Chapter 1 Synopsis-Freedom, Order, or Equality
The era of Globalization has deeply impacted governance in the United States. In so doing, it has deeply affected the relationship between an individual and his/her sovereign government. Thus, one of the principal challenges of modern democracy lays in having to make difficult choices. These choices can bring one's core values into discord. This chapter outlines a normative framework for analyzing the policy choices that develop through the pursuit of the purposes of government.
One choice those in government must make is how much national sovereignty should be yielded to international law. Since Globalization tends to erode national sovereignty, choices must be made as to how much authority should be given to international laws and institutions. Therefore, one must understand the impact of politics abroad on the United States and, conversely, the role of politics in the United States on governments abroad.
While many individuals see a variety of purposes for government, we identify three major purposes of government: maintaining order, providing public goods, and promoting equality. The pursuit of these objectives inevitably creates two tensions democratic governments must negotiate. The first is the classic conflict between freedom and order. The second is the modern conflict between freedom and equality. Seemingly every dilemma in American political life can be observed through the prism of this conflict.
Many people use political ideologies to help create a framework to resolve the conflicts that arise in such conflicts. Ideologies define the scope and purpose of government. On the polar end of the political continuum is totalitarianism, which stands opposite of anarchism. Totalitarianism supports government intervention in every aspect of government, whereby anarchism rejects government entirely. Libertarianism and communitarians serve as more moderate variations of these two extremes. Libertarians prefer a small government in regards to both social and economic policy. On the other hand, communitarians prefer a large role for government in both the economic and social spheres.
In American politics, we use the terms liberal and conservative to denote a more narrow range toward the center of the political continuum. Conservatives typically want less government in the economic sphere and more government involvement in the social sphere. Conversely, liberals tend to desire more government involvement in the economic sphere and less in the social sphere. In other words, both ideologies desire a combination of small and large government, with a shifting emphasis as to where that involvement should be. Alternately, libertarians and communitarians are consistent in that one wants a small government in nearly all situations, and the other wants a large in nearly every situation. Libertarians and liberals are in agreement in regards to social policy, and libertarians and conservatives tend to agree on economic matters. Communitarians tend to agree with liberals regarding a large role for government in economic matters, and they tend to agree with conservatives regarding a high level of government involvement in social policy.
Chapter 2 Synopsis- Majoritarian or Pluralist Democracy
Three days after President Obama was sworn into office, he reminded a gathering of congressional leaders that he had indeed won the election. He was facing a Congress that was served by members of a variety of competing philosophies regarding how to best repair the deep recession the United States was facing. Since the separation of powers is a cornerstone of the American Model, the choices regarding the direction of the country would not be the president’s alone.
One way to analyze how a country is governed is to consider how many people are involved in the decision-making process. When the rules are approved by only one person, the government is called an autocracy. A government in which only a few select people make binding decisions is an oligarchy. A government that allows many people to participate is a democracy.
Presumably, if asked, many Americans would probably agree that they live in a democracy, because “the people” govern. While somewhat true, this simplistic answer obscures the reality and complexity of democratic government. Democracy, a word widely used in the world, conveys a variety of meanings and translates into numerous variations of government.
There are two schools of thought about what constitutes a democracy. The procedural view stresses the form and process of government, or how the people govern. Procedural democracy emphasizes the principles of universal participation, political equality, and majority rule. Modern nations are too large to employ direct (or participatory) democracy, and they must rely on indirect democracy in the form of representative government. When the people elect representatives to govern for them, the procedural view of democracy also insists on the principle of responsiveness, that the government should follow the general thrust of public opinion.
The substantive view concentrates on what a government actually does—that is, the policies the government makes and the extent to which they fulfill democratic ideals. A substantive theorist would not recognize a decision that violated those ideals (for example, limiting freedom of religion) as democratic even if the decision was made in response to majority wishes. Substantive theorists, however, do not all agree on what exactly are the democratic ideals that a democracy should strive to uphold¾though most would focus on the existence of civil liberties and civil rights but disagree on social equality. The textbook views democracy in terms of procedures rather than substance.
No nation is small enough to find direct democracy practical, so democratic governments develop established procedures and organizations to link public opinion to government policy. Elections, political parties, legislatures, and interest groups are all institutional mechanisms intended to keep American government responsive to the people.
Encompassed within the procedural view of democracy are two schools of thought. According to the majoritarian model of democracy, mass participation and majority rule are required procedures for democratic government. According to the pluralist model, government by the people can be interpreted to mean government operating through competing interest groups rather than government by public opinion. Pluralists advocate greater reliance on groups of citizens representing their interests to government decision makers.
An “undemocratic” approach to understanding American government is the elite model, which holds that the really important policy decisions are made by a few wealthy and influential individuals. Although voters appear to control government through elections, the real power is wielded by a small and select group to suit their own interests rather than those of the mass public. Because it identifies the ruling coalition as a distinct and durable group, the elite model differs from the pluralist model, which holds that different “minorities” rule on different issues. Despite the plausibility of the elite model, research has not supported its main argument—that an identifiable group rules the United States, even though many will point to examples such as President Obama’s top economic policymakers being drawn from Wall Street or powerful financial institutions.
In the Global Community, many countries struggle with democratization after long histories of authoritarian governments. The problems these nations face include ethnic and religious rivalries, a lack of democratic traditions, and political and economic instability during the transition period. For example, in Africa some countries have successfully achieved significant levels of democracy, but many others have been unable to escape the grips of authoritarianism.
Chapter 3 Synopsis- The Constitution
The U.S. Constitution is the world’s oldest written governing instrument. Although the delegates to the Constitutional Convention were originally charged only with revising the weak Articles of Confederation, they overstepped their mandate and created an enlightened and enduring blueprint for consensual government.American independence from British rule was spurred by the desire to preserve the liberties that the colonists had achieved. Restrictions on property inheritance, religious practices, and economic mobility were common in Europe but were minimal in America. The colonists were also determined to forestall taxation by a remote British government in which the colonists had no representation.
The Declaration of Independence was the colonists’ response to punitive taxation and colonial restiveness. It was a justification for severing all political connections to the British Crown. The declaration was the work of Thomas Jefferson. He presented a clear and masterful argument for the inalienability of the people’s rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness and the right to be governed by an authority of their choice. Jefferson based his argument on the ideas of the English philosopher John Locke, including the right of the people to revolt against the government’s usurpation of legitimate rights.
The colonists declared their new government a republic, a government without a monarchy. It would be rooted in the consent of the governed, and power would be exercised by representatives who were responsible to the governed. American colonial leaders were fearful of democracy, which was associated with mob rule and instability.
The first attempt at government was the Articles of Confederation. The Articles proved inadequate, because they established a national government largely devoid of power. The Articles retained power in the states, pacifying those who feared the loss of liberty at the hands of a remote national government. Government under the Articles was unable to cope with economic problems and the threat of insurrection.
Delegates to the Constitutional Convention realized the need for a stronger national government to preserve order. At the outset, the Virginia delegation proposed a long list of changes to strengthen the national government. This plan became the focus of debate and the basis for an entirely new government charter. An alternate plan, drafted by the delegates from New Jersey, appealed to the smaller states. The Great Compromise helped to resolve the stalemate between the two plans.
