning international drug cartels, international trade, global warming, the Middle East, or the strength of the dollar? Elements of the policy making process (or stages) apply herealthough there are some differences between domestic and foreign polic y. The third question about global affairs is how should the U.S. project American power? Should the U.S. use hard powerthat is, military forceor soft powerthat is, economic power and poli tical influence including diplomacyin order to achieve its objectiv es? The fourth question is who should make policy. The question, who should make foreign affairs policy, is primarily the struggle between congress and the president (and to a lesse r extent the courts) over control of global affairs. The institutional conflict between congress and the president is one of the things that make the polit ics of global affairs distinctive and different from domestic affairs. Th ere are some non-governmental actors who participate in the foreign affairs issu e networks but interest groups play a smaller role than they do in domestic a ffairs. The fourth question is about the system of checks and balances. The system of checks and balances is much weaker in global affairs than domestic a ffairs, which is another reason why the politics and governance of global affairs is distinctive. The weaker checks and balances present special accountability problems particularly for holding presidents legally accountable for the way they use power. Two aspects of presidential power over foreign affairs create accountability problems. The first is the Sole Organ Doctrine. The Sole Organ Doctrine holds that the president is the sole organ of the nation in its dealings with other countries. To paraphrase Pr esident George W. Bush, I am the decider. By this he meant that congress and the courts were NOT the decide rs. The second aspect of presidential power that creates special accountability problems is executive discretion Executive discretion is an executive officials freedom of choice to decide upon a course of action. Executive discretion is exemplified by war powers statutes, national security statutes, or ot her statutes that delegate the president power to do whatever the president thi nks is necessary. The chapter includes prominent examples of statutes that give the president br oad discretion to act in domestic and national security affairs. Executive discretion is one of the distinguishing f eatures of global affairs policy. 17.1 | The Weak System of Checks and Balances in Global Affairs There are several ways that the politics and gove rnment of global affairs are different than domestic affairs. First global affairs typically involve different kinds of conflicts. Domestic conflicts typically involv e economic or values choices; global affairs conflicts typically involve national interests or security. Second global affairs have historically involved a different set of government and non-government actors than thos e that are typically involved with domestic affairs. State and local governments and the set of interest groups that participate in dom estic policy making are not as prominent in global affairs. Third the system of checks and balances does not work in global affairs the way it works in domestic affairs. In do mestic affairs, policy choices are typically between competing economic interests (e.g., busin ess versus labor), But I am the decider, and I decide what is best. President George W. Bush

PAGE 377

370 | Chapter 17: Global Affairs partisan conflict (e.g., Republicans versus Democrats), ideological conflict (e.g., conservative versus liberal views on the size and role of government), or institutional conflicts between Congress, the president, the Supreme Court, or between the national and state governments. The Madisonian system of checks and balances that was intended to prevent government abuse of power includes the separation of powers, fede ralism, public opinion, and (today) partisanship. But these checks and balances do not operate in gl obal affairs the way they operate in domestic affairs. 17.11 | Partisanship Party politics has become part of the system of checks and balances: the party IN power is supposed to be held accountable by the party OU T of power. But party politics does not work in global affairs the way it works in domestic affair s. For example, there is an old saying that politics stops at the waters edge. This saying de scribes the belief that it is appropriate to play politics in domestic policy but not foreign policy. Th e belief that politic s should stop at the waters edge reflects the desire to put aside party politics or other political differences so that the U.S. can present a united front in its dealings wi th other countries. The belief that politics should stop at the waters edge is the basis for appeals to create bipartisan foreign policy. The appeal for bipartisanship in foreign affairs is based on the assumption that partisan conflict and competition are appropriate for domestic po litics but not foreign affairs. 17.12 | Separation of Powers The separation of powers among the three branches of government is different in domestic and global affairs. In global affairs, the presiden t is the most powerful actor. Congress generally follows the presidents lead. The Supreme Court ha s a tradition of judici al restraint in global affairsit generally stays out of disputes involving global affairs. Furthermore, in cases where individuals, companies, or Congr ess have challenged presidentia l actions, the Supreme Court has ruled that the president has primary, and perhap s exclusive, responsibili ty for the conduct of global affairs. In U.S. v. Curtiss-Wright Export Corporation (1936) a company in the business of selling weapons, the Curtiss-Wright Export Cor poration, challenged the presidents power to declare an arms embargo prohibiting the sale of arms to two South American countries that were fighting over a disputed border re gion. President Franklin Roosevelt declared the arms embargo because he thought it would aid the American foreign policy goa l of bringing peace to the region. The Supreme Court upheld th e presidents power using the Sole Organ doctrine. The Sole Organ doctrine, which was first stated by Representative John Marshall, is that the Constitution makes the president the sole organ of the nation in its dealings with other nations. The Courts ruling strengthened subsequent presid ential claims that the president, not Congress or the courts, has the power to conduct foreign policy. There are differences of opinion about the scope of the Sole Organ doctrine. Congress an d the Supreme Court do challenge presidential actions, but both Congress and the Supreme Court have agreed that the president has broad powers in the area of global affa irs and they generally defer to the presidents determination of what policies are appropriate. The president ca n limit partisan or other challenges to foreign affairs policies, particularly those related to national security, by portraying critics or political opponents as un-American, unpatriotic, or even a thre at to national security. Presidents play the Commander-in-Chief card to limit political opposition.

PAGE 378

Chapter 17: Global Affairs | 371 17.13 | Federalism Federalism is the geographic di vision of powers between the na tional and state governments. Federalism does not operate as a very important check on presidential power in global affairs because global affairs are predominantly, and on some matters exclusively, national rather than state government powers. The Supremacy Clause provides that federal laws (the Constitution, statutes, and treaties) shall be the supreme law of the land and states are required to recognize federal laws. According to the preemption doctrine federal policies trum p state policies where they conflict. The states can pass laws in policy areas where the federal government also legislates (e.g., education, crime, the environmen t). But federal law preempts state laws that conflict with federal law. Immigration policy is one of the areas where state and federal laws sometimes conflict because states bordering Mexi co, for example, have special interests in immigration issues. As the number of illegal immi grants has increased in some states, and the number of immigrants in general has increased in some states, voters in t hose states have enacted laws that clash with federal lawsor reflect a different view of how to enforce existing immigration laws, or present different views on e ligibility for public servic es such as education, health care, and social welfare. 17.14 | Public Opinion In democratic systems, public opinion is cons idered a vital essential check on government power. But there are three reas ons why public opinion is often a weak check on government power in global affairs. First, the public is not as well informed about foreign affairs as it is about domestic affairs. The typica l voter pays much closer attenti on to domestic issues such as the condition of the schools, the economy, and the roads than matters of foreign affairs. Second, the public is more dependent on the federal government for inform ation about global affairs. A person may know a great deal abou t the condition of the local road s that they drive regularly because they have personal experience with driv ing them. A person may know a great deal about whether their neighborh ood is safe and whether their lo cal schools are good. But the average person is dependent on the government for information about most of the issues related to global affairs. This information dependency gives the government a freer hand to act independent of public opinion or even to create public opinion. Third the typical public reaction to an international crisis, emergency, or foreign threat is to rally around the flag This phrase describes the increase in patriotic support for the government that typically occurs in the wake of a foreign threat, attack, or crisis. The rally effect certainly occurred after th e terrorist attacks of 9/11 when presidential approval ratings incr eased dramatically. The presiden t, as the government official most closely identified with gl obal affairs, can expect increase d public support in the immediate aftermath of a foreign crisis that touches on national security. However, public support will decline if a crisis continues, a hostage rescue or military action fails, or a war lingers on for a long period of time. 17.2 | Two Traditions: Isolation or Engagement?

