Ch 20 Notes
Foreign policy is a nations general plan to defend and advance national interests, especially its security against foreign threats
The Protagonist: The President
The Constitution allows the president to deal with other nations in several ways
The president is commander-in-chief of the armed forces
The president has the power to make treaties
The president appoints U.S. ambassadors and heads of executive departments
The president receives (or refuses) ambassadors from other countries
Over time the executive has used these provisions, laws, Supreme Court decisions, and precedents created by bold action, to emerge as the leading actor in American foreign policy.
The Protagonist II (and sometimes the Antagonist): Congress
The Constitution mentions the word “foreign” in five places, and all of these are in Article I (which defines the legislative branch)
The Consitution allows Congress to deal with other nations in several ways:
Congress has the power to create legislation
Congress has the power to declare war
Congress has the power to raise revenue and dispense funds
Congress has the power to support, maintain, govern and regulate the army
Congress has the power to call out state militias to repel invasions
Congress has the power to regulate commerce with foreign nations
Congress has the power to define and punish piracy and offenses against the law of nations
Congress has only used its power to declare war five times
Most importantly, Congress uses its power of the purse to provide funds for foreign policy activities it supports, and to prohibit funds for those it opposes
· The senate has specific powers that make it the leading chamber on foreign policy issues
· The senate must give advice and consent to treaties
· The senate must give advice and consent to appointment of ambassadors and other officials involved in foreign policy
The Senate rarely defeats a treaty the president has made (only 21 of thousands have been defeated), but many of those defeats have been historically significant
The Senate vetoed Woodrow Wilson’s treaty to join the League of Nations in 1921
U.S. entrance into the United Nations required Senate approval; despite some isolationist sentiment, the treaty passed.
The most recent rejection occurred in 1999, when the Senate rejected the Comprehensive nuclear Test Ban Treaty
The Power Move: Presidents can avoid Senate treaty rejection by creating foreign policy through executive agreements.
· An executive agreement is a pact between heads of countries and has the legal status of treaties
· They must conform to the Constitution, existing treaties, and the laws of Congress
· Most executive agreements deal with minor issues
· Presidents have occasionally resorted to executive agreements on issues that were unlikely to win Senate consent: NAFTA is a recent example
The Dance of Power: Legislation and Foreign Policy Making Power
Congress has allowed the presidency certain leeway on use of discretionary funds – large sums of money that may be spent on unforeseen needs to further the national interest
Congress has also granted the president transfer authority – allowing him to take money that Congress has approved for one purpose and spend it on something else
As commander-in-chief, the president has authority to commit the armed forces to respond to emergency situations, effectively involving the U.S. in undeclared wars
The War Powers Resolution (passed in response to the Vietnam War) requires the president to consult with Congress in “every possible instance” before involving troops in hostilities
Troops may not stay for more than 60 days without Congressional approval
The actual impact of the law is quite minimal; no president has ever been “punished” for violating its provisions
Making Foreign Policy: Supporting Players
· The Department of State
· The State Dept. helps formulate American policy and then executes and monitors it throughout the world
· The Secretary of State is the highest ranking official in the cabinet, and also (usually) the president’s most important foreign policy adviser
· Despite its size and selectivity in hiring, the State Dept. is often charged with lacking initiative and creativity
· The State Dept. lacks a strong domestic constituency to exert pressure in support of its policies; pluralist politics makes this a serious drawback
The Department of Defense
The Department of Defense (DOD) is charged with promoting unity and coordination among the armed forces and providing the bureaucratic structure needed to manage the peacetime military
The Secretary of Defense is a civilian, and has budgetary power, control of defense research, and the authority to transfer, abolish, reassign, and consolidate functions among the military services
The power wielded by the Secretary of Defense depends upon the Secretary’s own vision and willingness to use the tools available
The National Security Council
· The National Security Council (NSC) is a group of advisers created to help the president mold a coherent approach to foreign policymaking by integrating and coordinating details of domestic, foreign, and military affairs
· The statutory members of the NSC include the president, vice-president, and secretaries of State and Defense
· The role of the NSC varies considerably according to the wishes of the president
The CIA and the Intelligence Community
Before WWII, there was no permanent agency charged with gathering intelligence (information) about the actions and intentions of other nations
The CIA was created during the Cold War, and is charged with collecting, analyzing, evaluating, and circulating intelligence related to national security matters
The intelligence community also includes the Departments of Defense, State, Energy, and Treasury, which also possess intelligence capacities
Most material obtained by the CIA comes from readily available sources, such as statistical abstracts, books, and newspapers
Covert (secret) activities are undertaken are undertaken by the Operations Directorate, and have included espionage, coups, assassination plots, wiretaps, interception of mail, and infiltration of protest groups
Covert operations raise moral and legal questions in a democracy, particularly in the aftermath of the Cold War: when a government engages in actions that people know nothing about, the people cannot hold government accountable for its actions
Post-Cold War issues that concern the intelligence community include terrorism, drug trafficking, nuclear proliferation, and US economic security
Bit Players: Other Parts of the Foreign Policy Bureaucracy
· Globalization has caused the number of players concernec with foreign policy to expand
· The Agency for International Development (AID) oversees aid programs to nations around the world. It works with a full range of other departments and agencies
· The US Information Agency (USIA) provides educational and cultural materials about the United States in over 100 countries
· The US Arms Control and Disarmament Agency (ACDA) promotes, negotiates, and verifies arms control, nonproliferation, and disarmament policies
· Many other departments, including the Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, and Energy, engage in various foreign policy activities
· An array of government corporations, independent agencies, and quasi-governmental organizations also participate in foreign policymaking. These include the National Endowment for Democracy, the Export-Import Bank, and the Overseas Private Investment Corporation.
· States and localities are also now paying attention to foreign policy; most state governments now have offices charged with promoting export state goods and attracting overseas investment.
Tuesday, April 24, 2007
Monday, April 23, 2007
Ch 20 Synopsis
Ch 20 – Global Policy
Synopsis:
This chapter examines the players, structures, and primary issues that define the making of foreign policy in the U.S.. 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 v. 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 and other pieces of legislation, Supreme Court decisions, and precedent, to expand their authority.
The other primary actor in the foreign policymaking 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 policymaking.
There are many other actors who take part in making foreign policy: particularly important are the Department of State; Department of Defense; the National Security Council; and 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 policymaking reveals that the U.S. has gradually progressed from an isolationist to a regional to a global perspective in its foreign policy. Immediately after WWII, 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 “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 policymaking 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.
The most pressing international issues are global policy issues: these are intermestic problems that require global action. Solutions to these problems often require domestic policies and practices to be subject to international regulation. Global policymaking 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 challenges to effective policymaking 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 non-crisis 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.
Synopsis:
This chapter examines the players, structures, and primary issues that define the making of foreign policy in the U.S.. 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 v. 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 and other pieces of legislation, Supreme Court decisions, and precedent, to expand their authority.
The other primary actor in the foreign policymaking 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 policymaking.
There are many other actors who take part in making foreign policy: particularly important are the Department of State; Department of Defense; the National Security Council; and 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 policymaking reveals that the U.S. has gradually progressed from an isolationist to a regional to a global perspective in its foreign policy. Immediately after WWII, 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 “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 policymaking 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.
The most pressing international issues are global policy issues: these are intermestic problems that require global action. Solutions to these problems often require domestic policies and practices to be subject to international regulation. Global policymaking 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 challenges to effective policymaking 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 non-crisis 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.
Friday, April 20, 2007
Ch 19 Synopsis
Chapter 19 – Domestic Policy
Synopsis
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 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 instrumental 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 1980’s, 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 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 healthcare. Meanwhile, about 15% 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. Both parties have substantial policy agendas on this issue, though.
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.
Synopsis
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 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 instrumental 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 1980’s, 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 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 healthcare. Meanwhile, about 15% 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. Both parties have substantial policy agendas on this issue, though.
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.
Thursday, April 19, 2007
Ch 19 Notes
· Chapter 19 Notes
· Government payments to individuals as a percentage of the federal budget have almost doubled since 1960
· As of 1995, 60 cents of every dollar spent goes to payments for individuals
· The welfare debate is an example of the modern dilemma of government, the choice between freedom and equality
· The ideological origins of social welfare as government policy are in the Industrial Revolution, when production shifted from the home to the factory
· A major result of the Great Depression was to increase the economic role of the federal government
· The New Deal was a package of programs that was not guided by, or based on, a single political or economic theory
· The New Deal consisted of two basic elements: (1) boosting prices and lowering unemployment; (2) aiding specific groups of disadvantaged people
· The Supreme Court opposed the New Deal on the belief that Congress was exceeding its Constitutional authority
· Equality was the underlying value of LBJ’s Great Society
· Kennedy’s domestic policies included limited programs for the poor along with a middle class tax cut
· Originally, the War on Poverty sought to involve the poor themselves in administering anti-poverty programs; its major legal component was the Economic Opportunity Act of 1964
· Regarding the reasons for poverty, Americans cite lack of effort by the poor and uncontrollable circumstances about equally
· In social welfare policy, Reagan shifted the emphasis from economic equality to economic freedom
· Reagan’s legacy, the budget deficit, continued to make any spending increases on social welfare policy impractical even after he left office
· Reagan effectively reversed the New Deal
· Those who opposed Medicare in the 1960’s were correct in the prediction that it would become enormously expensive
· Medicare provides care to those age 65 and older; Medicaid provides care to poor people under 65
· Compare to the western European democracies, the United States provides its citizens the lowest level of health benefits
· More than 14% of the US GDP is spent on health care
· Public assistance varies from state to state
· About 14% of Americans are officially living in poverty
· Government payments to individuals as a percentage of the federal budget have almost doubled since 1960
· As of 1995, 60 cents of every dollar spent goes to payments for individuals
· The welfare debate is an example of the modern dilemma of government, the choice between freedom and equality
· The ideological origins of social welfare as government policy are in the Industrial Revolution, when production shifted from the home to the factory
· A major result of the Great Depression was to increase the economic role of the federal government
· The New Deal was a package of programs that was not guided by, or based on, a single political or economic theory
· The New Deal consisted of two basic elements: (1) boosting prices and lowering unemployment; (2) aiding specific groups of disadvantaged people
· The Supreme Court opposed the New Deal on the belief that Congress was exceeding its Constitutional authority
· Equality was the underlying value of LBJ’s Great Society
· Kennedy’s domestic policies included limited programs for the poor along with a middle class tax cut
· Originally, the War on Poverty sought to involve the poor themselves in administering anti-poverty programs; its major legal component was the Economic Opportunity Act of 1964
· Regarding the reasons for poverty, Americans cite lack of effort by the poor and uncontrollable circumstances about equally
· In social welfare policy, Reagan shifted the emphasis from economic equality to economic freedom
· Reagan’s legacy, the budget deficit, continued to make any spending increases on social welfare policy impractical even after he left office
· Reagan effectively reversed the New Deal
· Those who opposed Medicare in the 1960’s were correct in the prediction that it would become enormously expensive
· Medicare provides care to those age 65 and older; Medicaid provides care to poor people under 65
· Compare to the western European democracies, the United States provides its citizens the lowest level of health benefits
· More than 14% of the US GDP is spent on health care
· Public assistance varies from state to state
· About 14% of Americans are officially living in poverty
Monday, April 2, 2007
Ch 17 Notes
Chapter 17 Notes – Policymaking
Public policy is a general plan of action adopted by government
“Muddling through” refers to govt. taking little or no action, hoping that a problem will solve itself
Public policymaking can be divided into four categories, based on policies that prohibit, protect, promote, or provide
The purpose of tax expenditures is to encourage citizens to engage in activities that the govt. finds desirable EX. Home mortgage deduction
The principle of collective benefits is most compatible with majoritarian democracy, while selective benefits lend themselves to pluralist democracy
Interest group opposition can defeat a proposed a policy
Most policymaking involves the interaction between govt. and interest groups
Agenda refers to a set of problems or situations that have come to the attention of govt as requiring some sort of action
When problems become part of the agenda, govt tends to act
Public policy is often presented in vague terms to provide negotiating room for policymakers
States often resist federal regulations because they seldom have input into making them
The difficult and complex process involving the coordination of many agencies, levels, and interests, is true of implementation
The purpose of policy evaluation is to study an existing policy to discover what is working, what is not working, and what alternatives might work better
Policy evaluation is difficult because there is no standard method for evaluating policy
Feedback is the term applied to an evaluation of ploicies and the transmission of that information to policymakers
The assumption among political scientists is that policies are never over, they continue to evolve
The fragmented nature of the American political system gives interest groups may points of access and influence
Interagency task forces within the executive branch deal with the problem of coordinating different elements of govt.