The Constitution articulates four significant political values. Republicanism is a form of government in which power resides in the people and is exercised by their elected representatives. Federalism is the division of sovereignty between the states and the national government. The Constitution created a national government.Separation of powers is the assignment of lawmaking power to a legislative branch, law-enforcing power to an executive branch, and law-interpreting power to a judicial branch. The constitutional system of checks and balances is a means of giving each branch of government some scrutiny over the other branches. The idea of dividing power was to prevent tyranny by a single person or group.
The first three articles of the Constitution establish the internal operation and powers of the separate branches of government. The remaining four define the relationships among the states, explain the process of amendment, declare the supremacy of national law, and explain the procedures for ratifying the Constitution.
The new Constitution lacked a bill of rights. This proved to be an impediment to the Constitution’s ratification. Ratification proceeded only on the condition that a bill of rights would be added by amendment.
By 1791, ten amendments embodying these rights and liberties had been adopted by the states.
The Constitution is a simple structural framework for a government that balances freedom and order but pays virtually no attention to social equality. The framers of the Constitution intended to create a republic that would rest on majority consent, not majority rule. Contemporary American government conforms to a pluralist model of democracy, which may have been what the delegates to the Constitutional Convention had in mind when they fashioned their new government.
The Constitution is a simple structural framework for a government that balances freedom and order but pays virtually no attention to social equality. The framers of the Constitution intended to create a republic that would rest on majority consent, not majority rule. Contemporary American government conforms to a pluralist model of democracy, which may have been what the delegates to the Constitutional Convention had in mind when they fashioned their new government.
Chapter 4 Synopsis- Federalism
American federalism, at its core, deals with the wide ranging division of power between the national and state and local governments. This leads to a search for theories and metaphors to describe this relationship. The initial conception of federalism as two or more governments exercising power and authority over the same people in the same territory gave rise to the Madisonian assumption that the national government would concern itself with “the great and aggregate interests,” whereas state governments would attend to “local and particular” matters. The adoption of a federal system of government was seen as a solution to the problem of diversity and heterogeneity and the attendant political maneuvering confronting the young nation.
Selection of this type of political system can lead to two contradictory interpretations of what federalism was envisioned to be. The supremacy of states’ rights is the major focus of dual federalism. From this perspective, the Constitution is a compact between sovereign states. Dual federalism views states as powerful components of the federal system. The two levels of government operate on different tracks, and each is in control of its own activities. From the perspective of cooperative federalism, the Constitution represents an agreement made by the people, who are citizens of both the state and the nation. This view of federalism envisions the states and the national government as intertwined, rather than as acting in separate spheres.
The constitutional sections that ignite the federalism debate are Article I, Section 8, which enumerates the powers allotted to Congress and includes the necessary and proper, or elastic, clause, and the Tenth Amendment, which says that “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.” It is from the elastic clause that the concept of implied powers—those powers not spelled out, but expected to be asserted by the national government to carry out its enumerated responsibilities—was derived. This clause has been defended as essential because the framers of the Constitution could not anticipate all the powers needed by a new nation and its government. States’ rights advocates interpreted the Tenth Amendment as placing firm limits on the scope of the national government.
An analysis of federalism that focuses primarily on formal constitutional authority would be misleading, because the actual balance between national and state powers has always been largely a matter of practical politics. The national government has assumed a far greater role than early politicians would ever have imagined. This shift of power has come about through national crises and demands, judicial interpretations, the expansion of grants-in-aid, and the professionalization of state governments.
Traditionally championed by conservatives, federalism typically includes increased state experimentation with problems, a belief aligned with dual federalism. Liberals have been associated more closely with increased federal involvement to solve dilemmas and inequities between states, central to cooperative federalism. However, these stereotypical characterizations underestimate that it is probably a combination of the ideology and particular situation, not so much simply the ideology or precedent that defines the type of federalism used to resolve the problem.
In recent years, both Republican and Democratic presidents have come into office promising to reduce the federal bureaucracy and return power to the states. However, despite presidential promises, Congress continues to place demands on states and localities. Under the powers of preemption, Congress enacts laws that encroach upon state authority. Through both mandates (funded and unfunded) and restraints, Congress can require states to accept its decisions. This, when combined with earlier comments about grant use, leads analysis to a new federalism model, coercive federalism.
The idea of federalism has become increasingly important as more sovereign nations enter into federalist arrangements (e.g., the European Union). Such unions present opportunities to overcome long-held differences, but such entities struggle—as the early United States did—to decide how to best divide power among the union government and the individual nations.
Chapter 5 Synopsis- Public Opinion and Political Socialization
The story of the execution of Kenneth Biros and the history of capital punishment in the United States demonstrates several characteristics of public opinion: (1) The public’s attitudes toward a given government policy vary over time. (2) Public opinion places boundaries on allowable types of public policy. (3) Citizens are willing to register opinions on matters outside their expertise. (4) Governments tend to react to public opinion. (5) The government sometimes does not do what the people want. If the government does not do what the people want, can it properly be called a democracy? This chapter highlights the differences in how government actions are understood around the world, and compares the majoritarian and pluralist models of democracy (introduced in Chapter 2) by focusing on their assumptions about public opinion and examining the validity of those assumptions.
Before the development of opinion polling, there was no reliable way to know what the people wanted. Sampling theory, combined with computer technology, has enabled researchers to study public opinion much more accurately. The statistical theory of sampling is accurate if (1) the sample is selected randomly; (2) the larger the sample, the more accurately it represents the population; (3) the greater the variation within the population, the greater the chance one random sample will differ from another. Two important characteristics of the distribution of public opinion are itsshape (skewed, bimodal, and normal or bell-shaped) and its stability over time.
The process of political socialization—how people acquire their values through the interplay of cultural factors, knowledge, and ideology—underlies the formation of public opinion. The family, schools, and the community and peers are early agents of political socialization. Later influences include neighbors, fellow workers, club members, the mass media, and the voting experience. Political values, the foundation of public opinion, are shaped differently for each individual through the political socialization process. Still, people with similar social backgrounds tend to share similar political opinions. Education, income, region, religion and religiosity, race, and ethnicity are all factors that affect values. Of these, the latter three produce greater opinion divergence today on issues that compromise freedom at the expense of either order or equality.
Most people will classify themselves along a liberal-conservative continuum, but few will reflect true ideological thinking in public opinion surveys. A two-dimensional framework for assessing the values of order and equality yields four ideological categories of comparable size. Liberals favor equality, but not order. Conservatives want government to enforce order, but not equality. Libertarians oppose government actions for either purpose.Communitarians want more government action to promote both order and equality. Liberals and conservatives have less difficulty placing themselves on a traditional liberal-conservative scale than do communitarians or libertarians.
People who lack a consistent set of political attitudes and beliefs rely on four factors to form political opinion: self-interest, information processing, opinion schemas—or preexisting knowledge and opinions that are applied to specific issues—and political leadership. Despite the complexities of individual opinion formation, strong correlations have been found between people’s social background and general values and their specific opinions.
In some instances, public opinion appears to be stable and well defined and thus in conformity with the majoritarian model of government decision making. More often, public opinion is sharply divided, inconsistent, and based on relatively superficial knowledge. Politically powerful groups frequently are at odds over what policies government should adopt. Division and disagreement among influential, competing interests allow leeway for political decision makers to rely less on disparate public opinion and more on bargaining and compromise, a pattern more characteristic of the pluralist model. Public opinion is viewed as a force that rarely casts the decisive vote, but one that helps set broad parameters for government policy.