PAGE 379

372 | Chapter 17: Global Affairs There are two competing views of U.S. global affairs policy: isolationism and engagement These two views describe what U.S. global affair s policy is and, to a certain extent, what global affairs policy should be. The isolationist view is that the U.S. should maintain its tradition of staying out of foreign affairs or at least minimizing its engageme nt. Isolationists advocate inward looking politics where the govern ment focuses on domestic or in ternal affairs rather than outward looking politics where the government fo cuses on foreign or external affairs. The isolationist tradition in Ameri can politics can be traced to three causes. First, the country was founded as a republic that was born of a revolution fought against the imperi al tradition of global engagement practiced by the European powers, primarily the Britis h, French, and Spanish empires. The second reason is geography. The U. S. was a young nation that was separated from the intrigues of European power politics by two great oceans, the Atlantic and the Pacific, which enabled it to minimize interacti ons with other countries. The th ird reason is ideological. The ideological argument for isolationism is that the U.S. has rejected activi st or engaged foreign policy because it has an anti-statist ideolo gy that includes a rej ection of centralized government power.1 Engagement refers to the argument that the U.S. has a political tradition of active engagement in global affairs a nd that this engagement is a ppropriate policy. Supporters of engagement describe the U.S. history of involvement with other nations from the earliest days of the republic. They maintain that the U.S. ha s strategically used its economic, military, and political power to advance its interests abroad. The view presented in this chapter is that the U.S. has elements of both isolation and engagement. The engagement in global a ffairs has historically been controversial because the anti-statist ideologysometimes expressed by liberals and sometimes expressed by conservativesopposes national government activism abroad. But American politics also includes very prominent examples of engagement in global affairs. 17.21 | Isolation American politics has from the founding included debates about whether to be involved with global affairs and how any involve ment should occur. One of the most famous expressions of isolationist policy is Pres ident George Washingtons Farewell Address This famous Address which was delivered as Washingt on was preparing to leave office in 1796, is remembered today primarily for the father of the country advising the young republics future leaders to stay out of foreign affairs and international intriguespar ticularly the European politics that produced seemingly endless wars. Washington did indeed a dvise the countrys leaders to avoid entangling alliances. But Washington did not advise isolation. He did not urge the nations leaders to look inward not outward. His advice was mo re nuanced. Washington advised having commercial (or business) relations with other na tions but not political relations: History and experience prove that foreign influence is one of the most baneful foes of republican government. The great rule of conduct for us in regard to foreign nations is, in extending our commercial relations to have with them as little political connection as possible. He though that avoiding political connections was the best way for the young republic to keep out of the European politics that had a long hist ory of complicated political entanglements that resulted in many and long wars. Washington urged th e countrys future leader s to be skeptical of Think about it! Was Washington right to warn the nations leaders to stay out of foreign affairs?

PAGE 380

Chapter 17: Global Affairs | 373 entangling U.S. peace and prosperity with the European tradition of the po litics of intrigue and avarice. When political connections with ot her countries were nece ssary, he recommended temporary alliances for those emergencies and warned the nations leaders to steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the fore ign world. He also worried about the U.S. joining an alliance with another country because he believed that a small or weak country that attached itself to a great and powerful nation dooms the former to be the satellite of the latter. Washingtons Farewell Address was not limited to giving ad vice about how the country could avoid war, while not becoming subservient to great powers, and still pursue the national interest. He also spoke about the importance of remaining true to the nations founding values while pursuing national self-interest. He specifi cally mentioned values such as observing good faith and justice towards all nations, promo ting peace and harmony with all nations, avoiding inveterate antipathies against some nations and passionate attachments to others, and advocating trade with all nations Washington and other leadi ng members of the Federalist Party, most notably Alexander Hamilton, wanted th e U.S. to develop as a commercial republic. But Hamilton disagreed with thos e who believed that commercial republics were the key to a peaceful world because commercia l republics would not engage in armed conflict with other countries because they would be in terested in trade rath er than imperial power or national glory. In Federalist Number 6, for example, Hamilton argued that it was nave idealism or utopian to think that commercial enterprises would replace war. Isolationists also opposed U.S. participati on in WWI and initially opposed U.S. fighting in WWII. One of the most famous advocates of isolationism was Char les Lindbergh. Lindbergh was a national hero whose strong statements urging the U.S. to stay out of WWII permanently damaged his reputation. His 1941 Address to the America First Committee is a strong statement of isolationism. 17.22 | Engagement The political tradition of engagement also ha s roots in early American politics. The active engagement tradition is evident in early 19th Century thought and action. The Monroe Doctrine (1823) declared that the entire Western Hemisphere was within the U.S. sphere of influence and any attempts by European imperial powers to colonize countries or to interfere with political developments within the regionat a time when Latin American countries were experiencing independence movements from the Spanish Empi rewould be considered justification for American military action. The doctrine of Manifest Destiny and the idea of American Exceptionalism also provided political and religious ju stifications for territorial expansion. Manifest Destiny is the belief that the United States was destined to expand its sphere of influence over the western territories of North America and even beyond the region. Manifest Destiny provided the political justification for westward expansion to settle the American frontier. It provided a justification for fighting Indian Wars to remove Native Americans from their traditional lands. It also provided a justification for te rritorial expansion by buying vast tracts of land through agreements such as the Louisiana Purchase in 1803, which almost doubled the geographic size of the nation. The nations te rritory also expanded in 1819 when Spain ceded the territory of Florida and in 1845 when the U.S. annexed Texas. The Louisiana Purchase greatly increased the geographic size of the U.S. /lewisclark2/circa1804/herita ge/louisianapurchase/louisianapurchase.htm