If they must be regulated, industry prefers that it be by the national govt to provide uniformity
Issue networks are held together by knowledge, expertise, and interest in a particular policy area
Issue networks consist of key members of congressional committees; officials of the related bureau or agency; and lobbyists representing the agency's clients
Generally, policymaking is done by private-sector individuals and organizations, as well as by govt officials
Issue networks are involved in program development, policy implementation, and agenda setting
The term Iron Triangle refers to a tight alliance among bureaucratic agencies, congressional committees, and interest groups
Issue networks have become more prevalent than iron triangles, and reflect pluralist democracy
In-and-outers are those who switch jobs within policy communities, with the most typical switch being from govt to lobbying
The Ethics in Govt Act south to curb the excessive influence of former govt officals who were immediately becoming lobbyists
Political scientists view issue networks with some concern because networks favor well-organized constituencies over the broader public interest
The general public is most often given the least attention by policymakers
Public policy is a general plan of action adopted by government
“Muddling through” refers to govt. taking little or no action, hoping that a problem will solve itself
Public policymaking can be divided into four categories, based on policies that prohibit, protect, promote, or provide
The purpose of tax expenditures is to encourage citizens to engage in activities that the govt. finds desirable EX. Home mortgage deduction
The principle of collective benefits is most compatible with majoritarian democracy, while selective benefits lend themselves to pluralist democracy
Interest group opposition can defeat a proposed a policy
Most policymaking involves the interaction between govt. and interest groups
Agenda refers to a set of problems or situations that have come to the attention of govt as requiring some sort of action
When problems become part of the agenda, govt tends to act
Public policy is often presented in vague terms to provide negotiating room for policymakers
States often resist federal regulations because they seldom have input into making them
The difficult and complex process involving the coordination of many agencies, levels, and interests, is true of implementation
The purpose of policy evaluation is to study an existing policy to discover what is working, what is not working, and what alternatives might work better
Policy evaluation is difficult because there is no standard method for evaluating policy
Feedback is the term applied to an evaluation of ploicies and the transmission of that information to policymakers
The assumption among political scientists is that policies are never over, they continue to evolve
The fragmented nature of the American political system gives interest groups may points of access and influence
Interagency task forces within the executive branch deal with the problem of coordinating different elements of govt.
If they must be regulated, industry prefers that it be by the national govt to provide uniformity
Issue networks are held together by knowledge, expertise, and interest in a particular policy area
Issue networks consist of key members of congressional committees; officials of the related bureau or agency; and lobbyists representing the agency's clients
Generally, policymaking is done by private-sector individuals and organizations, as well as by govt officials
Issue networks are involved in program development, policy implementation, and agenda setting
The term Iron Triangle refers to a tight alliance among bureaucratic agencies, congressional committees, and interest groups
Issue networks have become more prevalent than iron triangles, and reflect pluralist democracy
In-and-outers are those who switch jobs within policy communities, with the most typical switch being from govt to lobbying
The Ethics in Govt Act south to curb the excessive influence of former govt officals who were immediately becoming lobbyists
Political scientists view issue networks with some concern because networks favor well-organized constituencies over the broader public interest
The general public is most often given the least attention by policymakers
Ch 17 - Policymaking
Respond to the following:
What is meant by fragmentation? How does fragmented government affect the creation and implementation of public policy?
What is meant by fragmentation? How does fragmented government affect the creation and implementation of public policy?
Thursday, March 15, 2007
Study Guide Ch 15/16 Test
Study Guide
Chapter 15/16 Test
Definition of civil rights and civil liberties
26th Amendment
Gideon v Wainwright
Establishment clause – 1st Amendment
Free-exercise clause – 1st Amendment
Lemon v Kurtzman 1971 – 3 prong Lemon test
WV State Bd of Ed v Barnette
22nd Amendment
Strict scrutiny
Prior restraint
Brandenburg v Ohio 1969
Standard for judging obscenity
Freedom of speech regarding criticism of public figures
NY Times v US 1971
Incorporation – due process clause 14th Amendment
Miranda warnings
Exclusionary rule
Griswold v CT, 1965
Roe v Wade, 1973
Bowers v Hardwicke, 1986
Brown v Bd of Ed, 1954
Brown v Bd. of Ed, 1955
25th Amendment
Bakke v California, 1978
Adarand Constructors v Pena, 1995
Equality of opportunity
Equality of outcome
13th Amendment
14th Amendment
15th Amendment
Plessy v Ferguson, 1896
Constitutional justification for the Civil Rights Act of 1964
19th Amendment
US v Virginia, 1996
Chapter 15/16 Test
Definition of civil rights and civil liberties
26th Amendment
Gideon v Wainwright
Establishment clause – 1st Amendment
Free-exercise clause – 1st Amendment
Lemon v Kurtzman 1971 – 3 prong Lemon test
WV State Bd of Ed v Barnette
22nd Amendment
Strict scrutiny
Prior restraint
Brandenburg v Ohio 1969
Standard for judging obscenity
Freedom of speech regarding criticism of public figures
NY Times v US 1971
Incorporation – due process clause 14th Amendment
Miranda warnings
Exclusionary rule
Griswold v CT, 1965
Roe v Wade, 1973
Bowers v Hardwicke, 1986
Brown v Bd of Ed, 1954
Brown v Bd. of Ed, 1955
25th Amendment
Bakke v California, 1978
Adarand Constructors v Pena, 1995
Equality of opportunity
Equality of outcome
13th Amendment
14th Amendment
15th Amendment
Plessy v Ferguson, 1896
Constitutional justification for the Civil Rights Act of 1964
19th Amendment
US v Virginia, 1996
ch 16
CHAPTER 16: EQUALITY AND CIVIL RIGHTS
LEARNING OBJECTIVES:
Define key terms
Explain why the civil war amendments proved ineffective in ensuring racial equality
Outline the NAACP’s strategy for ending school segregation
Distinguish between de jure and de facto segregation
Describe the tactics of the civil rights movement and the passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act
Show how protectionist legislation discriminated against women
List the major legislative milestones in the struggle for equal rights for women
Explain why women’s rights advocates favored the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) as a way to extend equal rights to women
Discuss how affirmative action programs have led to charges of reverse discrimination
Distinguish between equality of opportunity and equality of outcome
EQUALITY and CIVIL RIGHTS and THE CHALLENGE of DEMOCRACY
Based on a 2000 US State Dept. report, racial discrimination still persists in the US. In the past, the advocates of social, political, and economic equality have relied on legal, moral, political, and spiritual authority to abolish racial discrimination. Under the new treaty, advocates of racial equality may appeal to an international authority to end racial or other forms of discrimination.
Over the past few decades, however, the government’s priorities have shifted. With the separate-but-equal decision in Plessy v Ferguson, in 1896, the national government tried to sweep the conflict between equality and freedom under the rug. By announcing in Brown v Board of Education in 1954 that “separate is inherently unequal”, the national government faced the tension between freedom and equality and the fact that more of one usually means less of the other. The meaning of equality also creates difficulties. Many who agree on the need for equality of opportunity will not support measures they think are geared to produce equality of outcome.
The struggle for civil rights also illustrates the conflict between pluralism and majoritarianism. In accepting the demands of African-American citizens, the national government acts in a way that is more pluralist than majoritarian. As chapter 1 pointed out, majoritarian democracy does what the majority wants and thus may allow discrimination against minorities, even though the substantive outcome (inequality) seems undemocratic.
Thus, questions about what kind of public policies should be adopted to achieve equality are often highly controversial. If the nation wants to promote racial and gender equality among doctors or sheet-metal workers, for example, it may design policies to help previously disadvantaged and underrepresented groups gain jobs in these areas. This practice, however, may lead to charges of reverse discrimination.
African-Americans seeking civil rights not only had to contend with being members of a minority group, they were also largely excluded from the electoral process. Under the leadership of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), they adopted the strategies of lobbying legislators and pressing claims before the judiciary, the branch of government least susceptible to majoritarian influences. Later, as the civil rights movement grew, (and as majority opinion became more hospitable to their cause), they emphasized the importance of legislation as a method of achieving equality and also used the technique of civil disobedience to challenge laws they believed to be unjust.