Chapter 6 Synopsis- The Media
In a democracy, communication must go both ways: from the government to citizens and from citizens to government. The media are important in a democracy, because one of their primary roles is the promotion of communication between citizens and government. The growth of the country, technological inventions, and shifting political attitudes about the scope of government, as well as trends in entertainment, have all shaped the development of the media.
The mass media allow for communications to large, heterogeneous audiences. Examples of mass media are the print media (newspapers and magazines) and the broadcast media (radio, television, and the Internet). The print media were more important to politics earlier in our history. Even today, however, some newspapers and magazines enjoy mass circulation. The potential for magazines to reach group leaders in specific areas may cause public opinion to be influenced through the two-step flow of communication. Though radio was once a prime source for the coverage of live news, its salience today lies in its role as a forum for talk. Television has become the major medium for mass communications about politics. Television’s main appeal—that it shows people and events—accounts for both the importance of television news coverage and the difficulties that adhere to presenting issue positions in that medium. The Internet is an increasingly important source of political communication in both directions, and its impact on traditional forms of media cannot be overstated.
Private ownership of the media in the United States means that the media operates free of government control, but it also means that they operate to make a profit. To make a profit, they must attract large audiences, which mean that their programming and content must have mass appeal. Only a portion of broadcast programming and newspaper content can be classified as political news. Much of their content is really news that is entertaining or serves an infotainment purpose. Market-driven journalism gears news and advertising to a demographically identified target audience.
In the efforts to increase profits, media owners have acquired additional media outlets. Early fears of concentrating ownership of the broadcast media under a single entity led to government regulation of media ownership. Government regulation began with the technical need to regulate competition for a limited number of airwaves. The Federal Communications Act of 1934 established the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and formed the basis for media regulation for over sixty years. Such regulation consisted of technical regulations, ownership regulation, and, in some cases, regulation of content. More recently, the FCC has swung toward the view that the broadcast media should be given the same freedom as the print media, which means that television and radio would not be required to offer air time to those broadcasting contradictory sides of an issue.
In 1996, Congress responded to pressure from businesses that wanted to exploit new electronic technologies; in a bipartisan effort, Congress swept away most regulations. The Telecommunications Act of 1996 relaxed or eliminated ownership regulations and rate regulation for cable television. The 1996 law immediately led to a number of media mergers in which already large media companies purchased other large media companies.
The media have five functions: reporting the news, interpreting the news, influencing public opinion, setting the political agenda, and socializing citizens about politics.
Together, the mass media employ thousands of reporters to cover news firsthand as it breaks in major news centers of the world. Washington, D.C., has the largest press corps of any U.S. city. Most of the government news reported to the public comes from official government sources. Media executives—news editors and prominent reporters—function as gatekeepers in deciding what events to report and how to handle the coverage. In an effort to appeal to their audiences, the media tend to personalize news stories. This leads to both horse race journalism in election coverage and to a focus on media events—activities that show well on television.
Studies of the public’s sources of news clearly demonstrate that, for several reasons, most people rely on television as their main source of news, although people are much less reliant on network television than they were twenty years ago. However, people seem to recall little of the news to which they have been exposed over the year. The belief known as the television hypothesis argues that television is to blame for citizens’ lack of political knowledge. Studies also show that the people who rely most on television tend to see fewer differences among political candidates than do their counterparts who rely on other sources of information. Despite the image of the mass media as manipulators of the news to influence voters, the actual content of the news—whether good or bad in the minds of the viewers—seems to have more effect on voters than does the way the news is reported.
Ample evidence supports the charge that working journalists tend to hold liberal views; however, it also seems that their editors and publishers (the gatekeepers) tend to reflect countervailing conservative views. What seems clearest from studies of media bias is that journalists tend to distrust politicians of either party, which encourages them to act in an adversarial manner when researching stories.
The media have more subtle effects on the political system in setting the political agenda—often emphasizing social problems like crime in an unsettling way—and in socializing the young through entertainment programs. Unlike early radio programs about cops and robbers, contemporary television police drama tends to portray the criminal justice system in a more ambivalent manner. Overall, the media play contradictory roles in the socialization process, both supporting the system by celebrating national holidays and undermining order by publicizing grievances, corruption, and even terrorism. New media, such as the World Wide Web, are playing a growing role in the socialization process.
The media contribute to democracy through critical reporting of government actions and by communicating the public’s attitudes and reactions to the government. Reporters have advanced equality in the United States by their sympathetic coverage of minority groups, particularly during the civil rights movement. In their uncompromising effort to defend freedom of the press, however, the media have also exacted social costs by pursuing press freedom at the expense of social order.
Chapter 7 Synopsis- Participation and Voting
In the spring of 2009, former Republican majority leader Dick Armey of Texas, acting in his capacity as president of Freedom Works, a political group in favor of a smaller role for the federal government in public life, launched a 25 city “Tea Party Tour” to oppose the Democrats’ alleged socialist agenda. The democratic ideal that “government ought to be run by the people” does not determine how much citizen participation, and what kind, is necessary for democratic government. Proponents of direct democracy insist on citizen participation in formulating government policy. Other observers contend that citizens can govern indirectly through elected representatives or unconventional participatory methods.
There are two basic forms of political participation. Conventional participation refers to relatively routine political behavior using the institutional channels of representative government, such as elections. Individuals may engage in supportive behavior, which expresses allegiance to government and country. Typically, however, citizens participate in conventional politics in order to influence government policy. People may seek particular benefits for themselves, or they may hope to modify the broad policies of government.
Unconventional participation, by contrast, refers to relatively uncommon behavior conducted outside of political institutions; often it seems to threaten government, or at least to defy government policies. Americans generally disapprove of unconventional political actions that interfere with daily living. Unconventional participation has had some notable successes in influencing government policy¾for example, during the Vietnam War protesters influenced the conduct of U.S. foreign policy. The civil rights movement relied on a type of unconventional participation called direct action—assembling crowds to confront business and local government—to counter racial discrimination. Direct action requires a special commitment and willingness to sacrifice from those who participate in it. People participating in unconventional political behavior generally distrust the established channels of the political system and have a strong sense of political efficacy and a highly developed sense of group consciousness. Studies suggest that Americans are more likely to participate in both conventional and unconventional political behavior than are citizens of other democratic countries. The exception to this is voting: U.S. citizens vote at a substantially lower rate than citizens of other democratic nations.
The failure to participate through voting is interesting (and somewhat problematic) because participation through elections is still the heart of the democratic process. Although the elimination of property-holding requirements expanded suffrage to all white males by the 1850s, other groups were enfranchised much later. Blacks gained an effective right to vote only with the passing of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Women fought hard and long for the ratification of the Nineteenth Amendment to the Constitution in 1920, which guaranteed their right to vote. In 1971, the Twenty-sixth Amendment extended suffrage to all citizens over eighteen years of age.
Voters are expected to choose the candidates that they believe will best serve their interests. Elections make public officials accountable, assuming that citizens have adequate information about the candidates and the offices for which they are running. The legacy of progressivism in American politics left behind several mechanisms for direct citizen participation in policymaking. The direct primary allows ordinary citizens to vote directly for candidates. The recall allows citizens to remove unpopular or incompetent officials from office before their term is up. Through the referendum, citizens vote directly on issues. In addition, by means of the initiative, state and local voters are allowed to propose issues to be decided by their legislatures.