PAGE 381

374 | Chapter 17: Global Affairs Manifest Destiny also justified military expansion by fighting the Mexican-American War (1846-1848) and Spanish-American War (1898). When the U.S. won the MexicanAmerican War in 1848 it acquired the vast territorie s that comprise California, Arizona, and New Mexico. The U.S. bought Alaska from the Russia n Empire in 1867 and annexed the Republic of Hawaii in 1898. The U.S. victory over Spain in the Spanish-American War gave the U.S. possession of the former Spanish colonies of th e Philippines and Puerto Rico and control over Cuba. The Spanish-American War was politically controversial in the U.S. because it involved an offensive use of American military power abroad. Critics of the War argued that it transformed the U.S. from a republic into an empire. The U.S. was a young republic that had successfully fought a revolutionary war against Great Britain, a grea t imperial power In fact, the U.S. Declaration of Independence and Revolutionary War served as models for other nations to assert their national independence from other im perial powers that ruled over other people. William Graham Sumner (1840-1910) was an Amer ican academic whose essay entitled The Conquest of the U.S. By Spain (1899) argued that the U.S. won the Spanish-American War but paid a high price for its military victory: the U.S. won the war but lost its status as a republic because it acquired colonies a nd became an imperial power.2 American Exceptionalism is the belief that the U.S. is a special country, that its creation and rise to superpower status are indications that the U.S. is a gr eat country that is destined to play a unique role in world politics, and that it has a responsibility to use its power. Exceptionalism has played a very important role in the nations global affairs, particularly in providing a justification for the le gitimacy of the U.S. using it s political, military, and economic power to project American influence abroad. American Exceptionalism continues to play an important role in American political discourse, presidential campai gn rhetoric, and public policy. The U.S. role in world politics has change d a great deal since the country was founded. The U.S. plays a much greater role and a very different role in international affairs. The conventional wisdom is that the Founders oppos ed U.S. involvement in foreign affairs, particularly getting involved with the intrigue of European power politics. While they were indeed wary of foreign affairs, they did not advi se isolation rather than engagement. Reading two major sources of the Founders thinkingthe deba tes at the constitutional convention of 1787 and the Federalist Papers paints a more complicated pict ure. The convention delegates thought a great deal about how a young republic should d eal with other nati ons and extensively debated foreign affairs. They knew that a su ccessful republican gover nment must be strong enough to provide national security from foreign threats. The Founders were not isolationists at least not in the sense that th ey wanted the U.S. to be a repub lic that only looked inward and was only concerned about domestic affairs. They were aware of world politics. They understood that the Revolutionary War was not merely about the U.S, that th e Revolutionary War for independence was part of a broader, even globa l conflict that involved the U.S. and the global powers of the day: England, Fran ce, Spain, and the Netherlands. In fact, the Founders realized that the U.S. was likely to be unable to remain unaffected by politics outside the country even if it wanted to remain isolat ed. Therefore they supported the creation of a commercial republic A commercial republic was one that was actively involved with other countries (particula rly the European powe r) but primarily by commercial dealings.

PAGE 382

Chapter 17: Global Affairs | 375 The engagement was international trade rather than the use of military force. The belief that the U.S. should be engaged in international trade made political sense. The U.S. was a struggling young nation. It faced economic difficulties. Secti onal differences between the north, the sound and the frontier raised questions about nati onal unity. The young republ ic did not have a substantial military, and it was surrounded by territori es controlled by Indian Tribes and three expansionist imperial powers (France, England, and Spain). The Founders were acutely aware of foreign threats to their existence. 17.3 | Foreign Policy Foreign policy is defined as the set of goals and public policies that a country establishes for its interactions with other nations and, to a lesse r extent, non-state actors. Foreign policies are designed to promote national interests, nati onal security, ideology, political values, and economic prosperity. The tools of foreign policy include economic, political, social, diplomatic, technological, and military resources. As U.S. economic and military power increased during the latter part of the 19th century, the U.S. became an increasingly important player on the global stage. This aspect of American political development marked an important, long-te rm shift in U.S. forei gn policy that included territorial expansion, more active involvement in foreign affairs, and more engagement in international relations. In the early years of the 20th Century, U.S. foreign policy was shaped primarily by growing internati onal trade, concerns about immigr ation, particip ation in World War I, and claims of a national right to interv ene in Caribbean and Central American politics. The U.S. role on the global stage continued to increase after WWII with American efforts to avoid another global conflict by bringing orde r to the anarchistic world of international relations. International re lations were anarchistic in the se nse that each country pursued its national interest using power pol itics, whereby might makes right and justice is merely the national interest of the stronger nation, and relyin g on military force as the primary way to settle the disputes that inevitably arose. The U.S. intere st in playing a role in world peace did not begin with the WWII era. It has older roots. President Woodrow Wilson had ambitious, idealistic plans to use American power to make the world safe for democracy. One component of this plan was the creation of a League of Nations. However, the Wilson administration was unable to convince Congress to support the League of Nations. The U.S. never joined the League of Nations partly because of the political tradition emphasizing unila teral action rather than joining international organization and the preservative of U.S. sovereignty. In the years preceding WWII, the United Stat es was involved with foreign trade, but otherwise its foreign policy in the 1920s and 1930s tended to be is olationist. As a result, when Germany and Japan built up their military in th e 1930s and used military force against their neighbors, the Roosevelt administration had to overcome strong public re sistance to joining international efforts to confront the threats pres ented by these new totalitarian regimes. The U.S. did provide military aid to Great Britain in its fight against Germany (e.g., though the LendLease Program) and then entered the war and lead allied war efforts against Germany, Japan, and Italy. The contribution of U.S. industrial production as the American economy was converted from peacetime production to wartime production wa s a major factor in winning the war. Until WWII, the U.S. would mobilize the military for war and then demobilize the military after the war. After WWII, the U.S. returned to a peace time economy and industrial production but kept

PAGE 383

376 | Chapter 17: Global Affairs some of the most important government institutions that were responsible for national security and military readiness. The U.S. kept a standing peacetime army for the first time in its history. And the federal government kept the institutions th at were created to ensu re national defense and national security. Therefore one legacy of WWII is the warfare state. The term warfare state refers to the permanent national security and defense institutions, including the Department of Defense the Central Intelligence Agency and the National Security Agency One result of the Great Depression was the creation of a social welf are state. One result of WWII was the creation of a warfare state. During the middle years of the 20th Century, American forei gn policy was dominated by World War II and the Cold War. The post-WWII er a of U.S. economic pros perity cont ributed to the expansion of American influence abroad and extended engagement in global affairs. The end of the hot war did not mean the end of conflict. The U.S. adopted the Cold War policy of containment to limit the Soviet expansion of its influence over regions of the world. Containment was a multi-faceted policy that was intended to counter Soviet influence in countries or regions where the Soviets were ex tending their influence. Containment included the use of American economic, military, and political power. Economic power. This included using fore ign aid and other types of economic or development assistance as inst ruments of foreign policy. Political influence. This included diplomacy, treaties (such as the North Atlantic Treaty Organization or NATO), and othe r international agreements su ch as executive orders as instruments of foreign policy. Military power. This included overt military actions, covert operations, and even proxy wars. A proxy war is a war that is militarily supported by one country but found by another usually smaller country. In a famous Farewell Address delivered January 17, 1961, Pr esident Eisenhower warned of the dangers presented by the na tional security estab lishment. He advised the American public and government officials to guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influenceby the military-industrial complex.3 The dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1989 mean t that the U.S.s main adversary during the long Cold War period was no longer an immedi ate military threat. As a result, American foreign policy shifted away from the military and toward international trade, human rights, and diplomacy as ways to achieve foreign polic y goals. This change from military power to international relations as the central element of foreign policy continued until the terrorist attacks of 9/11. 17.31 | The Modern Conservative Era In foreign policy, the modern co nservative era began in the la tter 1960s and early 1970s as a reaction against liberalism. Cons ervatives blamed liberals and liberalism for making the U.S. economically vulnerable and militarily weak. They specifically blamed liberals for the following problems: Going soft on communism. Conservatives thoug ht that American foreign policy was no longer sufficiently anti-communist, that the American emphasis on peace and diplomacy