The women’s movement offers an interesting contrast. Women are not actually a minority group; they are a majority of the population. Yet, in the struggle to pass the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA), pluralism prevailed! Although a majority of Americans favored the amendment, it failed. The amending process, by requiring extraordinary majorities, gives enormous power to minorities bent on thwarting a particular cause.
CHAPETR OVERVIEW
TWO CONCEPTIONS OF EQUALITY
Throughout much of American history, civil rights – the powers and privileges supposedly guaranteed to individuals and protected from arbitrary removal at the hand of the government – have often been denied to certain individuals based on their race or sex. The pursuit of civil rights in America has been a story of the search for social and economic equality. But people differ on what equality means. Most Americans support equal opportunity, but many are less committed to equality of outcome.
The Civil War Amendments
After the Civil War, the Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth Amendments were passed to ensure freedom and equality for African-Americans. In addition, as a response to the black codes, Congress passed Civil Rights Acts in 1866 and 1875 to guarantee civil rights and access to public accommodations. While the legislative branch was attempting to strengthen African-American civil rights, the judicial branch seemed intent on weakening them through a number of decisions that gave states room to maneuver around civil rights laws. States responded with a variety of measures limiting the rights of African-Americans, including poll taxes, grandfather clauses that prevented them from voting, and Jim Crow laws that restricted their use of public facilities. These restrictions were upheld in Plessy v Ferguson, which justified them under the separate-but-equal doctrine. By the end of the 19th century, segregation was firmly and legally entrenched in the South.
The Dismantling of School Segregation
The NAACP led the campaign for African-American civil rights. Its activists used the mechanism of the courts to press for equal facilities fro African-Americans and then to challenge the constitutionality of the separate-but-equal doctrine itself. In 1954, in Brown v Board of Education, a class-action suit, the Supreme Court reversed its earlier decision in the Plessy case. It ruled that “separate educational facilities are inherently unequal” and that segregated schools must integrated “with all deliberate speed” under the direction of the federal courts. The Court thus ordered an end to school segregation that had been imposed by law (de jure segregation), but in many parts of the country segregation persisted, because African-Americans and whites lived in different areas and sent their children to local schools (de facto segregation). This problem led the courts to require the unpopular remedy of bussing African-American and white children as a means of integrating schools. By 1974, however, the Supreme Court began to limit bussing as ordered by the judicial branch.
The Civil Rights Movement
The NAACP’s use of the legal system ended school segregation and achieved some other, more limited goals, but additional pressure for desegregation in all aspects of American life grew out of the civil rights movement. The first salvo in the civil rights movement came when African-Americans in Montgomery, Alabama, boycotted the city’s bus system to protest Rosa Parks’ arrest and the law that prohibited African-Americans from sitting in the front of buses. Under the leadership of Martin Luther King, Jr., the movement grew, and civil rights activities, including nonviolent civil disobedience, spread.
In the early 1960’s, President Kennedy was gradually won over to supporting the civil rights movement. In 1963, he asked Congress to outlaw segregation in public accommodations. Following Kennedy’s death, President Lyndon Johnson made passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 his top legislative priority, and the bill passed despite a long debate and filibuster in the Senate. More civil rights legislation followed in 1965 and 1968. This time, the legality of civil rights acts was upheld by the Supreme Court.
Having civil rights laws on the books does not mean discrimination will end once and for all, however. For one thing, the courts must interpret the laws and apply them to individual cases. In the Grove City College case, the Supreme Court offered a very narrow interpretation of a civil rights law, in effect taking the teeth out of the legislation. Congress reasserted its original, more sweeping intent in the Civil Rights Restoration Act of 1988.
Meanwhile, the Court, with a new conservative majority in the ascendancy, continued to issue decisions limiting the scope of previous civil rights rulings. Civil Rights groups looked to Congress to restore rights previously recognized, but presidential vetoes scuttled such measures until 1991.
Despite Dr. King’s commitment to nonviolence, the struggle for civil rights was not always a peaceful one. White violence against civil rights workers included murders and bombings. By the late 1960’s racial violence had increased as African-Americans demanded their rights but many whites remained unwilling to recognize them. The African-American nationalist movements, often militant, promoted “black power” and helped instill racial pride in African-Americans.
CIVIL RIGHTS for OTHER MINORITIES
Civil rights legislation won through the struggles of African-Americans also protects other minorities. Native Americans, Latinos, and disabled Americans were also victims of discrimination. Native Americans were not even considered citizens until 1924. The Indian reservations established by the US government were poverty stricken. In the late 1960’s and early 1970’s, the frustrations of Native Americans erupted into militancy. By the mid 1970’s and early 1980’s, they began to win important legal victories, including compensation for land taken by the US government. Recently, new entrepreneurial tribal leadership of Indian tribes has capitalized on the special status of their tribes and enjoyed economic success by sponsoring casino gambling ventures.
Latinos who migrated to the US seeking economic opportunities found poverty and discrimination instead. This problem was compounded by the language barrier and the inattention of public officials to their needs. Latinos, too, have used the courts to gain greater representation on governing bodies. Recently, they have begun to be successful in obtaining elected and appointed political offices.
Building on the model of existing civil rights laws, disabled Americans managed to gain recognition of a right of access to employment and facilities.
HOMOSEXUAL AMERICANS
Though gays and lesbians have made significant progress, they have not yet succeeded in passing a complete civil rights law protecting their rights. The 2000 Supreme Court decision in Boy Scouts of America v Dale illustrated the continued struggles of gays and lesbians for civil rights.
GENDER and EQUAL RIGHTS: The Women’s Movement
Civil rights have long been denied to women, partly as a result of policies designed to protect women from ill treatment. Only after a long struggle did women win the right to vote under the 19th amendment that was passed in 1920. But gaining the vote did not automatically bring equality for women. Discrimination continued in the workplace and elsewhere. It took legislation such as the 1963 Equal Pay Act, the 1964 Civil Rights Act, Adarand,and Title IX of the Education Amendments Act of 1972 to prohibit some of the other forms of discrimination against women. In the early 1970’s, the court began to strike down gender-based discriminations that could not be justified as serving an important government purpose. In 1996, the court applied a new standard of “skeptical scrutiny” to acts denying rights based on sex. This new standard makes distinctions based on sex almost as suspect as those based on race.
For many years, the Court proved reluctant to use the 14th Amendment as the basis for guaranteeing women’s rights. As a result, proponents of equal rights for women sought an amendment to ensure that women’s rights stood on a clear constitutional footing. Although the ERA was ratified by 35 states, it fell 3 states short of the minimum required for adoption and did not become the law of the land, although many states adopted their own ERA’s. Some scholars argue that, in practice, the Supreme Court has since implemented the equivalent of the ERA through its decisions.
Affirmative Action: Equal Opportunity or Equal Outcome
The Johnson Administration started a number of programs to overcome the effects of past discrimination by extending opportunities to groups previously denied rights. These affirmative action programs involved positive or active steps taken to assist members of groups formerly denied equality of opportunity.
These programs soon led to charges of reverse discrimination. The Court, however, has found some role for affirmative action programs. In the Bakke decision, a split court held that race could be one of several constitutionally permissible admissions criteria. In other cases, the Court has allowed the use of quotas to correct past discriminatory practices. In the Adarand case, however, the Court decided that programs that award benefits based on race must themselves be help up to a strict scrutiny standard – a test few could pass. Based on the Adarand case, a federal court in 1996 rejected the use of race or ethnicity as a condition for admission to the University of Texas law school.
LEARNING OBJECTIVES:
Define key terms
Explain why the civil war amendments proved ineffective in ensuring racial equality
Outline the NAACP’s strategy for ending school segregation
Distinguish between de jure and de facto segregation
Describe the tactics of the civil rights movement and the passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act
Show how protectionist legislation discriminated against women
List the major legislative milestones in the struggle for equal rights for women
Explain why women’s rights advocates favored the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) as a way to extend equal rights to women
Discuss how affirmative action programs have led to charges of reverse discrimination
Distinguish between equality of opportunity and equality of outcome
EQUALITY and CIVIL RIGHTS and THE CHALLENGE of DEMOCRACY
Based on a 2000 US State Dept. report, racial discrimination still persists in the US. In the past, the advocates of social, political, and economic equality have relied on legal, moral, political, and spiritual authority to abolish racial discrimination. Under the new treaty, advocates of racial equality may appeal to an international authority to end racial or other forms of discrimination.
Over the past few decades, however, the government’s priorities have shifted. With the separate-but-equal decision in Plessy v Ferguson, in 1896, the national government tried to sweep the conflict between equality and freedom under the rug. By announcing in Brown v Board of Education in 1954 that “separate is inherently unequal”, the national government faced the tension between freedom and equality and the fact that more of one usually means less of the other. The meaning of equality also creates difficulties. Many who agree on the need for equality of opportunity will not support measures they think are geared to produce equality of outcome.
The struggle for civil rights also illustrates the conflict between pluralism and majoritarianism. In accepting the demands of African-American citizens, the national government acts in a way that is more pluralist than majoritarian. As chapter 1 pointed out, majoritarian democracy does what the majority wants and thus may allow discrimination against minorities, even though the substantive outcome (inequality) seems undemocratic.
Thus, questions about what kind of public policies should be adopted to achieve equality are often highly controversial. If the nation wants to promote racial and gender equality among doctors or sheet-metal workers, for example, it may design policies to help previously disadvantaged and underrepresented groups gain jobs in these areas. This practice, however, may lead to charges of reverse discrimination.
African-Americans seeking civil rights not only had to contend with being members of a minority group, they were also largely excluded from the electoral process. Under the leadership of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), they adopted the strategies of lobbying legislators and pressing claims before the judiciary, the branch of government least susceptible to majoritarian influences. Later, as the civil rights movement grew, (and as majority opinion became more hospitable to their cause), they emphasized the importance of legislation as a method of achieving equality and also used the technique of civil disobedience to challenge laws they believed to be unjust.
The women’s movement offers an interesting contrast. Women are not actually a minority group; they are a majority of the population. Yet, in the struggle to pass the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA), pluralism prevailed! Although a majority of Americans favored the amendment, it failed. The amending process, by requiring extraordinary majorities, gives enormous power to minorities bent on thwarting a particular cause.