There are several explanations for why people participate in politics, especially by voting. The standard socioeconomic model of participation suggests that people with more education, more income, and professional or white-collar jobs are more likely to participate in politics. Education is the strongest single predictor of participation.
Despite improvements in education and income, voting turnout in the United States has declined over time. This is in part the result of the increased pool of eligible voters since the voting age was lowered from twenty-one to eighteen in 1971. Young people are less likely to vote. Psychological studies have found that there is a decreasing belief in the efficacy of voting. Restrictive laws and the burden of individual registration discourage voting in the United States. In addition, political parties fail to mobilize voters because of weak group-party linkages. Inadequate information about a large number of candidates and offices also discourages voting.
From a normative perspective, it is clear that individuals should be free to participate (or not) in politics. However, citizens’ ability to influence government depends on their resources. There is, in addition, a trade-off between the people’s freedom to participate in politics and the government’s desire to maintain order. Not surprisingly, governments have a stake in converting unconventional modes of participation into conventional modes.
The two models of democracy allow us to evaluate the role of participation in a democracy. The majoritarian model views participation rather narrowly, and favors conventional, institutionalized participation¾primarily, voting in elections, which allows the majority will to be easily determined. The pluralist model favors a decentralized, complex form of government with many points of access. Pluralists therefore support forms of conventional political participation outside the electoral process.
Chapter 8 Synopsis- Political Parties
The “Tea Party” holds conventions, supports candidates for office, and is comprised of citizens from throughout the country. However, we must ask, is the “Tea Party” a traditional political party? Or is it a movement either within or beyond the traditional parties? Political parties sponsor candidates to run for elected offices under their name; the candidates are their avowed representatives. Many people equate democracy with the presence of competitive political organizations. In a democratic political system, parties have four major functions: (1) nominating candidates for election to public office, (2) structuring the voting choice in elections, (3) proposing alternative government programs, and (4) coordinating the actions of government officials.
Political party activity in the United States has consistently revolved around two major parties alternating in power. The Federalists, Democratic-Republicans, and Whigs formed the basis of the two-party system earlier in our history. Today, the long traditions of the Democratic Party, founded in 1828, and the Republican Party, formed in 1854, virtually close out the field to any serious challenge from a young, upstart party.
The balance between the Democrats and Republicans has shifted over time, with the most pronounced patterns developing following three critical elections. A rough balance of power between the parties followed the election of 1860. The election of 1896 led to the Republicans’ emergence as the majority party. The election of 1932 led to a majority of voters identifying themselves as Democrats.
Minority parties fall into four categories: (1) bolter parties, which are factions that split off from a major party; (2) farmer-labor parties, which have a populist, working-class orientation; (3) parties of ideological protest, such as the Socialist and Libertarian Parties; and (4) single-issue parties, such as the Prohibition Party. On the whole, minority parties have not been strong vote getters, but they have had some success as policy advocates, and have had an impact on who has been elected to office¾largely because they may draw votes away from one of the major party’s candidates and thus tip the balance toward the other. They also serve as a political safety valve by giving discontented groups the opportunity to air their policy views.
Party identification, a sense of belonging or psychological attachment to a political party, should be distinguished from voting, which is a behavior. Most Americans readily identify with one of the two political parties, and this predisposition is the most important long-term force affecting U.S. elections. Short-term factors, however—such as candidate attributes and policy positions—may lead a voter to abandon his or her party’s nominee and vote instead for a candidate of the opposing party.
Although both the Democrats and the Republicans support the concept of capitalism, there is a definite ideological gap between the parties in terms of the government roles they favor and how their members see themselves. In particular, Democrat activists are likely to be liberals or moderates, whereas Republicans are more inclined toward conservatism.
Neither Republicans nor Democrats have a hierarchical party structure, and the national parties have little control over decentralized state and local election campaigns. The candidate nomination process in American party politics, unlike in other party systems in the world, centers on election rather than selection by party leaders.
An ideal role of political parties in majoritarian democracy has four principles: (1) parties should present clear and coherent programs to voters, (2) voters should choose candidates on the basis of party programs, (3) the winning party should carry out its program once in office, and (4) voters should hold the governing party responsible at the next election for executing its program. Half of these principles are met in numbers 1 and 3, while analysis of whether principles 2 and 4 are being met is dependent upon more electoral analysis found in
Chapter 9 Synopsis- Nominations, Elections, and Campaigns
The U.S. system for choosing candidates for office is unlike the process most other nations engage in: the American electoral process is complex, time-consuming, and—for many citizens—ultimately confusing. In other nations, elections are timed to political needs, so the campaign period is fixed and short. In the United States, elections are held at predictable time intervals (in the case of the presidency, every four years); this insures stability, but also allows for very long campaigns.
In the last half of the twentieth century, the American electoral process underwent considerable change. Increasingly, election campaigns have gone from being party-centered to being candidate-centered. Most candidates for major office are nominated through a primary election. To nominate a presidential candidate, parties employ a mix of presidential primaries, local caucuses, and party conventions. In seeking election, an incumbent usually enjoys an advantage over a challenger, especially in elections to Congress, where challengers get far less money from organized groups than do incumbents.
A dissatisfaction with the control of party insiders of the presidential nomination process led to changes from a party-dominated, closed, short process to one favoring primaries dominated by candidate-centered, lengthy campaigns. Fundraising became more difficult, the media assumed a greater role in the process, and front-loaded primary states caused the nomination process to be decided much earlier and with fewer convention disputes.
All seats in the House of Representatives, one-third of the seats in the Senate, and numerous state and local offices are filled in general elections, which are held in November in even-numbered years. The president is elected indirectly through the Electoral College, in which each state has a number of electors equal to the total of its senators and representatives. Voters may vote either a straight ticket, in which they choose only one party’s candidates for all offices, or a split ticket, in which they choose candidates from different parties.
Campaign funds are perhaps the most vital campaign resource. Campaign financing is now heavily regulated by national and state governments. At the national level, the Federal Election Commission enforces limits on financial contributions and requires full disclosure of campaign spending. It also administers the public financing of presidential campaigns. Such financing has affected campaigns by placing limits on campaign costs, by helping to equalize the amounts spent by major candidates in the general election, and by increasing the candidate-centered orientation of elections. As unlikely as it was that incumbents would pass a campaign finance reform measure, the Bipartisan Campaign Finance Reform Act (BCRA) did pass and withstood court challenges. BCRA raised the individual contribution limit to two thousand dollars per election, changed aggregate contribution limits, outlawed “soft money,” and implemented new advertising requirements. Public funds are given to the candidate rather than to the political party represented by the individual. Access to such funds has generally further isolated the presidential campaign from congressional campaigns. Candidates usually turn to pollsters or political consultants to develop a strategy that mixes party, issues, and images. The campaign message is then disseminated via the mass media through news coverage and advertising.
Strategies make or break campaigns. Three basic strategies are party-centered (obviously not possible to use in the nomination phase), issue-oriented, and image-oriented strategies. The successful balance of these approaches, along with polling packages, campaign devices, and campaign fundraising decisions, are increasingly determined by professional campaign consultants.