PAGE 384

Chapter 17: Global Affairs | 377 reflected efforts to appeasement the Soviet Union that were similar to British efforts to appease Hitlers Germany prior to WWII. The loss of the War in Vietnam The loss of the war, punctuat ed by media images of the chaotic withdrawal of the remaining Am ericans when Saigon fell in 1975, raised questions about both the effectiveness of American military power and the willingness to use military power in the national interest. C onservatives blamed liberals for the loss of national confidence in Amer ican power, a condition that conservatives called the Vietnam Syndrome. Energy dependency. In the 1970s, two oil embargoes by The Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) exposed how vulnera ble the American economy (and lifestyle) was because of dependence on foreign oil. The Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. The Sovi et Union invaded Afghanistan in December 1979. The perception that the U.S. could do little about the inva sion or similar aggressive actions by the United States main Cold Wa r adversary contributed to a sense of American military weakness or decline. The Iran Hostages. In 1979, Americans were take n hostage in Iran as part of a revolution against the Shah of Iran, an authoritarian rule r who had been an ally of the U.S. in the Middle East. The hostage-taking, and a failed hostage rescue mission, reinforced the perception of American weakness. In order to counteract these real and perceived weaknesses, conservatives (and Republican presidents) advocated a buildup of the American m ilitary and a restoration of the American sense of a duty to act with a national purpose on the world stage. Richard Nixons Address to the Bohemian Society in July 1967 explains the intellectual foundations of President Nixons foreign policy goals and those of Republican Presidents Reagan, George H.W. Bush, and George W. Bush. This Address is significant because it shows that already in the mid-1960s conservative political leaders were describi ng communism as a failed and faili ng ideology; giving American military superiority credit for the years of peace following World War II (which came to be called Pax Americana ); encouraging a military buildup based on the conservative idea of Peace Through Strength; and advocating the use of Amer ican economic power as an instrument of foreign policy to counter Soviet influence across the globe.4 In fact, many of the ideas in Nixons 1967 Address informed President Reagans foreign policy in the 1980s. Ronald Reagan won the 1980 presidential elec tion at least partly because he campaigned on the promise of rebuilding the national spirit and the military to fight Soviet communism. After the fall of the Soviet Union, conservatives advo cated American acceptance of its responsibility as the sole remaining superpower. In The Case for Goliath: How America Acts as the Worlds Government In the Twenty-First Century (2006), Michael Mandelbaum argued that the U.S. had become a de facto world government because of its status as the sole remaining military and economic superpower. The U.S. offered military security in regions of the world through alliances such as NATO, the promotion and regul ation of international trade through economic treaties as the General Agreements on Tariff and Trade (which is now the World Trade Organization), financial stability through the maintenance of a solid dollar as a gl obal currency, and support for legal recourse for the violation of human rights. 17.32 | New Foreign Policy Issues: Trade

PAGE 385

378 | Chapter 17: Global Affairs The end of the Cold War in 1991 began a period where American foreign policy shifted away from the East-West conflict between two military superpowers (the U.S. and the Soviet Union). Post-Cold War foreign policy emphasized economi c issues: the promotion of trade; economic development; and global economic competition. Economic competition has focused on China, India, and Brazil, who have emerged as ma jor economic competitors particularly in manufacturing. China is also a Communist count ry therefore its rapid economic development and emergence as an economic competitor has ra ised concerns about whether it will present a military and political threat to the U.S. The ec onomic results of Chinas public policy strategy to promote rapid economic growth and developmen t are already apparent. China now has the worlds second largest economy (as measured by Gross Domestic Product) having surpassed Japan. The close relationship between economics a nd politics has historica lly raised questions about how a nation plans to use its power, and the political cons equences of Chinas emergence as a world economic power are certainly a part of American political debates about China. The emergence of these new international economic competitors has prompted debates about what public policies the U.S. should adopt to ensure that the U.S. remains competitive in the global marketplace. The Conference Board is a global business me mbership and research association that describes itself as working to advance th e public interest by providing the worlds leading organizations with practical knowledge to improve thei r performance and to better serve society. Like many other business organizations, the Conference Board promotes public policies that encourage eco nomic growth. It believes that the current low rates of economic growth in the U.S. have two main causes. The first is demographics. The U.S., like other developed countries, has an aging population. An aging population means an increased percentage of elderly people. El derly people require more medical care and other social services and they are less likely to be workingtherefo re they are more likely to be consumers of services rather than producers. The Conference Board believes that the second cause of low economic growth is educational : stagnant educational attainment is blamed for stagnant economic growth rates. The Conference Board recommends changing immigration policy to solve the demographic problem of an aging populationspecifically, changing immigration policies to allow more high-skille d workers into the country. Busine ss interest groups generally support immigration policy as a partial soluti on to the problem of stagnant educational attainment or a mismatch between employer needs and employee skill sets. Should the U.S. grant more temporary work visas for certain skilled foreign workers in order to meet the demand for high tech workers? The H-1B Visa Program was designed to do so. But now employers are using the program for a different purpose. Listen to Older Tech Workers Oppose Overhauling H-1B Visas 17.33 | New Foreign Policy Issues: Globalization Think About It! Is immigration the solution to the problem of low economic growth? Act on It! Contact a government official (in the U.S. or another country), a business leader, or an interest group or political party official to see what they think about immigration policy.

PAGE 386

Chapter 17: Global Affairs | 379 Globalization is a broad term two meanings. It refers to the process whereby governments, eco nomies, cultures, and societies are becoming more and more interconnected and interdependent. It also refers to the results or impacts of these processes. The process of globalization began with the promotion of international trade, primarily international business, but it has extended far beyond trade to include issues such as human rights, environmental policy, sustainable development, and even good governance.5 Globalization is one of the factors that diminish the differences between domestic affairs and global affairs. Globalization makes the people of one country more connected with the people of other countries. It also makes people more interdependent. This is ir onic because Americans do not know very much about the people, politics, geography, and economics of other countries compared to what people of other countries know about the U.S. One reason why people in other countries know more about the U.S. than Amer ican know about them is the U.S. media do not provide much coverage of politics in other c ountries compared to other countries media coverage of U.S. politics. Read a newspaper or magazine, watch a television news program, or go to your favorite Web site to see how much news coverage is state/local, national, and international. 17.34 | New Foreign Policy Issues: Religion Human rights issues are one of the foreign policy. In recent years, freedom of religion has become one of the human rights issues that fore ign policy makers have addressed. As a result, the Department of States Office of Internati onal Religious Freedom now provides information about the status of freedom of religion in various countries that ca n be used as a benchmark for assessing freedom of religion as one com ponent of how free a pol itical system is. Think about it! See the British Broadcasting Corporations Meet Chinas Booming Middle Class Aired July 2012 ness-18901437 Think About It! What do people in other c ountries think about U.S. presidential elections? Public Radio Internationals The World provides Foreign Views on the American Pres idency and the Election, (November 5, 2012). h//hld///h ld li Act on it! Write a letter to the editor of one of the major newspapers of the world to see whether it gets published.