CHAPETR OVERVIEW
TWO CONCEPTIONS OF EQUALITY
Throughout much of American history, civil rights – the powers and privileges supposedly guaranteed to individuals and protected from arbitrary removal at the hand of the government – have often been denied to certain individuals based on their race or sex. The pursuit of civil rights in America has been a story of the search for social and economic equality. But people differ on what equality means. Most Americans support equal opportunity, but many are less committed to equality of outcome.
The Civil War Amendments
After the Civil War, the Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth Amendments were passed to ensure freedom and equality for African-Americans. In addition, as a response to the black codes, Congress passed Civil Rights Acts in 1866 and 1875 to guarantee civil rights and access to public accommodations. While the legislative branch was attempting to strengthen African-American civil rights, the judicial branch seemed intent on weakening them through a number of decisions that gave states room to maneuver around civil rights laws. States responded with a variety of measures limiting the rights of African-Americans, including poll taxes, grandfather clauses that prevented them from voting, and Jim Crow laws that restricted their use of public facilities. These restrictions were upheld in Plessy v Ferguson, which justified them under the separate-but-equal doctrine. By the end of the 19th century, segregation was firmly and legally entrenched in the South.
The Dismantling of School Segregation
The NAACP led the campaign for African-American civil rights. Its activists used the mechanism of the courts to press for equal facilities fro African-Americans and then to challenge the constitutionality of the separate-but-equal doctrine itself. In 1954, in Brown v Board of Education, a class-action suit, the Supreme Court reversed its earlier decision in the Plessy case. It ruled that “separate educational facilities are inherently unequal” and that segregated schools must integrated “with all deliberate speed” under the direction of the federal courts. The Court thus ordered an end to school segregation that had been imposed by law (de jure segregation), but in many parts of the country segregation persisted, because African-Americans and whites lived in different areas and sent their children to local schools (de facto segregation). This problem led the courts to require the unpopular remedy of bussing African-American and white children as a means of integrating schools. By 1974, however, the Supreme Court began to limit bussing as ordered by the judicial branch.
The Civil Rights Movement
The NAACP’s use of the legal system ended school segregation and achieved some other, more limited goals, but additional pressure for desegregation in all aspects of American life grew out of the civil rights movement. The first salvo in the civil rights movement came when African-Americans in Montgomery, Alabama, boycotted the city’s bus system to protest Rosa Parks’ arrest and the law that prohibited African-Americans from sitting in the front of buses. Under the leadership of Martin Luther King, Jr., the movement grew, and civil rights activities, including nonviolent civil disobedience, spread.
In the early 1960’s, President Kennedy was gradually won over to supporting the civil rights movement. In 1963, he asked Congress to outlaw segregation in public accommodations. Following Kennedy’s death, President Lyndon Johnson made passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 his top legislative priority, and the bill passed despite a long debate and filibuster in the Senate. More civil rights legislation followed in 1965 and 1968. This time, the legality of civil rights acts was upheld by the Supreme Court.
Having civil rights laws on the books does not mean discrimination will end once and for all, however. For one thing, the courts must interpret the laws and apply them to individual cases. In the Grove City College case, the Supreme Court offered a very narrow interpretation of a civil rights law, in effect taking the teeth out of the legislation. Congress reasserted its original, more sweeping intent in the Civil Rights Restoration Act of 1988.
Meanwhile, the Court, with a new conservative majority in the ascendancy, continued to issue decisions limiting the scope of previous civil rights rulings. Civil Rights groups looked to Congress to restore rights previously recognized, but presidential vetoes scuttled such measures until 1991.
Despite Dr. King’s commitment to nonviolence, the struggle for civil rights was not always a peaceful one. White violence against civil rights workers included murders and bombings. By the late 1960’s racial violence had increased as African-Americans demanded their rights but many whites remained unwilling to recognize them. The African-American nationalist movements, often militant, promoted “black power” and helped instill racial pride in African-Americans.
CIVIL RIGHTS for OTHER MINORITIES
Civil rights legislation won through the struggles of African-Americans also protects other minorities. Native Americans, Latinos, and disabled Americans were also victims of discrimination. Native Americans were not even considered citizens until 1924. The Indian reservations established by the US government were poverty stricken. In the late 1960’s and early 1970’s, the frustrations of Native Americans erupted into militancy. By the mid 1970’s and early 1980’s, they began to win important legal victories, including compensation for land taken by the US government. Recently, new entrepreneurial tribal leadership of Indian tribes has capitalized on the special status of their tribes and enjoyed economic success by sponsoring casino gambling ventures.
Latinos who migrated to the US seeking economic opportunities found poverty and discrimination instead. This problem was compounded by the language barrier and the inattention of public officials to their needs. Latinos, too, have used the courts to gain greater representation on governing bodies. Recently, they have begun to be successful in obtaining elected and appointed political offices.
Building on the model of existing civil rights laws, disabled Americans managed to gain recognition of a right of access to employment and facilities.
HOMOSEXUAL AMERICANS
Though gays and lesbians have made significant progress, they have not yet succeeded in passing a complete civil rights law protecting their rights. The 2000 Supreme Court decision in Boy Scouts of America v Dale illustrated the continued struggles of gays and lesbians for civil rights.
GENDER and EQUAL RIGHTS: The Women’s Movement
Civil rights have long been denied to women, partly as a result of policies designed to protect women from ill treatment. Only after a long struggle did women win the right to vote under the 19th amendment that was passed in 1920. But gaining the vote did not automatically bring equality for women. Discrimination continued in the workplace and elsewhere. It took legislation such as the 1963 Equal Pay Act, the 1964 Civil Rights Act, Adarand,and Title IX of the Education Amendments Act of 1972 to prohibit some of the other forms of discrimination against women. In the early 1970’s, the court began to strike down gender-based discriminations that could not be justified as serving an important government purpose. In 1996, the court applied a new standard of “skeptical scrutiny” to acts denying rights based on sex. This new standard makes distinctions based on sex almost as suspect as those based on race.
For many years, the Court proved reluctant to use the 14th Amendment as the basis for guaranteeing women’s rights. As a result, proponents of equal rights for women sought an amendment to ensure that women’s rights stood on a clear constitutional footing. Although the ERA was ratified by 35 states, it fell 3 states short of the minimum required for adoption and did not become the law of the land, although many states adopted their own ERA’s. Some scholars argue that, in practice, the Supreme Court has since implemented the equivalent of the ERA through its decisions.
Affirmative Action: Equal Opportunity or Equal Outcome
The Johnson Administration started a number of programs to overcome the effects of past discrimination by extending opportunities to groups previously denied rights. These affirmative action programs involved positive or active steps taken to assist members of groups formerly denied equality of opportunity.
These programs soon led to charges of reverse discrimination. The Court, however, has found some role for affirmative action programs. In the Bakke decision, a split court held that race could be one of several constitutionally permissible admissions criteria. In other cases, the Court has allowed the use of quotas to correct past discriminatory practices. In the Adarand case, however, the Court decided that programs that award benefits based on race must themselves be help up to a strict scrutiny standard – a test few could pass. Based on the Adarand case, a federal court in 1996 rejected the use of race or ethnicity as a condition for admission to the University of Texas law school.
Friday, March 9, 2007
Ch 16 Synopsis
Chapter 16 - Equality and Civil Rights
Chapter Synopsis
Learning Objectives:
After reading this chapter, students should be able to
· Define the key terms at the end of the chapter
· Distinguish between equality of opportunity and equality of outcome
· Explain why the Civil War Amendments proved ineffective in ensuring racial equality
· Outline the NAACP's strategy for ending school segregation
· Distinguish between de jure and de facto segregation
· Describe the tactics of the civil rights movement and the passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act
· Show how protectionist legislation discriminated against women
· List the major legislative and judicial milestones in the struggle for equal rights for women
· Explain why women's rights advocates favored the Equal Rights Amendment rather than the 14th Amendment as a way to extend equal rights to women
· Discuss how affirmative action programs have led to charges of reverse discrimination
Synopsis
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. While 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 14th, 15th, and 16th 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 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 1950's favored the successful challenge to the separate-but-equal doctrine in the famous Brown 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 1960's, 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 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 1960's. Other minorities have had mixed fortunes in improving their lot. Hispanic Latinos have only recently been able to exercise significant economic and political clout in urban areas. Native Americans have had worse treatment. Other non-black ethnic minorities had to wait until 1987, when the Supreme Court extended civil rights protection to them. In 1990, the protection of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was extended to people with disabilities.
The movement toward equal civil rights for women also has a long history of confrontation and struggle. The courts upheld laws discriminating against women in education and employment 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 19th amendment in 1920. During the 1960's, the prohibition of sex-based discrimination was heralded in the Equal Pay Act of 1963 and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1954. 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. In 1987, however, in Johnson v. Transportation Agency, Santa Clara County, the Supreme Court upheld the use of affirmative action programs. Overall, the Supreme Court has shown sympathy for the concept of affirmative action while requiring that such practices not deviate excessively from common employment practices. In 1995, however, in Adarand Constructors v. Pena, the court ruled that minority set-aside programs would be subject to "strict scrutiny".
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 Synopsis
Learning Objectives:
After reading this chapter, students should be able to
· Define the key terms at the end of the chapter
· Distinguish between equality of opportunity and equality of outcome
· Explain why the Civil War Amendments proved ineffective in ensuring racial equality
· Outline the NAACP's strategy for ending school segregation
· Distinguish between de jure and de facto segregation
· Describe the tactics of the civil rights movement and the passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act
· Show how protectionist legislation discriminated against women
· List the major legislative and judicial milestones in the struggle for equal rights for women
· Explain why women's rights advocates favored the Equal Rights Amendment rather than the 14th Amendment as a way to extend equal rights to women
· Discuss how affirmative action programs have led to charges of reverse discrimination
Synopsis
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. While 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 14th, 15th, and 16th 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 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 1950's favored the successful challenge to the separate-but-equal doctrine in the famous Brown 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 1960's, 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 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 1960's. Other minorities have had mixed fortunes in improving their lot. Hispanic Latinos have only recently been able to exercise significant economic and political clout in urban areas. Native Americans have had worse treatment. Other non-black ethnic minorities had to wait until 1987, when the Supreme Court extended civil rights protection to them. In 1990, the protection of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was extended to people with disabilities.