Individual voting choices can be explained as products of long-term forces, which operate over a series of elections, and short-term forces, which are associated with particular elections. Party identification is the most important long-term force. The most important short-term forces are candidates’ attributes and policy positions. Most studies of presidential elections show that issues are less important than either party identification or the candidate’s image when people cast their ballots.
Although the party affiliation of the candidates and the party identification of the voters explain a good deal of electoral behavior, party organizations are not central to elections in America. Both major parties fail to meet two of the four principles of responsible government noted in Chapter 8. First, they do not choose candidates according to party programs. Second, the governing party cannot be held responsible at the next election for executing its program, because there is no governing party when the president is of one party and Congress is controlled by the other. Even though parties do not satisfy all elements of the majoritarian model, in the United States parties do fit well into the pluralist model. They function as giant interest groups themselves, and their decentralized organization provides many opportunities for other organized groups to back candidates that favor their interests.
Chapter 10 Synopsis- Interest Groups
Following the 2008 presidential election, whereby the Democratic Party won the White House and gained some power in both chambers of the Congress, many interest groups had to change their approach. The existence of interest groups represents a fundamental dilemma for the American political system. Interest groups work to gain advantages for their members even if these advantages are at the expense of the larger population. Indeed, Madison warned that “factions” would go as far as to suppress the rights of others to achieve their objectives. Yet interest groups are a manifestation of liberty; curbing interest groups means curbing freedom.
Interest groups do play many positive roles. Among other things, they represent people before their government. The three variables of the best organized groups include the disturbance theory, the quality of leadership, and a high socioeconomic level among members. Yet a troubling aspect of interest group politics has to do with the nature of this representation. These segments of society (particularly the wealthy, the well-educated, and businesses) are more likely to be represented by lobbying organizations than are other constituencies. Lobbying may also come from the use of the courts or influencing administrative agencies responsible for implementing law or those agencies responsible for regulatory decisions. Lobbying tactics reflect these alternate lobbying methods: (1) direct lobbying of policymakers, including committee testimony and legal advocacy; (2) grassroots lobbying of group members; (3) information campaigns; and (4) coalition-building. This inequity is also manifested in the resources available to groups. The development of citizens groups organizations built around policy concerns unrelated to members’ vocational interests¾provide some opportunities for these inequities to be remedied, but the less educated and the poor are still underrepresented in a system that provides advantages to business groups. Groups suffer from free riders, as well, who gain the residual benefits of membership without becoming formal members.
In recent years we have observed an upsurge in the number of interest groups. The most troubling aspect of that growth is the increasingly significant role political action committees, or PACs, play in financing congressional elections. The greatest portion of PAC contributions comes from corporate PACs. Critics charge that PACs gain undue advantage from the access they gain with contributions. They argue that PACs exacerbate the inequities in American society. Increasing constraints placed on PACs have fueled the development of 527s, groups which can take a stand on an issue and promote their position. 527s can’t endorse a candidate, but they can criticize candidates they don’t like by emphasizing the differences in candidates’ positions. These groups are also based in huge financial contributions. Defenders of both PACS and 527s respond that these groups are a way in which people can participate in politics. Moreover, shouldn’t people have the freedom to join together with other like-minded Americans to promote the candidates and issues in which they believe?
Chapter 11 Synopsis- Congress
Having the support of congressional leadership and large Democratic majorities in the House and Senate still have not made it easy for President Obama to close the base at Guantánamo Bay. We expect Congress to make wise policy decisions in a democratic fashion. But what type of representation defines a “democratic” legislature? The framers struggled over the apportionment of representatives in the House and the Senate to try to balance competing views of what a representative democracy should look like. When we argue today over how to improve congressional performance, we still must think about questions of representation and incumbent advantages.
The policymaking cycle in Congress begins with issues reaching the congressional agenda. Once Congress is ready to fashion legislation, the work begins in committee. Policy is most closely scrutinized in committee, and most of the decisions over the substance of legislation are made there. The authority of the committee system promotes pluralism in Congress. The leaders in Congress can play an important role in building coalitions for legislation as it emerges from committee. When legislation does reach the floor, what influences the way a member of Congress votes? This chapter examines various factors that can have influence, including political parties, the president, constituents, and interest groups. Oversight can be thought of as both the final stage of one legislative cycle and the beginning of another. It is the final stage in the sense that oversight activity is directed at finding out how well the legislation that was passed is working. At the same time, it provides crucial information to members of Congress to help them amend existing legislation. That is, oversight helps to start the cycle of legislating all over again. The end of the chapter turns once again to representation. Members of Congress are caught between the needs of their constituencies and what is best for the country as a whole. The classic question is posed: Should senators and representatives act as trustees or delegates? This debate is relevant to one of the larger themes of the book. Members of Congress who act as delegates help to promote pluralism in Congress. A more majoritarian Congress would require fundamental reform of both the institution itself and our party system.
Chapter 12 Synopsis- The Presidency
Since coming to office, President Obama has presided over a “not so secret” war in Pakistan, in addition to the two in Afghanistan and Iraq. War, and a president’s ability to engage the United States in it, still causes arguments about many of the same things that the authors of the Constitution debated. The powers of the presidency still concern us. What powers belong to the president? Although some are quite clear from the Constitution, claims of inherent powers have led to many controversies during our history. How past presidents have expanded the powers of the office is key to understanding the nature of the modern presidency.
In exercising leadership, the president has the resources of the executive branch to draw on. None of these are more important than his personal staff. More broadly, he draws upon the Executive Office of the President and his Cabinet. The task of presidential leadership is to translate a political vision into a concrete agenda and then to persuade the public and Congress to support legislation that furthers that agenda.
The president is perceived as a popularly elected leader, and his political skills are critical for putting together a winning electoral coalition. The need to win favor with the public does not end with the election. A president’s popularity affects his standing with Congress and his overall ability to lead.
Candidates who successfully put together an electoral coalition and win the presidency inevitably claim to have received a mandate from the public. In recent years their ability to carry out the perceived mandate has been made more difficult by divided control of government.
The president is a world leader, too, and his skills at crisis management and diplomacy will affect the success of his administration. The way a president handles both crisis and non-crisis decision making in the White House is often influenced by his “presidential character.”
Chapter 13 Synopsis - The Bureaucracy
As the scope of government activity has grown during the twentieth century, so has the bureaucracy. The way that bureaucracy is organized affects its ability to carry out its tasks.
Americans tend to be critics of the federal bureaucracy. Many people believe that it has grown too big and too intrusive. In looking at the historical development of the bureaucracy, we can identify important reasons for its growth. When we ask if the bureaucracy can be cut down, we once again confront the tension between majoritarianism and pluralism. Although most Americans want a smaller federal government, different segments of the population work hard to protect the programs and agencies that they value.The federal bureaucracy is divided into several different types of organizations: departments, independent agencies, and government corporations. The people who staff them are generally hired under the requirements of the civil service - they are hired on the basis of merit, and cannot be fired for political reasons. This means that the president does not have as much control over the workings of the bureaucracy as he might like.Bureaucracies are political because they make policy decisions. Under the administrative discretion given them by Congress, they have the authority to make policy, usually through rule making. These decisions are not made in a scientific or purely rational way. Rather, they are subject to the pulls and pushes of the political system.Bureaucrats must implement policies¾put the ideas on paper into action. This is difficult for many reasons: vague directives from Congress means it isn’t clear what should be done; administrative limitations and lack of discretion on the front lines can make it hard to make a good idea work. It seems easier to catalog the failings of bureaucracy than to find cures for them. One wave of reform efforts focused on deregulation as a means to reduce the size of government while reforming the bureaucracy by diminishing its role over the marketplace. Other approaches have required bureaucrats to set and meet performance standards, and have encouraged bureaucrats to compete with private business. All these approaches raise important questions. Who are an agency’s “customers” in a pluralistic system where there are so many different types of individuals and groups involved? Who should bear the brunt of the risks that are associated with deregulation? And what happens when we begin to value what can be done over what needs to be done?