PAGE 387

380 | Chapter 17: Global Affairs 17.4 | Instruments of Foreign and Defense Policy Treaties and executive agreements are the two majo r forms of official agreements with other countries. The major difference between treaties and executive agreements is that executive agreements are less formal than treaties and they are not subject to the c onstitutional requirement of ratification by a two-thirds vote of the Senate. 17.41 | Treaties Treaties are formal written agreements between tw o or more countries. The Treaty Clause of the Constitution (Article II, Section 2) provides that th e President shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treatie s, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur.... This means that the president or his advisors negotiate a treat y with another country or countries, but the Senate must ratify it in order to take effect. There are at least four reasons why the Senate might reject a treat. First, senators might oppose the substance of the treaty. A proposed treaty can be opposed on policy grounds and voted against the same way that proposed legislation is voted against. Second, senators might have a principled objection to treaties in the tradition of heeding President Washingtons advice to beware en tangling alliances with other countries. President Wilson proposed the Treaty of Versailles after World War I but the Senate rejected it primarily because the isolationist tradition made Senators wary of U.S. participation in permanent international organizations. Sovereignty and federalism are the third and fourth reasons why Senators, state government officials, and the gene ral public are wary of treaties. The term sovereignty means the supreme and independent government authorit y. The idea of national sovereignty and the commitment to preserving U.S. national soverei gnty is very strong in the U.S., much stronger than in many European countries for instance. Treaties can obligate U.S. government officials to comply with international law or treaty obligations, thereby weakening U.S. national sovereignty defined as the power to act i ndependently. Therefore defenders of U.S. national sovereignty, organizations such as Sovereignty International, Inc. alert Americans to the threats presented by treaties, executive agr eements, and the general trend to ward global governance. National sovereignty is one of the reasons for polit ical opposition to the United Nations, opposition to putting U.S. troops under UN control, and even opposition to treaties that strengthen human rights or the rights of childrentwo issues that might seem on thei r face to be non-controversial. Figure 17-1 below describes three levels of s overeignty (state, national, and supranational). American political development includes the cha nge from the founding era when the states were considered the primary level of government to the modern era when the national government has assumed greater powers. This change has been c ontroversial and remains one of the reasons for opposition to big government. Efforts to create supranational governing authorities are even more controversial because they would mark a sh ift toward locating sovereignty outside the U.S. political and government system.

PAGE 388

Chapter 17: Global Affairs | 381 Figure 17.1: Three Levels of Sovereignty The fourth reason why Americans are wary of treaties is federalism. In most nations, treaties supersede domestic law: the treaty tr umps domestic law where there is a conflict between the two kinds of law. In the U.S., federa lism complicates the legal status of treaties. Treaties are considered federal la ws. But their effects on state la ws are complicated because of the divisions of power between th e national and state governments. The Constitutions Supremacy Clause provides that federal law trumps state law where the state law conflicts with federal law. Treatie s (and executive agreements) have the same legal status as federal laws. State gove rnment officials may be even mo re opposed to treaties that limit state criminal justice policies for instance, prohibiting the ex ecution of minors or requiring the state to notify consular officials when a non-citizen has been arrested in the statethan federal laws. Exactly where treaties fit into the U.S. le gal system is further complicated by three factors. First, Congress can modify treaties, reinterpret treaty oblig ations, and even repeal treaties even if doing so constitutes a violation of international law. Second, the president can unilaterally reinterpret provisions of trea tiesas President Carter did with the Panama Canal Treaty Three, the Supreme Court has ruled that it has the authority to declare a treaty unconstitutional just as it has the authority to de clare a statute unconstitu tional (but it has never done so). The legal status of treaties is provided for in the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties The State Department has taken the positi on that the Vienna C onvention represents Think About It! Do globalization and internat ional relations threaten U.S. national sovereignty? Supranational State National

PAGE 389

382 | Chapter 17: Global Affairs established law (but note th e three complicating factors mentioned above). One of the responsibilities of the State Depa rtment is to report on treaties.6 The following are major treaties: The North Atlantic Treaty (1949) established the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). NATO was the major international tr eaty organization during the Cold War era. The Treaty created the major alliance between the Western powers that confronted the Soviet Union. The World Trade Organization (WTO) is one of the intern ational bodies that promotes and regulates international trade with the goal of liberalizing international tradethat is, minimizing trade barriers. The WTOs empha sis on trade reflects the post-Cold War shift toward trade rather than national security. The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) is an example of the foreign policy emphasis on promoting free trade in regions of the world. 17.42 | Executive Agreements An executive agreement is a formal document that is negotiated between the president and the head of another government (typically the prime minister). As such, executive agreements are not permanent agreements because they do not n ecessarily bind subsequent presidents the way that treaties do. An executive agreement does not have to be ratified by the senate. For this reason, over time presidents have relied less on treaties and more on executive agreements and the number of treaties has decreased and the numbe r of executive agreements has increased. The Constitution does not mention executiv e agreements. But in a 1937 case, U.S. v. Belmont, the Supreme Court recognized the cons titutionality of ex ecutive agreements, the presidents power to enter into executive agreements, and determined that executive agreements have the same legal status as treaties. In fact, the Courts unanimous ruling stated that the federal governments external powers could be exerci sed without regard to state laws The presidents power to enter into executive agreements is now part of the American political and legal tradition. 17.5 | The Actors: Institutions and Organizations Government and non-government actors participate in the Global Affairs policy-making process, particularly foreign policy. The fo llowing describes some of the ma jor participants in the global affairs issue network, thei r roles, and their goals. 17.51 | Congress Article I of the Constitution vests all legislativ e power in Congress. The Constitution also grants Congress specific powers. The Constitution grants Congress the power to declare war and it requires treaties, which are negotiated by the pres ident, to be ratified by the Senate. Congress also has the power of the purse. This is relevant to global affairs because it means that Congress enacts the civilian budget for the State Departme nt, which is one of the main foreign policy actors, and the military budget for the Department of Defense. Congress uses its power of the purse, its budget authority, to influen ce foreign and nationa l security policy.