The movement toward equal civil rights for women also has a long history of confrontation and struggle. The courts upheld laws discriminating against women in education and employment 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 19th amendment in 1920. During the 1960's, the prohibition of sex-based discrimination was heralded in the Equal Pay Act of 1963 and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1954. 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. In 1987, however, in Johnson v. Transportation Agency, Santa Clara County, the Supreme Court upheld the use of affirmative action programs. Overall, the Supreme Court has shown sympathy for the concept of affirmative action while requiring that such practices not deviate excessively from common employment practices. In 1995, however, in Adarand Constructors v. Pena, the court ruled that minority set-aside programs would be subject to "strict scrutiny".
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.
Ch 15 Synopsis
The Challenge of Democracy
Chapter 15 - Order and Civil Liberties
Synopsis
The Bill of Rights and the Constitution give 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 enforced 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 and incidental assistance of parochial schools has been tolerated. Since the Supreme Court handed down its decision in Lemon vs. Kirtzman (1971), state funding of religious programs must pass a stringent test of non-interference with religion. The free exercise clause of the First Amendment protects religious beliefs but not the 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 the clear 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 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 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 is upheld. Prior restraint, or censorship, is permissible by the government under exceptional circumstances that are not specified by the Court. As demonstrated by the Ellsberg case, the Court takes a very narrow view on what constitutes permissible grounds. Another limitation on freedom of the press exists in the conflict between the needs of law enforcement and those of the free press.
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 vs. 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 states to provide trial by jury in criminal cases, a lawyer to criminal defendants, the right 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 vs. Wade (1973) was the most controversial result of the extension of the right to privacy. Through Webster vs. Reproductive Health Services (1989) and other recent decisions the Court has moved down the road toward greater government control of abortion policy. In addition, in 1986 the Court restricted the right of privacy to only heterosexual choices, thus placing homosexual choices outside constitutional protection. Nonetheless, state-by-state efforts to give homosexual commitments the same status as heterosexual marriage continue to occur.
With the Clinton appointments of Ruth Bader-Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer, the Court may become more moderate in coming years. The judicial branch will continue to play a major role in balancing freedom and order.
Chapter 15 - Order and Civil Liberties
Synopsis
The Bill of Rights and the Constitution give 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 enforced 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 and incidental assistance of parochial schools has been tolerated. Since the Supreme Court handed down its decision in Lemon vs. Kirtzman (1971), state funding of religious programs must pass a stringent test of non-interference with religion. The free exercise clause of the First Amendment protects religious beliefs but not the 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 the clear 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 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 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 is upheld. Prior restraint, or censorship, is permissible by the government under exceptional circumstances that are not specified by the Court. As demonstrated by the Ellsberg case, the Court takes a very narrow view on what constitutes permissible grounds. Another limitation on freedom of the press exists in the conflict between the needs of law enforcement and those of the free press.
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 vs. 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 states to provide trial by jury in criminal cases, a lawyer to criminal defendants, the right 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 vs. Wade (1973) was the most controversial result of the extension of the right to privacy. Through Webster vs. Reproductive Health Services (1989) and other recent decisions the Court has moved down the road toward greater government control of abortion policy. In addition, in 1986 the Court restricted the right of privacy to only heterosexual choices, thus placing homosexual choices outside constitutional protection. Nonetheless, state-by-state efforts to give homosexual commitments the same status as heterosexual marriage continue to occur.
With the Clinton appointments of Ruth Bader-Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer, the Court may become more moderate in coming years. The judicial branch will continue to play a major role in balancing freedom and order.
Study Guide - Institutions of Government
The Institutions of Government - Study Guide
Chapters 11, 12, 13, & 14
Reapportionment
17th amendment
Redistricting
Shaw v Reno
Miller v Lopez
Line item veto
Congressional Committee system
Floor debate
Ranking minority member
Articles of the Constitution
Inherent power
War Powers Resolution
Presidential popularity over time
George H.W. Bush – vision
America bureaucracy & pluralism
Presidential frustration with the bureaucracy
Administrative discretion
Bureaucratic regulation making
Marbury v. Madison
Clarence Thomas v Anita Hill
Hamilton & Federalist #78
Most criminal offenses are tried at the state level
Statutory construction
Stare decisis
Role of chief justice
Solicitor general
Judicial activism
Judicial restraint
Concurring opinion
Popular election of judges
Senatorial courtesy
Clinton appointed moderates
Rejection of supreme court nominees
Plea bargaining
Class action suits
Chapters 11, 12, 13, & 14
Reapportionment
17th amendment
Redistricting
Shaw v Reno
Miller v Lopez
Line item veto
Congressional Committee system
Floor debate
Ranking minority member
Articles of the Constitution
Inherent power
War Powers Resolution
Presidential popularity over time
George H.W. Bush – vision
America bureaucracy & pluralism
Presidential frustration with the bureaucracy
Administrative discretion
Bureaucratic regulation making
Marbury v. Madison
Clarence Thomas v Anita Hill
Hamilton & Federalist #78
Most criminal offenses are tried at the state level
Statutory construction
Stare decisis
Role of chief justice
Solicitor general
Judicial activism
Judicial restraint
Concurring opinion
Popular election of judges
Senatorial courtesy
Clinton appointed moderates
Rejection of supreme court nominees
Plea bargaining
Class action suits
Friday, March 2, 2007
Ch 14 - Synopsis
Ch 14 Synopsis
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, and much of the handiwork can be seen in today’s court system. Congress created federal (national) courts that would co-exist 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 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 appeal 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 civil and criminal cases. 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.
The Supreme Court deserves special consideration because the 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. The Court 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.
If presidents are successful in appointing judges who share their values, they can influence policy even after their term is over. Although this is true across the federal judiciary, it is especially pronounced for appointments to the Supreme Court. Judges (some more than others) exercise political power. Separation of powers and checks and balances frustrate representative government. Groups that failed to secure or protect their interests in then 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 pout 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. Recent decisions and changes in the Court presage a change on the abortion issue, however, perhaps one closer in step with 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 increasingly become arenas in the conflicts between freedom and order and between freedom and equality.
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, and much of the handiwork can be seen in today’s court system. Congress created federal (national) courts that would co-exist 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 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 appeal 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 civil and criminal cases. 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.
The Supreme Court deserves special consideration because the 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. The Court 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.
If presidents are successful in appointing judges who share their values, they can influence policy even after their term is over. Although this is true across the federal judiciary, it is especially pronounced for appointments to the Supreme Court. Judges (some more than others) exercise political power. Separation of powers and checks and balances frustrate representative government. Groups that failed to secure or protect their interests in then 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 pout 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. Recent decisions and changes in the Court presage a change on the abortion issue, however, perhaps one closer in step with 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 increasingly become arenas in the conflicts between freedom and order and between freedom and equality.
Saturday, January 27, 2007
Government Leadership
United States Government Leadership
1. President - George W. Bush
2. Vice-President – Dick Cheney
3. National Security Adviser - Stephen Hadley
4. White House Chief of Staff - Josh Bolten
5. Senior Political Adviser - Karl Rove
6. Secretary of State - Condoleeza Rice
7. Secretary of Defense - Robert Gates
8. Secretary of the Treasury - Henry Paulson, Jr.
9. Attorney General - Alberto Gonzales
10. Secretary of Homeland Security - Michael Chertoff
11. Director of the FBI - Robert Mueller
12. Director of CIA - Gen. Michael Hayden
13. Senate Majority Leader - Harry Reid – D – Nevada
14. Senate Majority Whip - Dick Durbin – D – Illinois
15. Senate Minority Leader - Mitch McConnell – R – Kentucky
16. Senate Minority Whip - Trent Lott – R – Mississippi
17. President Pro Tempore - Robert Byrd – D – West Virginia
18. Speaker of the House - Nancy Pelosi – D- California
19. House Majority Leader - Stenny Hoyer – D – Maryland
20. House Majority Whip - James Clyburn – D – South Carolina
21. House Minority Leader - John Boehner – R – Ohio
22. House Minority Whip - Roy Blunt – R - Missouri
1. President - George W. Bush
2. Vice-President – Dick Cheney
3. National Security Adviser - Stephen Hadley
4. White House Chief of Staff - Josh Bolten
5. Senior Political Adviser - Karl Rove
6. Secretary of State - Condoleeza Rice
7. Secretary of Defense - Robert Gates
8. Secretary of the Treasury - Henry Paulson, Jr.
9. Attorney General - Alberto Gonzales
10. Secretary of Homeland Security - Michael Chertoff
11. Director of the FBI - Robert Mueller
12. Director of CIA - Gen. Michael Hayden
13. Senate Majority Leader - Harry Reid – D – Nevada
14. Senate Majority Whip - Dick Durbin – D – Illinois
15. Senate Minority Leader - Mitch McConnell – R – Kentucky
16. Senate Minority Whip - Trent Lott – R – Mississippi
17. President Pro Tempore - Robert Byrd – D – West Virginia
18. Speaker of the House - Nancy Pelosi – D- California
19. House Majority Leader - Stenny Hoyer – D – Maryland
20. House Majority Whip - James Clyburn – D – South Carolina
21. House Minority Leader - John Boehner – R – Ohio
22. House Minority Whip - Roy Blunt – R - Missouri
Wednesday, January 17, 2007
Mid-Term Study Guide
* objectives of government
* equality of opportunity/equality of outcome
* autocracies/oligarchies/democracies
* substantive democracy
* procedural democracy
* main argument against the need for a bill of rights
* Marbury v Madison
* federalism(dual/cooperative)
* sovereignty
* McCulloch v Maryland
* public opinion
* polling/distribution
* party identification
* political socialization
* mass media
* functions of mass media
* "horse race" journalism
* journalistic "spin"
* conventional political participation
* unconventional political participation
* class action suit
* 13th,14th,15th amendments
* referendum
* education and voter turnout
* voter registration laws
* voter turnout
* political parties
* elections
*
* equality of opportunity/equality of outcome
* autocracies/oligarchies/democracies
* substantive democracy
* procedural democracy
* main argument against the need for a bill of rights
* Marbury v Madison
* federalism(dual/cooperative)
* sovereignty
* McCulloch v Maryland
* public opinion
* polling/distribution
* party identification
* political socialization
* mass media
* functions of mass media
* "horse race" journalism
* journalistic "spin"
* conventional political participation
* unconventional political participation
* class action suit
* 13th,14th,15th amendments
* referendum
* education and voter turnout
* voter registration laws
* voter turnout
* political parties
* elections
*
Friday, January 5, 2007
Chapter 10 Notes
Chapter 10 – Interest Groups
Learning Objectives
After reading this chapter, students should be able to:
Define the key terms at the end of the chapter
Outline the positive and negative roles played by interest groups in American politics.