Chapter 14 Synopsis- The Courts
The courts, with the power of judicial review, have the ability to impact public life in a profound way. This chapter begins with a discussion of how changes in the personnel of the Supreme Court made possible the unanimous decision of Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, KS (1954). Indeed, the task of the judiciary is to choose between competing values¾and this is an essentially political process. Freedom, order, and equality vie for dominance throughout the nation’s courts.
The Constitution created only one court—the Supreme Court—and sketched the rough contours of federal judicial power. The real design took shape in the first Congress. (Much of that handiwork can be seen in today’s court system.) Congress created federal (national) courts that would coexist with the courts in each state, but would be independent of them. But the judiciary was not viewed as a powerful branch of government until John Marshall was appointed the third chief justice in 1803.
Marshall’s opinion in Marbury v. Madison (1803) established the power of judicial review, the judiciary’s power to declare acts of coordinate branches (and acts of state government) void because they violate the Constitution. This power appears to conflict with democratic theory because an unelected branch can trump an elected branch in the name of the Constitution.
The federal courts form a hierarchy, with the Supreme Court at the apex, the courts of appeals in the middle, and the district courts at the base. Note that most litigation arises in state courts; federal courts have limited jurisdiction to decide criminal and civil cases. Criminal cases occur when the government prosecutes persons for violating criminal codes. Civil cases involve a private dispute about something of value. Policymaking in the courts occurs at all levels, but it is most pronounced in appellate courts, where the emphasis on judicial opinions enables judges to create precedents. Opinions in the majority, but which cite different reasons for the decision than the majority, are concurring opinions. Those opinions sometimes written by the minority are dissenting opinions.
The Supreme Court receives special consideration because the situations that reflect the most important value conflicts inherent in American democracy often end up before the Court’s nine justices. The Court is a national policymaker with far-reaching impact. It exercises influence in part through the power to set its own agenda; it is aided in this function by the solicitor general, who represents the federal government before the Court. Activist judges are known for establishing new precedents or new interpretations of the law, while restraint judges are just the opposite.
If presidents are successful in appointing judges who share their values, they can influence policy even after their term as president is over. Although this is true across the federal judiciary, it is especially pronounced for appointments to the Supreme Court. Judges exercise political power; some recognize this power more than others. Separation of powers and checks and balances frustrate representative government. Groups that failed to secure or protect their interests in the democratic branches can turn to lawyers and the courts. Pluralist democracy operates when groups press their interests on the government. The open access provided by the courts reinforces pluralist democracy.
Though judicial power runs counter to democratic theory, policies emanating from the Supreme Court rarely seem out of step with majority sentiment or the trend toward such sentiment. There are some exceptions to this observation, such as the Roe v. Wade abortion decision, which generated substantial opposition. Recent decisions and changes in the Court presage a change on the abortion issue; however, though this would assuage a vocal segment of the electorate, it is not clear that this would necessarily reflect majority views.
Judges confront new issues calling for the exercise of judicial power. With open access to the judiciary and the creation of new rights in the name of the Constitution, courts have increasingly become the arenas in which the conflicts between freedom and order and between freedom and equality are resolved.
Chapter 15 Synopsis- Order and Civil Liberties
The Bill of Rights of the Constitution gives individuals a wide range of civil liberties designed to protect them against the power of the state. The interpretation of how these civil liberties should be protected has involved a clash between government-imposed order and freedom. The courts, especially the Supreme Court, have the power to resolve societal controversies over values involving civil rights. However, government at all levels can, and does, create rights through laws written by legislatures and regulations issued by bureaucracies.
The First Amendment of the Constitution protects individuals from government laws that interfere with the freedom of religion and freedom of expression. With respect to religion, government has set out to establish a wall of separation between church and state. The Supreme Court has interpreted the establishment clause in the First Amendment in such a way that government is prevented from giving assistance to religious institutions. Over the years, however, indirect and incidental assistance of parochial schools has been tolerated. Since the Supreme Court handed down its decision in Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971), state funding of religious programs must pass a stringent test of noninterference with religion. The free exercise clause of the First Amendment protects religious beliefs, but not actions based on those beliefs. Thus, government is allowed to regulate antisocial behavior that stems from a constitutionally protected right.
Freedom of expression is one of the vital characteristics of a democratic system. The freedom of expression clause of the First Amendment confers the right to unrestricted public discourse that does not threaten public order. The Supreme Court has defined the kinds of behavior that constitute a threat to public order through theclear and present danger test. Over the years, the Court has expanded the latitude of political expression that does not present real danger to society. Symbolic expression, such as wearing black armbands to protest the Vietnam War, has been protected by the Court. There are two noted exceptions to freedom of speech. “Fighting words” are defined as utterances designed to “inflict injury or [that] tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace” and are not subject to First Amendment protection. Obscenity is also excluded from constitutional protection. The First Amendment also guarantees that government will not interfere with the freedom of the press. There are limitations on this freedom. Public officials or public figures can institute a lawsuit against the press for libel. The Sullivan case, however, established that “actual malice” must be proved before libel can be upheld. Prior restraint, or censorship, by the government is permissible under exceptional circumstances that are not specified by the Court. Another limitation on freedom of the press exists in the conflict between the needs of law enforcement and those of a free press.
Free speech issues have become increasingly complicated¾and taken on a global dimension¾with the growth of the Internet. The Court tends to view the Internet as having the same privileges that are given to the press, but the transmission of hate speech and obscenity poses new questions, particularly because of their availability to minors. Only with the passing of the Fourteenth Amendment did the Bill of Rights become applicable to the states. The incorporation of the individual guarantees in the Bill of Rights under the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment was a slow, painful process. The landmark decision in Palko v. Connecticut (1937) interpreted the due process clause to include only “fundamental” rights. In the thirty years after Palko, however, almost every aspect of the Bill of Rights was accepted as a fundamental right.
The incorporation of constitutional procedural safeguards to be used by the states in criminal prosecution has dramatically changed the U.S. criminal justice system in the last thirty years. In several decisions, the Supreme Court required the states to provide trial by jury in criminal cases; a lawyer to criminal defendants; protection against self-incrimination, through the Miranda warnings; and freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures, through the exclusionary rule.
The Supreme Court has expanded the rights of individuals beyond those explicitly enumerated in the Constitution. For instance, the Court has asserted people’s right to privacy in making choices about contraception and reproduction. The protection of a woman’s decision to have an abortion during the first three months of pregnancy, granted by the Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade (1973), was the most controversial result of the extension of the right to privacy. Through Webster v. Reproductive Health Services (1989) and other recent decisions, the Court has moved down the road toward greater government control of abortion policy.