PAGE 390

Chapter 17: Global Affairs | 383 The House and the Senate have committees with jurisdiction over various areas of foreign policy. The Senate Foreign Relations Committee website describes the committee history, members, hearings, and legislation. The committee plays an important role in shaping foreign policy as well as legisl ative oversight of the government agencies responsible for implementing foreign policy. After the Republican takeover of the House of Representatives in the 2010 mid-term elections, Representative Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-Florida) was selected as Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee. The Committees Website candi dly acknowledged that the president, not Congress, take s the lead in forei gn policy. According to the History of the Committee, the executive branch does take the lead on nearly every as pect of foreign policy, [but] congressional committees use the power of the purse to exert influence over the presidents policies.7 In the 113th Congress, the House Foreign Affairs Committee website (accessed February 2, 2013) described its jurisd iction as being responsible for oversight and legislation related to a broad range of policy re sponsibilities, including oversight and legislation relating to foreign assistance; th e Peace Corps; national security developments affecting foreign policy; strategic planning and agreements; war powers, treaties, executive agreements, and the deployment and use of United States Armed Forces; peacekeeping, peace enforcement, and enforcement of United Nations or other international sanctions; arms control and disarmament issues; activities and policies of the State, Commerce and Defense Departments and other agencies related to the Arms Export Control Act, and the Foreign Assistan ce; international law; promotion of democracy; international law en forcement issues, including narcotics control programs and activities; Broadc asting Board of Governors; em bassy security; international broadcasting; public diplomacy, including in ternational communication, information policy, international education, and cultura l programs; and other matters. 17.52 | The President In a parliamentary system, foreign policy is th e responsibility of the head of government usually the prime minister and the foreign minist er, who is a political appointee of the prime minister. In the U.S., the presid ent and the secretary of state, a presiden tial appointee, are the primary actors responsible for making and mana ging foreign policy. The presidents importance in conducting foreign policy is reflected in the fact that the presidents name is often attached to the administrations foreign policy: the Monroe Doctrine; the Truman Doctrine; the Kennedy Doctrine; the Nixon Doctrine; the Reagan Doctrine ; the Bush Doctrine; and the Obama Doctrine. A presidents doctrine typically announces the ma jor outlines of an ad ministrations policy. The Monroe Doctrine announced that the U.S. cons idered the Caribbean within its sphere of influence and opposed European interventi on. The Truman Doctrine announced the administrations Cold War policy: stopping Soviet expansion; supporting free people who were resisting subjugation; and nego tiating regional defense treaties (the Rio Pact of 1947Latin America; NATO in 1949); ANZUS with Aust ralia and New Zealand; and SEATO with Southeast Asia). The Truman Doctrine greatly expanded the role of the U.S. as the worlds policeman. A presidents doctrine also announces the administrations policy concerning the use of military force, particularly whether its appr oach to resolving international conflicts and pursuing national interest will rely on hard power (the military) or soft power (diplomacy). A presidents doctrine is sometimes a reaction to th e predecessors doctrine if the predecessor was of a different political party. For example, the Bush Doctrine under Republican President George

PAGE 391

384 | Chapter 17: Global Affairs W. Bush emphasized unilateral military action to advance national interests and the Obama Doctrine under Democratic President Barack Obama emphasized multilateral action. The secretary of state is th e functional equi valent of the foreign minister in a country with a parliamentary system of government. The secretary of state condu cts diplomacy, state-tostate policy discussions, and certain interactions with the governmen t officials of other countries. The secretary of state and ambassadors are no minated by the president and confirmed by the Senate. Congress also has power to regulate commerce with foreign nations. It is ironic that the president is today the dominant foreign affairs actor because most presidents come to office with little or no experience w ith global politics. A presidents political experience is usually limited to domestic politics. A president may have served as the governor of a state (usually one of the larger, more influen tial states), a senator (aga in, usually from one of the large, more influential states), or served as vice-president. This means that most presidents get on-the-job training when it co mes to global affairs. But presidents typically come to office with high public expect ations about serving as the leader of the free world, acting on the global stage by flying around on Air Force One, or perhaps acting as the Commander-in-Chief deploying the U.S. military. Congress also has high expectations for the presidents foreign policy agenda. Congress has greatly increas ed presidential power over gl obal affairs by statutorily delegating broad legislative power to the pres ident. With the possible exception of the War Powers Resolution of 1973, the following are ex amples of congressional delegations of legislative power to the president on matters of national security, wa r powers, and emergency powers. They all illustrate th e problem of holding presidents legally accountable for the use of power because they give the president the powe r to do whatever the president thinks is necessary. This is such a vague standard that it not an effective way to hold power accountable. Hostage Rescue Act (1868) This Act authorized the president to take all actions necessary and proper, not amounting to war, to secure the re lease of hostages. The Gulf of Tonkin Resolution (1964). WHEREAS, the communist regime in Vietnam....have repeatedly attacked U.S. ve ssels lawfully presen t in international waters. RESOLVED, That th e Congress approves the determ ination of the President to take all necessary measures to repel any armed attack ag ainst the forces of the United States and to prevent further aggression. The First War Powers Act of 1941 This Act delegated broad powers to the president to organize and wage war. The War Powers Resolution of 1973. In order to ensure collective judgment when committing troops to hostilities or situations where hostilities are imminent, the president shall consult with Congress, report to Congress, and shall seek authorization to maintain commitments beyond specified time periods. International Economic Emergency Powers Act (1977). This Act authorizes the President to declare a national emergenc y and order embargoes, trad e sanctions, asset seizures. Public Law 105-235 (SJR54-Trent Lott) Janua ry 27, 1998. WHEREAS, Operation Desert Storm ended January 28, 1991, and United Na tions Security council Resolution 686 (providing for UNSCOM nuclear inspectors) and 687 (providing for economic sanctions until weapons of mass destruction were disclosed, destroyed, and Iraq pledged to not use such weapons) were still in force; (Fo llowed by 27 more whereases) RESOLVED, that Iraq is in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations, and

PAGE 392

Chapter 17: Global Affairs | 385 therefore the president is urged to take a ppropriate action, in accordance with the U.S. Constitution and relevant laws of the U.S., to bring Iraq into compliance with its international obligations. Authorization for Use of Mil itary Force Against Terrorist s. (Public Law 107-40, Enacted September 18, 2001.) The Act authorized the President to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or pe rsons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons. Authorization for Use of Mi litary Force Agai nst Iraq Resolution. (Public Law 107-243, Enacted October 16, 2002.) This resolution began WHEREAS, Iraq remains in material and unacceptable breach of its internati onal obligations, [Followed by a list of 22 whereases listing among others the invasion of Kuwait, violations of UN cease fire terms of disarmament, weapons inspections, weapons of mass destru ction, threat to the national security of the United States, 9/ 11 attacks and terrorists known to use Iraq, UN Sec. Council Res. 678 authorizing use of for ce to enforce UN Resolutions] and resolved that The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to (1) defend the national security of the United States and (2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq. 17.53 | The State Department The Secretary of State is the head of the Department of State. Th e State Department is the main executive branch agency responsible for deve loping and implementing foreign policy under the presidents direction. The follo wing is the State Departments mission statement from the November 2010 Agency Financial Report: Advance freedom for the benefit of the American people and the international co mmunity by helping to build and sustain a more democratic, secure, and prosperous world composed of well-gove rned states that respond to the needs of their people, reduce widespread povert y, and act responsibly within the international system.8 This mission statement reveals the State Departme nts broad mission. It includes promoting democracy, security, and prosperity abroad. The State Department and the Central Intelligence Agencys The World Factbook provide a great deal of useful information abou t government and politics in other countries. For information about a country and descriptions of U.S. relations with that country see the Additional Resources secti on at the end of this chapter which in cludes links to the Department of State Countries and Regions. One way to develop a better understanding of politics and government in the U.S. is to compare the U.S. with other countries. The Library of Congress Country Studies Website provides a great deal of informati on about the countries of the world. 17.54 | The Department of Defense The Department of Defense (DOD) plays a central role in providing for national security. The Department of Defense is an executive departme nt. The Secretary of Defense is a political