Explain how interest groups form
Create a profile of the kind of person most likely to be represented by an interest group.
Describe the major resources interest groups use in their efforts to influence policy.
List the tactics used by interest groups to win the support of policymakers.
Account for the recent increase in the number of interest groups.
Discuss the difficulties involved in trying to reform the role of interest groups in American politics.
Chapter Synopsis
The existence of interest groups represents a fundamental dilemma for the American political system. Interest groups work to gain advantages for themselves 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. Yet a troubling aspect of interest group politics has to do with the nature of this representation. Some segments of society (particularly the wealthy, well educated, and businesses) are more likely to be represented by lobbying organizations than other constituencies are. This inequity is also manifested in the resources available to groups.
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 PAC’s play in financing congressional elections. The greatest portion of PAC contributions come from corporate PAC’s. Critics charge that PAC’s gain undue advantage from the access they gain with contributions. They argue that PAC’s exacerbate the inequities in American society. Defenders respond that PAC’s 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 they believe in?
Parallel Lecture:
An interest group can be defined as “an organized body of individuals who share some political goals and try to influence public policy”.
Roles of Interest Groups:
Representation: interest groups represent their constituents before government
Participation: they facilitate people’s participation in politics
Education: efforts made by interest groups help to educate their members, the public at large, and government officials
Agenda Building: news issues are brought onto the political agenda through interest group advocacy
Program monitoring: Lobbying organizations keep track of how programs are working in the field and try to persuade government to take action when problems become evident
Interest group formation:
Pluralists such as David Truman see interest groups naturally forming when people are adversely affected by a disturbance
Yet some people who are adversely affected do not organize
Political Scientist Robert Salisbury argues that the quality of leadership is a key determinant of successful interest group formation
He sees an interest group leader as an entrepreneur. The entrepreneur must convince potential members that there are compelling reasons to join the group.
Who is being organized is also an important force affecting group formation. The wealthy and well-educated are more likely to form and join lobbies.
Resources:
One of the most valuable resources a group can have is a large and politically active membership
Business, professional, and trade associations have an easier time holding onto members than citizen groups do.
A citizen group must rely largely on ideological appeals. Many try to attract new members through direct mail (e-mail)
Free-rider problem: non-members can obtain the public policy benefits of the organization’s lobbying even though they pay no dues
Lobbyists can be either full-time employees of the organization, or hired from law firms or public relations firms.
The typical interaction between a lobbyist and a policymaker is the transmission of information from the lobbyist to the official
Political Action Committees pool contributions from group members and donate those funds to candidates for office
Two types of PAC’s have shown the greatest growth in numbers
Corporate PAC’s
Non-Connected PAC’s (ideological PAC’s formed solely for channeling funds)
The primary goal of PAC’s is to gain access to incumbents
The role of PAC’s in financing elections has become the most controversial aspect of interest group politics
In Direct lobbying, a group’s representatives have direct contact with a policymaker
Lobbyists make personal presentations
Testifying before committees is another direct tactic
Organizations may go to court and litigate
In grassroots lobbying, an interest group’s rank and file members, and possibly others outside the organization, try to influence government on some issue
Letter writing is one such tactic
Political protests are sometimes held
Information campaigns are organized efforts to gain public backing by bringing the group’s views to the public’s attention
newspaper advertising, sending speaker’s to meetings, disseminating pamphlets or fact sheets
sponsoring research
some groups publicize the voting records of Congress
Coalition Building takes place when several groups join together in a lobbying campaign
Lobbying must be evaluated through the pluralist and majoritarian frameworks
Lobbying reinforces the pluralist definition of who has power in policymaking
However, since elections are majoritarian, the party in power tends to have more say in policymaking
One problem is membership bias – some types of people (middle class & upper middle classes) are far better represented by organized interest groups
Lower-income people tend to be represented by issue-oriented lobbies whose members are not poor but whose policy positions address the problems of the poor
Public interest groups are those that have no economic self-interest in the policies they pursue
Common Cause pushes for good government legislation
public interest groups can be liberal or conservative
the number of business lobbies has increased significantly
Both the number of trade associations and the number of corporate offices located in Washington, DC has gone up sharply
The growth of federal regulation is one reason the number of business lobbies is growing
Access: while govt. officials may limit access by certain interest groups, other officials, with differing ideologies, keep the door open
However, all forms of access are not equally useful to interest groups, and some groups have better access over time.
Reform: it is difficult to put limits on interest groups without limiting fundamental freedoms
More recently, Congress has required disclosure of all campaign contributions so sources can be identified
In 1995, Congress passed a law requiring lobbyists to register and file semi-annual reports disclosing their clients, the amount of money they spent on lobbying activities, and the amount of money they were paid
Reformers have called for reducing the role of PAC’s in financing elections
The controversy over PAC’s reflects the tension between the principles of freedom and equality
Critics charge that PAC’s reinforce, if not expand, the inequities between rich and poor
PAC supporters counter that people should have the right to join with others who think as they do and support the candidates of their choice
Learning Objectives
After reading this chapter, students should be able to:
Define the key terms at the end of the chapter
Outline the positive and negative roles played by interest groups in American politics.
Explain how interest groups form
Create a profile of the kind of person most likely to be represented by an interest group.
Describe the major resources interest groups use in their efforts to influence policy.
List the tactics used by interest groups to win the support of policymakers.
Account for the recent increase in the number of interest groups.
Discuss the difficulties involved in trying to reform the role of interest groups in American politics.
Chapter Synopsis
The existence of interest groups represents a fundamental dilemma for the American political system. Interest groups work to gain advantages for themselves 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. Yet a troubling aspect of interest group politics has to do with the nature of this representation. Some segments of society (particularly the wealthy, well educated, and businesses) are more likely to be represented by lobbying organizations than other constituencies are. This inequity is also manifested in the resources available to groups.
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 PAC’s play in financing congressional elections. The greatest portion of PAC contributions come from corporate PAC’s. Critics charge that PAC’s gain undue advantage from the access they gain with contributions. They argue that PAC’s exacerbate the inequities in American society. Defenders respond that PAC’s 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 they believe in?
Parallel Lecture:
An interest group can be defined as “an organized body of individuals who share some political goals and try to influence public policy”.
Roles of Interest Groups:
Representation: interest groups represent their constituents before government
Participation: they facilitate people’s participation in politics
Education: efforts made by interest groups help to educate their members, the public at large, and government officials
Agenda Building: news issues are brought onto the political agenda through interest group advocacy
Program monitoring: Lobbying organizations keep track of how programs are working in the field and try to persuade government to take action when problems become evident
Interest group formation:
Pluralists such as David Truman see interest groups naturally forming when people are adversely affected by a disturbance
Yet some people who are adversely affected do not organize
Political Scientist Robert Salisbury argues that the quality of leadership is a key determinant of successful interest group formation
He sees an interest group leader as an entrepreneur. The entrepreneur must convince potential members that there are compelling reasons to join the group.
Who is being organized is also an important force affecting group formation. The wealthy and well-educated are more likely to form and join lobbies.
Resources:
One of the most valuable resources a group can have is a large and politically active membership
Business, professional, and trade associations have an easier time holding onto members than citizen groups do.
A citizen group must rely largely on ideological appeals. Many try to attract new members through direct mail (e-mail)
Free-rider problem: non-members can obtain the public policy benefits of the organization’s lobbying even though they pay no dues
Lobbyists can be either full-time employees of the organization, or hired from law firms or public relations firms.
The typical interaction between a lobbyist and a policymaker is the transmission of information from the lobbyist to the official
Political Action Committees pool contributions from group members and donate those funds to candidates for office
Two types of PAC’s have shown the greatest growth in numbers
Corporate PAC’s
Non-Connected PAC’s (ideological PAC’s formed solely for channeling funds)
The primary goal of PAC’s is to gain access to incumbents
The role of PAC’s in financing elections has become the most controversial aspect of interest group politics
In Direct lobbying, a group’s representatives have direct contact with a policymaker
Lobbyists make personal presentations
Testifying before committees is another direct tactic
Organizations may go to court and litigate
In grassroots lobbying, an interest group’s rank and file members, and possibly others outside the organization, try to influence government on some issue
Letter writing is one such tactic
Political protests are sometimes held
Information campaigns are organized efforts to gain public backing by bringing the group’s views to the public’s attention
newspaper advertising, sending speaker’s to meetings, disseminating pamphlets or fact sheets
sponsoring research
some groups publicize the voting records of Congress
Coalition Building takes place when several groups join together in a lobbying campaign
Lobbying must be evaluated through the pluralist and majoritarian frameworks
Lobbying reinforces the pluralist definition of who has power in policymaking
However, since elections are majoritarian, the party in power tends to have more say in policymaking
One problem is membership bias – some types of people (middle class & upper middle classes) are far better represented by organized interest groups
Lower-income people tend to be represented by issue-oriented lobbies whose members are not poor but whose policy positions address the problems of the poor
Public interest groups are those that have no economic self-interest in the policies they pursue
Common Cause pushes for good government legislation
public interest groups can be liberal or conservative
the number of business lobbies has increased significantly
Both the number of trade associations and the number of corporate offices located in Washington, DC has gone up sharply
The growth of federal regulation is one reason the number of business lobbies is growing
Access: while govt. officials may limit access by certain interest groups, other officials, with differing ideologies, keep the door open
However, all forms of access are not equally useful to interest groups, and some groups have better access over time.