In Bowers v. Hardwick (1986) the Court restricted the right of privacy to only heterosexual choices, thus placing homosexual choices outside constitutional protection. The Court reconsidered this decision in Lawrence and Garner v. Texas (2003), acknowledging that “an emerging awareness … gives substantial protection to adult persons in deciding how to conduct their private lives.” State-by-state efforts to give homosexual commitments the same status as heterosexual marriage have occurred, though current national legislation does not require states to honor non-heterosexual marriages.
Cases like Roe and Griswold are disturbing to democratic theory: they remove policymaking from the legislative arena and place it in the hands of the courts, where the will of the people need not be taken into consideration. Under the current system, though, the judicial branch will continue to play a major role in balancing freedom and order.
Chapter 16 Synopsis- Equality and Civil Rights
This chapter provides a historical overview of the process by which civil and political rights have been extended to African Americans, women, and other minorities. The search for social and economic equality has been slow and often filled with controversy and violence.
Americans continue to struggle over the difference between equality of opportunity and equality of outcome.Although nearly all Americans agree on equality of opportunity, not everyone agrees that individual outcomes should be equal or that society should limit certain individual freedoms in order to ensure that others are “equalized.”
The adoption of the Fourteenth, Fifteenth, and Sixteenth Amendments following the Civil War was designed to provide black Americans with the civil and political rights that had been denied to them by slavery. The Supreme Court, however, systematically prevented these citizens from exercising their rights by declaring that the federal government could not regulate private forms of discrimination. Throughout the South, black Americans were denied the right to vote by the use of the poll tax, education requirements, and laws requiring proof of property ownership.
“Jim Crow” laws, requiring separate housing and public facilities for blacks and whites, became the basis of an official system of racial segregation. In a landmark case, the Supreme Court upheld racially motivated segregation as long as separate but equal facilities were provided for blacks. The Court overlooked the existing differences in facilities available to blacks and whites in reaching this decision. Nevertheless, the separate-but-equal doctrine later allowed black Americans to challenge the discriminatory admissions policies of all-white universities.
The political mood of the 1950s favored the successful challenge to the separate-but-equal doctrine in the famousBrown v. Board of Education of Topeka case in 1954. With this decision, the Court approved several remedies, such as busing and racial quotas, to achieve the integration of schools.
The advancement of political equality beyond the classroom, however, required more extensive political mobilization, which came to be known as the civil rights movement. During the 1960s, the unconventional political tactics of the civil rights movement, which included boycotts and sit-in demonstrations, brought national attention to the problem of racial discrimination. As a result, Congress passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the most comprehensive legislation to date designed to eliminate racial discrimination.
Although the legislative efforts of Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society program did much to improve race relations, the problem of poverty and unemployment among African Americans in urban areas remained unsolved. This lack of progress toward economic equality was in part responsible for the rise of militant Black Nationalist movements during the 1960s.
Other minorities have had mixed fortunes in improving their lot. Latinos have only recently been able to exercise significant political and economic clout in urban areas. Native Americans have had worse treatment. Other nonblack ethnic minorities had to wait until 1987, when the Supreme Court extended civil rights protection to them. In 1990, the protections of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 were extended to people with disabilities. Homosexual men and women still have a long way to go to enjoy the full complement of civil rights that have been extended to other minority groups.
The movement toward equal rights for women also has a long history of confrontation and struggle. Laws discriminating against women in education and employment were upheld by the courts on the grounds that they protected the “weaker sex” from the harsh realities of life. Women were also “protected” from participating in the electoral process until the adoption of the Nineteenth Amendment in 1920. During the 1960s, the prohibition of sex-based discrimination was heralded in the Equal Pay Act of 1963 and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Despite some clear gains in dismantling sexist stereotypes in the work force, most working women are still relegated to jobs that pay less than those held by men. When the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) failed to be ratified by the 1982 deadline, much of the controversy regarding the civil rights of women was put to rest.
One of the more controversial issues the Court has dealt with recently concerns affirmative action. The depth of the Court’s ambivalence on this issue is illustrated by the 1978 Bakke case, in which the Supreme Court ruled against the use of racial quotas unless they are used narrowly. Overall, the Supreme Court has shown some sympathy for the concept of affirmative action while requiring that such practices not create broad advantages for minority group members.
Americans will continue to work through their differences over the competing values of freedom and equality, and many of those debates will occur in the judicial system.
Chapter 17 Synopsis- Economic Policy
Economic theory provides policymakers with simplifying assumptions that help them choose between policies. The advice one economist gives is often contradicted by that of another economist. Both are often contradicted by economic reality itself¾an economic reality that is made all the more complex by a global economy where the global flow of investment dollars affects worldwide employment patterns, standards of living, and macroeconomic conditions like inflation and recession.
Several economic theories have an important role in explaining and shaping how today’s market economies work. Laissez-faire economics advocates minimal government interference with the operation of the free market. Laissez-faire policies, however, have been unsuccessful in solving the problems associated with the business cycles in market economies. Keynesian theory holds that government fiscal and monetary policies can smooth out these business cycles, thus preventing economic depressions or raginginflation. Most democratic governments in the twentieth century have used some Keynesian techniques. Monetarists question the political utility of Keynesian fiscal policies. Fiscal spending to boost a depressed economy is generally untimely, and spending programs, once started, can rarely be stopped again. The monetarists recommend that the economy be regulated through monetary policies that are controlled by the politically independent board of governors (this is what we see in the U.S. Federal Reserve System). Finally, supply-side economics represents the latest return to traditional laissez-faire policies based on fewer government regulations and less taxation.
Policymakers rely on the budget as the tool by which decisions about policies are made. Since 1921, the president has been responsible for drafting and submitting the budget to Congress. The actual preparation of the budget is supervised by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Since the 1970s, however, Congress has regained some control over the budget-making process by creating new budget committees and the Congressional Budget Office (CBO). In passing the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings bill in 1985, Congress resorted to more drastic measures in order to reduce the exploding budget deficit. As budget deficits were erased and surpluses began to accumulate, Congress had to determine how to deal with this circumstance: should taxes be cut, or should social needs, like prescription drug coverage for the elderly, be attended to? This is the classic controversy of American economic policy. Recent events erased the surpluses and have brought both Congress and the president back to the much more troubling question of how to close annual budget deficits.
Tax and spending policies are continually changing to meet the goals of policymakers. The sweeping tax reform of 1986 represented a dramatic change in recent tax history. Several changes have taken place since then, but none have been major. Americans remain relatively apathetic about changing the broad contours of the present tax system.
Public concern over the national deficit has prompted politicians to attempt to reduce public expenditures. Several factors militate against successful reductions in many programs. First, incremental budgeting produces a sort of bureaucratic momentum that continually pushes federal spending up. Second, most government spending cannot be reduced very easily because it is required by existing laws that no politician in his or her right mind would attempt to modify. Third, Americans have become accustomed to large domestic spending projects, but are reluctant to have their taxes increased.
Despite massive government spending on social programs, the gap in income between rich and poor actually grew between 1966 and 2004. This highly unequal distribution of wealth has prompted some critics to argue that spending and tax policies are dominated by pluralist politics, which favor well-funded interest groups and the wealthy. They call for the introduction of majoritarian principles in taxation and spending policies that would improve the distribution of income in society. Americans in general are not willing to expand the use of progressive taxation policies, however—claiming to prefer more regressive methods, such as a national sales tax or national lottery to increase receipts.