PAGE 393

386 | Chapter 17: Global Affairs appointee who is usually a member of the Presidents inner cabinetthe small number of heads of the executive departments who lead the most important agencies: State; Defense; Treasury; and Justice). The Pentagon is the building wher e much of the DOD policy making and business operations are headquartered. DOD publications describe a broad range of defense matters. The U.S. spends a great deal of money on national defense. The military budget is large as measured in absolute dollar amounts or wh en compared with defense spending in other countries. The Global Studies we bsite provides a report on comparative data on worldwide military spending The end of the Cold War was expected to bring a peace dividend, a government saving from reduced defense spending. But then the War on Terrorism began with wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Even with reductions of military forces in those two countries cutting defense spending is hard for some of the same reasons that cutting govern ment spending in general is hard. Defense contractors, members of Congress, and the Department of Defense have ve sted interests in maintaining or increasing spending. Milita ry contracts are distributed across states and congr essional districts. 17.55 | The National Security Agency The NSA is located within the Department of De fense, Office of the Undersecretary of Defense for Intelligence. The NSA is such a secret agency th at its letters are sometimes said to refer to No Such Agency. The NSAs core missions are to protect U.S. national security systems and to produce foreign signals intelligence information. The Information Assurance mission confronts the formidable challenge of preventing foreign adversaries from gaining access to sensitive or classified national security information. The Signals Intelligence mission collects, processes, and disseminates intelligence information fr om foreign signals for intelligence and counterintelligence purposes and to support mili tary operations. This Agency also enables Network Warfare operations to de feat terrorists and their orga nizations at home and abroad, consistent with U.S. laws and the protection of privacy and civil lib erties. The NSA is responsible for collecting and analyzing foreign communications and foreign signals intelligence as well as protecting U.S. government co mmunications and information systems. Locating the NSA within the Department of Defense gives you a sense of the complexities of the DOD and NSA. 17.56 | The Central Intelligence Agency The CIAs website provides information about its history, organization, and mission Its mission statement describes the CIA as the nations firs t line of defense. It carries out its mission by: Collecting information that reveals the pl ans, intentions and capabilities of our adversaries and provides the ba sis for decision and action. Producing timely analysis that provides insigh t, warning and opportunity to the President and decision makers charged with protect ing and advancing Americas interests. 17.57 | The Department of Homeland Security Think about it! Why is it so hard to cut defense spending? 157243328/defense-cuts-howdo-you-buy-1-8-submarines

PAGE 394

Chapter 17: Global Affairs | 387 The DHS was created in 2003 after th e terrorist attacks of 9/11 to better coordinate anti-terrorist activities The DHS is a huge, complicated organization th at performs varied functions. It can be considered an umbrella organizat ion because it has responsibil ity for such a broad range of functions that are related to homeland security ranging from tr ansportation to immigration to telecommunications policy. The Tr ansportation Security Agency was created after 9/11. In 2003 it was moved from the Department of Transportati on to the Department of Homeland Security to highlight its role in protecting national security. The TSA is responsible for ensuring freedom of movement of individuals and commerce. One national security policy that the averag e American sees (and sometimes feels!) is airport screening of passengers The passenger screening policy th at is being implemented by the Transportation Security Administration is based on a strategy that involves searching for bombs rather than bombers. Passengers and luggage ar e searched to find dangerous materials (bombs, weapons, and items that could be used for terrori sm). The alternative strategy is to search for bombers, to look for individuals who are likely to be threatening or dangerous, to screen passengers than luggage. One reason why the U.S. focuses on searching for bombs rather than bombers is because looking for individuals is c ontroversial. It requires data gathering about people and making assumptions about who is likely to be a threat and who is not. Government data banks raise concerns about big govern ment monitoring people. The government does maintain a No Fly list. Furthermore, a TSA decision to se arch individuals based on their physical appearance, their religion, their dres s, their nationality, or their trav el or educational patterns, is profiling. The DHS is also responsible for certain aspects of immigration policy : maintaining border security, providing immigration servic es, and enforcing immigration laws. The USA Patriot Act and other count er-terrorism policies have substan tially increased th e size and scope of government power, thereby raising familiar questions about mainta ining that delicate balance between individual freedom and government power. 17.58 | Non-governmental Organizations (NGOs) Government officials are not the only individuals and or ganizations that are active in the politics of global affairs. There is a large and growi ng body of non-governmental actors that lobby in the area of global affairs policy. The interest groups are varied, with organizations advocating on behalf of economic, ideological, ethnic and na tional identity, religious and other issue-based interests or causes. The Foreign Policy Association (FPA) is a non-profit organization that was founded in 1918 to foster public knowledge of and interest in the wo rld by providing publications, programs, and forums. The Foreign Policy Associat ions website describes its mission as serving as a catalyst for developing awareness, unders tanding of, and providing informed opinions on global issues and encourage[ing] citizens to participate in the foreign policy process. One of the FPAs outreach efforts is the Great Decisi ons Global Affairs Edu cation Program. Great Decisions is composed of the annual Briefing Book, Great Decisions TV, the National Opinion Ballot Report, discussion groups across the coun try and the Great Decisi ons Online newsletter. Great Decisions has become the largest nonpartis an public education pr ogram on international affairs in the world. It has pub lished a Citizens Guide to U.S. Foreign Policy and founded the World Affairs Council of Washington, D.C. See

PAGE 395

388 | Chapter 17: Global Affairs Think tanks and public policy organizations such as the Council on Foreign Relations are also influential in the policy making process. They produce studies of various issues, they provide policy experts who test ify at congressional committee he arings, and they lobby for and against specific policies and is sues. These organizations are al so influential because their members are recruited for government positions. When a new administration comes into office, it recruits government officials from these orga nizations: Republican presidents tend to recruit government officials from organizations with Republican or conserva tive leanings while Democratic presidents tend to recruit government officials from organizations with Democratic or liberal leanings. Think tanks and public policy organizations also provide places for policy experts to work while they, their party, or their ideas are out of government. The Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) was established in 1921. The CFR website describes the CFR as an independent, nonpartisan membership organization, think tank, and publisher that serves as a resource for its me mbers, government official s, business executives, journalists, educators and students, and civic and relig ious leaders. Economic interest groups are also activ e lobbyists in formulating foreign policy. Business organizations such as the Chamber of Commerce and the National Association of Manufacturers, as well as labor organizations such as the AFL-CIO, lobby on behalf of international trade, commerce, and labor issues. In fact, globalization and the importance of international trade as an aspect of foreign polic y have expanded the political arena in the sense that economic interest groups lobby for or agai nst public policies in both the domestic and foreign policy arenas. Interest group politics now extends beyond the territorial boundaries of the U.S. A broad range of business inte rests have a major stake in foreign and national security policies. For example, the federal government does not manufacture military weapons or other equipment. The federal government buys military equipment from private sector companies. Consequently, the aerospace and defense industry ha s a big financial stake in the defense budget, the National Aeronautics and Space Administ rations (NASA) budget, and other federal programs. For instance, the decisi on to scuttle the s huttle program has had major impacts on the aerospace industry and the communities surrounding the manufacturing and la unching sites. In fact, privatization has increased the private sect ors stake in the defense budget (as well as the budgets of other federal agencies). The U.S. military has privatized a broad range of services. It now relies on private sector companies to provid e services that were once provided by members of the military. The Army and Air Force Excha nge Services, which the government created to provide merchandise and services to members of the military, strives to provide American troops and their dependents with a taste of home wherev er they are stationed across the globe. These tastes include familiar fast food franchises and other amenities. The military now contracts with food service companies to provide food that wa s once provided by army cooks in mess halls. Privatization is not limited to support services such as food or amenities. Most of the contractors are unarmed service providers, but the military signs logistics contracts with companies that provide armed security guards for the military and civilian support personnel. Of the more than 70,000 private sector civilians that were working in Iraq in 2011 on military contracts to provide necessities and amenities for troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, a great majority are service sector workers. Many of these em ployees are third-country nationals, workers hired by foreign companies to work under service sector contracts for the military. The extensive reliance on privatizatio nrelying on private sector to pr ovide public servicespresents new accountability problems. The U.S. military is responsible for its own actions. The U.S.