Reform: it is difficult to put limits on interest groups without limiting fundamental freedoms
More recently, Congress has required disclosure of all campaign contributions so sources can be identified
In 1995, Congress passed a law requiring lobbyists to register and file semi-annual reports disclosing their clients, the amount of money they spent on lobbying activities, and the amount of money they were paid
Reformers have called for reducing the role of PAC’s in financing elections
The controversy over PAC’s reflects the tension between the principles of freedom and equality
Critics charge that PAC’s reinforce, if not expand, the inequities between rich and poor
PAC supporters counter that people should have the right to join with others who think as they do and support the candidates of their choice
Tuesday, December 5, 2006
ch 7 & 8 study guide
STUDY GUIDE CH 7 and 8 TEST
Vocab
Conventional participation
Unconventional participation
Political efficacy
Progressivism
Standard socioeconomic model
Political party
Party platform
Multi-party system
Bolter (splinter) party
Structuring the voting choice
1. goals of the militaia movement
2. political institutions and stability
level of govt from which most attention is demanded
class action suit
voting qualifications and expansion of suffrage
Smith v Allwright, 1944
responsibility for voter enfranchisement
women’s suffrage
referendum
initiative
characteristics of non-voters
effect of elections on power and authority of the state
Ross Perot’s main political asset in the ’92 election was his personal wealth
attitude of America’s toward political parties
why did parties develop new methods for nominating candidates?
critical election
election of 1896
most important function of third parties
Congressional Campaign Committees
effect of primary elections on party strength
relationship between national party committees and state and local affiliates
Party loyalty in Congress since the ‘70’s
Functions of elections
Political organization, conventional or unconventional
Programs and policies of the two major parties, and the coalitions that support them
Principles of responsible party government
Organization and structure of the major political parties and internal changes in the last 30-35 years
Vocab
Conventional participation
Unconventional participation
Political efficacy
Progressivism
Standard socioeconomic model
Political party
Party platform
Multi-party system
Bolter (splinter) party
Structuring the voting choice
1. goals of the militaia movement
2. political institutions and stability
level of govt from which most attention is demanded
class action suit
voting qualifications and expansion of suffrage
Smith v Allwright, 1944
responsibility for voter enfranchisement
women’s suffrage
referendum
initiative
characteristics of non-voters
effect of elections on power and authority of the state
Ross Perot’s main political asset in the ’92 election was his personal wealth
attitude of America’s toward political parties
why did parties develop new methods for nominating candidates?
critical election
election of 1896
most important function of third parties
Congressional Campaign Committees
effect of primary elections on party strength
relationship between national party committees and state and local affiliates
Party loyalty in Congress since the ‘70’s
Functions of elections
Political organization, conventional or unconventional
Programs and policies of the two major parties, and the coalitions that support them
Principles of responsible party government
Organization and structure of the major political parties and internal changes in the last 30-35 years
Saturday, December 2, 2006
ch 9 objectives/synopsis
Chapter 9 – Nominations, Elections, and Campaigns
Learning Objectives:
• Define key terms at end of chapter
• Differentiate among the various types of primaries and tell what impact, if any, they have upon the role of political parties
• Outline ways in which Congress has regulated campaign finance
• Describe a typical campaign strategy that might be used by a professional campaign manager
• Explain how the president is indirectly elected through the electoral college and tell the advantages and disadvantages of that system
• Compare the effects of key long-and-short term forces on voters choice
• Decide whether the American party system is more pluralist or more majoritarian in its operation
Chapter Synopsis
The American electoral process has undergone considerable change. Increasingly, election campaigns have evolved 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.
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 effected 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. Public funds are given to the candidate rather than 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.
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.
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 the United States. 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 the 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.
Learning Objectives:
• Define key terms at end of chapter
• Differentiate among the various types of primaries and tell what impact, if any, they have upon the role of political parties
• Outline ways in which Congress has regulated campaign finance
• Describe a typical campaign strategy that might be used by a professional campaign manager
• Explain how the president is indirectly elected through the electoral college and tell the advantages and disadvantages of that system
• Compare the effects of key long-and-short term forces on voters choice
• Decide whether the American party system is more pluralist or more majoritarian in its operation
Chapter Synopsis
The American electoral process has undergone considerable change. Increasingly, election campaigns have evolved 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.
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 effected 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. Public funds are given to the candidate rather than 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.
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.
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 the United States. 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 the 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.
ch 9 notes
Chapter 9 Notes
• Of all the institutions that deal with government, the political party has lost the most influence over the past 40 years
• Political party organizations were the primary way in which presidential campaigns were conducted in the 19th and early 20th centuries
• Today, presidential campaign tactics are controlled by a candidate’s personal campaign organization
• Ordinary party voters in the U.S. have far more control over the nomination process than do voters in other democratic countries
• Compared with most West European countries, the U.S. method of holding primary elections to nominate candidates for public office is uncommon; in most west European countries candidates are interviewed and selected by party activists
• Most party candidates for major office in the US are nominated through primary elections
• A closed primary is one in which voters must declare their party affiliation before voting and is the most frequently used
• It has traditionally been thought that democratic and republican primary voters are more liberal and conservative, respectively, than average party members. This thinking has recently been called into question.
• The blanket primary allows voters to select candidates for both parties simultaneously
• Political parties prefer closed primaries because it helps ensure that candidates are chosen by people who share the goals and values of the party
• Presidential candidates are officially nominated at the party convention
• A difference between a caucus and a primary is that the caucus allows voters to debate and exchange views before casting their ballots
• In all Democratic presidential primaries candidates that win at least 15% of the vote divide delegates proportionately
• A meeting of party supporters to choose delegates to attend a subsequent meeting at which party decisions are made is a local caucus
• Since the 1960’s, campaigns have become longer and more media focused, and fund raising is more complex
• The New Hampshire presidential primary gets significant political and media attention because it is the first one to occur each election year
• One consequence of the presidential nominating process in the US is that candidates have their own personal campaign organizations and those who win the nomination do so mainly on their own and owe little or nothing to the national party organization
• A mid-term or off-year election is one in which there is no presidential race
• The 23rd amendment to the Constitution awarded 3 electoral votes to Washington DC
• A state’s votes in the electoral college are equal to the number of its senators and representatives in Congress. This is recalculated every 10 years after the census
• The number of electoral votes needed to win the presidency is 270.
• The greatest danger posed by the electoral college is that the candidate winning the popular vote might not receive a majority of the electoral vote
• Over the last hundred years, the electoral college has magnified the margin of victory that the winner received in the popular vote
• For the last 40 years Democrats have tended to do better in Congressional elections and Republicans in presidential elections
• Incumbent candidates tend to have an advantage over a challenger (money, name recognition, party support)
• The term political context refers to the incumbency status of the candidates, party registrations, and the socioeconomic qualities of the electorate
• The first effective law to regulate campaign was the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971
• Candidates running for president can qualify for federal funding by raising $5000 in each of 20 states
• The Federal Election Commission is a regulatory agency whose purpose is to enforce limits on campaign contributions and administer public funding of campaigns
• Public financing of presidential campaigns began in 1974, primarily to discourage illegal fund raising
• In a general election campaign, presidential nominees may receive twice the primary election limit in public funds if no private funds are used
• One practical effect of public financing of presidential campaigns has been an equalization in the amounts spent by the major candidates in the general election
• A party-centered strategy is appropriate when voters have little political information. It is not appropriate in most primary elections because voters are of the same party
• A basic assumption among campaign managers and political media is that the American people have little interest in politics and a short attention span
• Polling is used to get feedback about the success or failure of various campaign tactics and to discover voters’ perceptions of candidates and voters’ opinions about certain issues
• The first objective of campaign advertising is to produce a high level of candidate name recognition among voters
• The largest amount of spending goes for television and radio spots
• When producing video spots for a candidate, the emphasis is on creation of images and mood
• Party identification is the most important long-term force affecting US elections
• Since the 1950’s party voting has decreased
• The primary importance of the Contract with America was in setting the agenda for the 104th Congres
• Candidates running for president often diverge from the party platform on many issues
• Of all the institutions that deal with government, the political party has lost the most influence over the past 40 years
• Political party organizations were the primary way in which presidential campaigns were conducted in the 19th and early 20th centuries
• Today, presidential campaign tactics are controlled by a candidate’s personal campaign organization
• Ordinary party voters in the U.S. have far more control over the nomination process than do voters in other democratic countries
• Compared with most West European countries, the U.S. method of holding primary elections to nominate candidates for public office is uncommon; in most west European countries candidates are interviewed and selected by party activists
• Most party candidates for major office in the US are nominated through primary elections
• A closed primary is one in which voters must declare their party affiliation before voting and is the most frequently used
• It has traditionally been thought that democratic and republican primary voters are more liberal and conservative, respectively, than average party members. This thinking has recently been called into question.
• The blanket primary allows voters to select candidates for both parties simultaneously
• Political parties prefer closed primaries because it helps ensure that candidates are chosen by people who share the goals and values of the party
• Presidential candidates are officially nominated at the party convention
• A difference between a caucus and a primary is that the caucus allows voters to debate and exchange views before casting their ballots
• In all Democratic presidential primaries candidates that win at least 15% of the vote divide delegates proportionately
• A meeting of party supporters to choose delegates to attend a subsequent meeting at which party decisions are made is a local caucus
• Since the 1960’s, campaigns have become longer and more media focused, and fund raising is more complex
• The New Hampshire presidential primary gets significant political and media attention because it is the first one to occur each election year
• One consequence of the presidential nominating process in the US is that candidates have their own personal campaign organizations and those who win the nomination do so mainly on their own and owe little or nothing to the national party organization
• A mid-term or off-year election is one in which there is no presidential race
• The 23rd amendment to the Constitution awarded 3 electoral votes to Washington DC
• A state’s votes in the electoral college are equal to the number of its senators and representatives in Congress. This is recalculated every 10 years after the census
• The number of electoral votes needed to win the presidency is 270.