Chapter 18 Synopsis- Policymaking and Domestic Policy
The institutions of national government have been described in earlier chapters. There we looked closely at how the nature of each institution affected policymaking. In this chapter we focus on policymaking across institutions.
In the first part of this chapter, we distinguish among different types of policies, based on the approach used to solve problems. We then tie together the processes described in the chapters on the institutions of government into a general model of public policymaking. Finally, we analyze how the different levels and institutions of government can produce rather fragmented approaches to solving problems, and we examine those forces that work toward coordination in policymaking.
In the second part of this chapter we build on the discussion of fragmentation and coordination by looking at policymaking on issues where there are a very large number of actors trying to influence the outcome. We outline the concept of issue networks. The chapter explains the interrelationship between private sector actors (such as nonprofit groups) and government officials, and examines in detail the ongoing relationships among those who work in the same issue area. Finally, the chapter concludes by exploring the growing role of nonprofit organizations in developing, implementing, and evaluating public policy.
The final part of this chapter concentrates on the role of government in providing for the welfare of its citizens through government policies. It begins with a discussion of why and how the government became involved in providing the minimum requirements of life for its citizens. At one time, governments provided only the minimal resources necessary for security and order. Now, through the welfare state, most governments provide a variety of services and programs designed to shield individuals from economic insecurity and to promote increased economic equality. The promotion of welfare goals through government is controversial, however, because it requires government to choose between freedom and equality.
The Great Depression was crucial in changing thinking about how much government intervention was needed to promote social welfare. The New Deal policies were designed to remedy the problems caused by economic stagnation, by boosting farm prices, reducing unemployment, and increasing social welfare expenditures. President Johnson’s Great Society programs carried the spirit and programs of the New Deal one step further. Comprehensive legislation was passed to redress political, social, and economic inequality. Although successful in some areas, the Great Society programs failed to achieve their goals because of administrative problems and growing indifference. Since the 1980s, conservative thought on the importance of pursuing economic equality (rather than economic freedom) has altered the policy environment, and has particularly impacted public assistance programs. In 1996, public assistance programs were substantially altered by the Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF) Act. Still, government does attempt to alleviate some of the consequences of economic adversity, using social insurance programs such as those defined through the Social Security Act of 1935. Although there are questions about the financial viability of the system in the future, making significant changes to Social Security entails too much political risk. Another program under this legislation,Medicare, has undergone attacks by conservative critics who see it as a wasteful and unnecessary intrusion of government into health care. Meanwhile, about 15 percent of Americans who are not elderly have no health insurance, and they must rely on a patchwork public system. As a result, many believe some form of health care reform is needed. Americans disagree over public policies in these areas because they disagree over the need for government actions, the goals the government should have, and the means it should use to fulfill those goals.
Another social welfare benefit, public education, has also recently been the object of some reform discussion, though reforming education at the national level is difficult because it is primarily a state and local function. The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 requires states and localities to meet federal goals, and gives parents the opportunity to choose a new school if their child’s school is not meeting goals.
Is government providing benefits fairly? Some would argue not: why should government subsidize the poor by providing non-means-tested benefits? Transforming some non-means-tested benefits into means-tested benefits also has allure during times of budget crises, but raises questions about where to place the income threshold for receiving benefits.
Chapter 19 Synopsis- Global Policy
This chapter examines the players, structures, and primary issues that define the making of foreign policy in the United States. The decisions made in this process can be understood through the conflicts of freedom versus order and freedom versus equality: in the case of foreign policy, though, those conflicts are between those who favor freedom versus those who favor maintaining the traditional order of the nation-state system; and those who favor freedom versus those who favor government action to enhance the equality of people in all nations. The history of U.S. foreign policy and current global policy challenges can be understood within this framework.
The Constitution specifies that relations with other nations should primarily be the responsibility of two groups of actors: the executive branch and the legislative branch. The president, who has become the primary foreign policy authority, derives his authority from a few provisions including his role as commander in chief that deal with the subject of foreign relations. Presidents have used these provisions, pieces of legislation, Supreme Court decisions, and precedent to expand their authority.
The other primary actor in the foreign policy-making arena is Congress. Congress has many powers that can be used in foreign policy, though the Constitution never specifically mentions that term. Both the power to legislate and the power of the purse give Congress the ability to promote or prohibit international involvement. The Senate has specific powers including the power to ratify treaties that make it a particularly important force in foreign policy making.
There are many other actors who take part in making foreign policy: particularly important are the Department of State, the Department of Defense, the National Security Council, the CIA, and other parts of the bureaucracy that have intelligence capabilities. Each of these organizations advises the president and Congress on matters concerning national security and other U.S. interests. In addition, many other agencies pursue foreign policy goals as part of their missions, and there is an array of government corporations, independent agencies, and quasi-governmental organizations that also participate in making foreign policy.
A brief review of the history of foreign policy making reveals that the United States has gradually progressed from an isolationist to a regional to a global perspective in its foreign policy. Immediately after World War II, American foreign policy was dominated by the requirements of the Cold War and the containment of Soviet expansionism. A real turning point in Cold War foreign policy resulted from America’s unsuccessful involvement in the Vietnam War. Americans disagreed passionately both about what to do in Vietnam and how to do it. The Nixon doctrine, however, inspired a dramatic departure from the past by advocating détente, a foreign policy aimed at reducing tensions between East and West. This policy represented a significant change. President Carter’s foreign policy emphasized human rights, and can be seen as reflecting the “Vietnam syndrome,” a crisis of confidence about America’s role in the world. President Reagan had no such crisis, and undertook a major defense buildup as a means of rolling back perceived Soviet expansionism in Central America and elsewhere. When the Cold War ended in 1989, the conditions of foreign policy making changed dramatically. As President Clinton’s policy of enlargement and engagement illustrates, it is now much more difficult to develop strong guidelines about U.S. involvement in situations around the world. These challenges were exacerbated by the events of September 11, 2001: now President GW Bush's idea of preemptive action challenges U.S. intelligence to keep our homeland safe while simultaneously engaging when the threat is not visible to everyone.
The most pressing international issues are global policy issues: these are problems that blend domestic and international issues and require global action if they are going to be adequately addressed. Solutions to these problems often require domestic policies and practices to be subjected to international regulation. Global policy making presents challenges to the very concept of national sovereignty. A review of the global policy areas of investment and trade, human rights policy and foreign aid, and environmental policy reveals both the need for, and the challenges to, effective policy making in these areas.
In a democracy, it would seem that public opinion could have a dramatic impact on foreign policy decisions. According to the majoritarian model of democracy, public opinion should be the fundamental guide for foreign policy makers. The problem with this view is that the public is not very interested in foreign policy, and most of those who are have views that are not very specific. The pluralist model of democracy, by contrast, recognizes that people are likely to learn about foreign policy from the leaders of groups they belong to, and so legitimizes the presence of these groups. Pluralism also recognizes and allows for the presence of foreign firms and governments as interest groups. Though the influence of these groups varies depending on the issue at hand, international lobbying efforts are most effective when they deal with noncrisis issues that are of little importance to the public at large. Given the public’s relative disinterest in these matters, foreign policy and now global policy will tend to be made by opinion leaders and competing interest groups.
No comments:
Post a Comment