PAGE 396

Chapter 17: Global Affairs | 389 government negotiates Status of Forces Agreements (SOFA) with countries where the military is deployed. The SOFA agreements typically include provisions that describe which countrys court system will be used to try individuals w ho commit crimes. Who is responsible for poor or unsafe working conditions when the military contra cts with private sector companies that use subcontractors or employers th at are not even American? W ho is legally accountable when military contractors commit crimes while employe d for the U.S. military? Blackwater, Inc. (which is now called Xe) was a U.S. company that received large gove rnment contracts to provide security services in Iraq and Afghanistan. The CEO of Blackwater described his companys mission as doing for the national securi ty apparatus what FedEx did to the postal service.9 When Blackwater employees were accused of criminal acts including rape, torture, and murder, the murky legal accountabil ity presented serious problems that were highlighted during congressional hearings. 17.6 | War (and Emergency) Powers The need to get the power problem right by st riking the right balanc e between granting and limiting power is especially important for war and national emergencies. A successful constitution is one that strikes that delica te balance between granting government enough power to be effective while also limiting power enough so that government officials can be held accountable. The Founders gave a gr eat deal of thought to war power s. They sought to give the national government enough power to protect the c ountry from foreign invasion. The delegates at the Constitutional C onvention of 1787 extensively debated i ssues related to foreign affairs, national security, and war powers. National secur ity was an important political issue during the constitutional convention and in the early year s of the republic because the U.S. was a young republic, and a militarily weak nation that was surrounded by ambitious imperial powers: The Spanish Empire, The British Empire, and the French Empire. The debates during the constitutional convention of 1787 reflect the concerns about wh ether a monarch-like president was needed to protect the country s national security, or whethe r a republic was strong enough to protect it. The Founders worri ed about giving the new national government too many war powers. They were especially concerned about the creation of a new executive official, the president. The creation of the presidency was c ontroversial because it wa s seen as a step away from a republic and toward monarchy, the form of government that th e Revolutionary War was fought against. Furthermore, the colonial ex periences that inspired the Declaration of Independence and the Revolutionary War include d monarchs who used war powers for their personal or national glory. The first Ameri can form of government, the Articles of Confederation, did not have an executive figure because not having an executive was considered the best way to avoid the problem of imperial ambition. Think about it! Should the U.S. hire private sol diers? See Private Warriors /frontline/shows/warriors/

PAGE 397

390 | Chapter 17: Global Affairs The delegates to the Constitutional Conven tion in 1787 debated whether to create a presidency and what to do abou t war powers. A major ity thought that the l ack of an executive was one of the major flaws in the Articles of Confed eration and, after extensive debate, the delegates decided to create a pr esidency. Some of the worries about war powers were eased by the decision to divide control over war powers. The Constitution provided that Congress declares war and the president as Comm ander-in-Chief wages war. 17.61 | Divided Control of War Powers The war powers are divided between Congress and the president. Congress was delegated the power to declare war and the pow er to raise and support armies The president was made the Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces: the pr esident waged war as th e top general. This division of control over war powers is usually described by saying that Congress makes war (decides whether to go to war) and the presid ent wages war (as the Commander in Chief). During the colonial era, the Founders experience d the offensive use of war powers by imperial powers. The British, French, and Spanish imperial model of government included using military power to expand the empire. The colonists experi ence with offensive imperial power caused the delegates to the Constit utional Convention in 1787 to be concerned about war powers. They decided to give the new national government defe nsive war powers so that it could effectively defend the young republic against foreign invasion. But they nevertheless worried about war powers. In Political Observations (April 20 1795), James Madison described war as the germ that presented the greatest threat to liberty and republican government: Of all the enemies of true liberty, war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded, because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes; and armies, and debts, and ta xes are the known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few. In war, to o, the discretionary power of the Executive is extended; its influence in dealing out offices, honors and emoluments is multiplied; and all the means of seducing the minds, are added to those of subduing the force, of the people. The same malignant aspect in republicanism may be tr aced in the inequality of fortunes, and the opportunities of fraud, growing out of a state of war, and in the degeneracy of manner and of morals, engendered in both. No nation can preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare. War is in fact the true nurse of executive aggrandizement. In war, a physical force is to be created; and it is the exec utive will, which is to direct it. In war, the public treasuries are to be unlocked; and it is the executive hand which is to dispense them. In war, the honors and emoluments of office are to be multiplied; and it is the executive patronage under which they are to be enjoyed; and it is the executive brow they are to encircle. The strongest passions and most dangerous weaknesses of the human breast; ambition, avarice, vanity, the honorable or venal love of fa me, are all in conspiracy against the desire and duty of peace. Letters and Other Writings of James Madison Volume IV, page 491. These are extremely strong words warning th e country about the da ngers that the war powers presented to rep ublican government! Madison acknowle dged that the decision to increase

PAGE 398

Chapter 17: Global Affairs | 391 security by granting the government power to repel foreign invasi ons also increased insecurity by exposing the nation to the risk that the war powers would be used in ternally to threaten republican government. Is this germ theory of war powers accurate? As the U.S. became an economic and military power, it did use its powers to extend American influence abroad. Two notable 19th Century examples of this use of U.S. military power are the Mexican-American War and the Spanish-American War. World Wars I and II were fought primarily for reasons other than extended American power abroad, but one consequence of WWII wa s a greater awareness of how the U.S. could use its economic, political, and military power abroad to prevent war. This was once of the policies underlying the Cold War foreign policy. As a result military force was not limited to defensive actions but also included offensive actions. This was an important shift in thinking about national security and foreign policy. Presiden t George W. Bush declared that his administration was adopting the doctrine of prev entive war, which is the use of military force for policy wars or using military force as an instrument of foreign policy. President George W. Bushs September 2002 National Security Strategy announced elements of what was unofficiall