• The greatest danger posed by the electoral college is that the candidate winning the popular vote might not receive a majority of the electoral vote
• Over the last hundred years, the electoral college has magnified the margin of victory that the winner received in the popular vote
• For the last 40 years Democrats have tended to do better in Congressional elections and Republicans in presidential elections
• Incumbent candidates tend to have an advantage over a challenger (money, name recognition, party support)
• The term political context refers to the incumbency status of the candidates, party registrations, and the socioeconomic qualities of the electorate
• The first effective law to regulate campaign was the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971
• Candidates running for president can qualify for federal funding by raising $5000 in each of 20 states
• The Federal Election Commission is a regulatory agency whose purpose is to enforce limits on campaign contributions and administer public funding of campaigns
• Public financing of presidential campaigns began in 1974, primarily to discourage illegal fund raising
• In a general election campaign, presidential nominees may receive twice the primary election limit in public funds if no private funds are used
• One practical effect of public financing of presidential campaigns has been an equalization in the amounts spent by the major candidates in the general election
• A party-centered strategy is appropriate when voters have little political information. It is not appropriate in most primary elections because voters are of the same party
• A basic assumption among campaign managers and political media is that the American people have little interest in politics and a short attention span
• Polling is used to get feedback about the success or failure of various campaign tactics and to discover voters’ perceptions of candidates and voters’ opinions about certain issues
• The first objective of campaign advertising is to produce a high level of candidate name recognition among voters
• The largest amount of spending goes for television and radio spots
• When producing video spots for a candidate, the emphasis is on creation of images and mood
• Party identification is the most important long-term force affecting US elections
• Since the 1950’s party voting has decreased
• The primary importance of the Contract with America was in setting the agenda for the 104th Congres
• Candidates running for president often diverge from the party platform on many issues
Wednesday, November 29, 2006
ch 8 synopsis
Chapter 8 – Political Parties
Learning Objectives:
· Define the key terms at the end of the chapter
· Describe the four most important functions of political parties
· Trace the history of major political parties in America
· List the functions performed by minor political parties
· Account for the emergence of a two-party system in the U.S.
· Assess the extent of party identification in the U.S. and its influence on voting choice.
· Summarize the ideological and organizational differences between Republicans and Democrats
Chapter Synopsis
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 office; (2) structuring the voting choice; (3) proposing alternative government programs; (4) coordinating the actions of government officials.
Political party activity in the U.S. has consistently revolved around two major parties alternating power. The Federalists, Democratic-Republicans, and Whigs formed the basis of two party systems earlier in our history. Today, the long traditions of the Democratic Party, founded in 1828, and the Republican Party, founded in 1854, virtually close out the field to any serious challenge from a young, upstart party.
The balance between the Democrats and Republicans in the current party system can be usefully analyzed according to 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, which has continued to the present day.
Minority parties fall into four categories: (1) bolter/splinter parties, which are split-off factions 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. Minor parties on the whole have not been strong vote getters, but they have had some success as policy advocates. They also serve as a political safety valve by giving discontented groups the opportunity to air their policy views.
Party identification, a state of mind 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 major 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/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 government roles favored by the parties. In particular, the Democratic 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 party has little control over decentralized state and local election campaigns. The candidate nomination process in American party politics, unlike other party systems in the world, centers on election rather than by selection by party leaders.
Learning Objectives:
· Define the key terms at the end of the chapter
· Describe the four most important functions of political parties
· Trace the history of major political parties in America
· List the functions performed by minor political parties
· Account for the emergence of a two-party system in the U.S.
· Assess the extent of party identification in the U.S. and its influence on voting choice.
· Summarize the ideological and organizational differences between Republicans and Democrats
Chapter Synopsis
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 office; (2) structuring the voting choice; (3) proposing alternative government programs; (4) coordinating the actions of government officials.
Political party activity in the U.S. has consistently revolved around two major parties alternating power. The Federalists, Democratic-Republicans, and Whigs formed the basis of two party systems earlier in our history. Today, the long traditions of the Democratic Party, founded in 1828, and the Republican Party, founded in 1854, virtually close out the field to any serious challenge from a young, upstart party.
The balance between the Democrats and Republicans in the current party system can be usefully analyzed according to 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, which has continued to the present day.
Minority parties fall into four categories: (1) bolter/splinter parties, which are split-off factions 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. Minor parties on the whole have not been strong vote getters, but they have had some success as policy advocates. They also serve as a political safety valve by giving discontented groups the opportunity to air their policy views.
Party identification, a state of mind 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 major 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/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 government roles favored by the parties. In particular, the Democratic 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 party has little control over decentralized state and local election campaigns. The candidate nomination process in American party politics, unlike other party systems in the world, centers on election rather than by selection by party leaders.
ch 8 outline
Chapter 8: The Preparty Period
I. Political Parties and their Functions
A. Political Parties
1. Political parties play an odd role in American Democracy. Most Americans believe that the US would not have a democracy without the existence of parties. But a majority also believes they are not to be trusted. Americans see political parties as a necessary part of political life, but do not support their use.
B. What is a Political Party?
1. A political party sponsors candidates for political office under the organizations name. Through nomination, candidates are designated as belonging to a certain party. Interest groups do not have this process, which makes political parties unique.
2. Some believe that democracy should be defined in terms of political parties. To them, a nation-state requires at least two political parties that regularly contest elections.
C. Party Functions
1. Nominating candidates simplifies some election concerns. Without party nominations, many candidates would propose themselves, not based on a mass nomination. Those within a party can accurately judge a person’s credibility and strengths and then decide to nominate that person. Sometimes parties recruit candidates they think are more suitable for nomination.
2. Political parties structure the vote, by narrowing the number of candidates on the ballot to those who have a real chance of winning. Established parties form many followers who can secure a minimum vote for a party candidate. Having fewer political parties and fewer candidates makes voting for a candidate much easier.
3. Political Parties engender government programs and policies that their candidate will stand for in office. By doing this, voters do not have to know about a candidate’s issues or character. They need only know of the party’s policies and issues.
4. Political Parties also bridge the gap between government powers. Policy efforts can be joined by members of the same party within different branches of the government. When two branches differ, say the President and the House, members of the Republican party in both the House and the Republican President can work with common goals in mind.
D. A History of US Party Politics
1. The Democratic party has a strong claim to be the oldest party in existence, with the British Conservative Party, which was formed in 1832, coming close. The Republican party is still among the oldest in the world.
Chapter 8: Political Parties
I. The Preparty Period
A. The Preparty Period
1. The Constitution made no mention of political parties. Then, the only groups formed were called factions, and some proposed banning them to prevent their control of government. Supporters of British rule were called Tories, and opponents called Whigs. Then the federalists and antifederalists were formed when the Constitution was proposed.
2. An electoral college, mostly a handful of political leaders in the different states, met to decide on a presidential election. Caucuses, or secret group meetings, were actually the setting for George Washington’s election.
B. The First Party System: Federalists and Democratic Republicans
1. The reelection of George Washington saw the first skirmish between political parties. This was over Washington’s vice president John Adams, who was opposed by a Democratic Republican candidate. Then, when Adams and Jefferson went head to head in 1796, Adams won the electoral college majority.
2. But the constitution dictated that Jefferson, who received the other amount of votes, was to be Adams vice president. So the Constitution did not fathom that differences would exist between two candidates of political parties.
3. When party organization became clearer in 1800, both Democratic Republicans were chosen. But since they were tied, the House was given the task of choosing either Jefferson or Burr as president. The Twelfth Amendment prevented this from occurring again. The Federalist party soon dwindled, loosing the next four elections.
4. With widespread voting increasing after 1815, the role of parties in structuring the popular vote continued to develop. Citizens were soon allowed to choose the presidential electors, rather than Congress.
C. The Second Party System: democrats and Whigs
1. 1828 saw the creation of the modern Democratic party, which nominated Andrew Jackson to run for president. This election also saw a more than tripled increase in voters, due to relaxed voting requirements. But as the electorate grew, the few political leaders could no longer control the votes cast in the electoral college.
2. A new mechanism called a national convention was chosen to choose candidates for president and vice president and to to adopt a policy platform. The Anti-Masonic party, the first third party, called the first national convention in 1832.
3. Jackson was reelected and began exerting more control over the states, A new party, the Whigs, formed in response to this. The name implied that Jackson operated like King George in his rule over the colonies. The issues of slavery and sectionalism soon destroyed this new party, however.
D. The Current Party System: Democrats and Republicans
1. The Republican party was formed in opposition to extending slavery into Kansas and Nebraska. It entered the first presidential election in 1856, bringing candidate John Fremont, who carried 11 states. 1860 say Abraham Lincoln as the candidate, who defeated three other candidates to win the election.
2. A critical election is marked by sharp change in the existing patterns of party loyalty among groups of voters. The Democratic party had split into two groups, one still under the name Democrat. An electoral alignment, or change in voting patterns, like this, did not end with the election.
3. After the Civil War, no Republican candidate could win even one of the former Confederate states. In 1928, Republicans won five southern states. But until 1952 with Dwight Eisenhower, the Democrats dominated the South.
E. Eras of Party Dominance Since the Civil War
1. A two party system assumes a loyalty of voters to either of two parties, which forces independent candidates to form a third party. A majority party is one which is typically favored in a region. The other is called a minority party. Although the GOP candidates dominated elections from 1860 to 1894, its success was based on popular Civil War hero candidates. Seats in the House during this time were practically equal.
2. From 1896 to 1930, saw the true establishment of the Republican party as a majority party. With a depression and a Democratic President, Republicans nominated a sound candidate, while Democrats nominated an stark contrast. Their candidate pushed high inflation for paying off debts, the wrong direction for the country. Most people surged towards the Republicans, some permanently.
3. This Republican surge ended in 1932 with challenger FDR for the Presidential election. FDR won on a landslide. Democrats held the House and Senate mostly through 1994, and FDR was reelected three times. Republicans regained House control with the 104th Congress. The South has also cracked in its devotion to the Democratic party, beginning a period of electoral dealignment.
Chapter 8: Two Party System
I. The American Two-Party System
A. Minor Parties in America
1. Bolter parties, those which split off from major parties, are formed when leaders challenge their former parties. Examples include TDR’s Progressive party in 1912 and Wallace’s American Independent Party in 1968. Yet these Bolter parties have not affected the outcome of presidential elections.
2. Farmer-labor parties represent, obviously, farmers and workers who want a better share of society’s wealth. The People’s Party of 1892 is a good example. The Populist Party won 8.5 percent of the votes in1892, and became the first third party to win any electoral votes since 1860.
3. Parties of ideological protest go further in criticizing the established system, offering radical principles in place of traditional ones. Along with the Socialist Party, Libertarian Party stressed freedom over order and equality.
4. Single issue parties promote one principle. Prime examples are the Anti-Masonic Parties, the Free Soil Party, and the Prohibition Party. However, these parties only consistently acquire about one to two percent of the votes in an election. One thing all these minor parties have in common is their complaints or rejection of choices offered by the major parties
5. Minor parties do not succeed in getting votes, yet they advocate policy issues better. However, their policies lack public support, and therefore fail to get votes. Minor parties do allow citizens another choice for voicing their discontent with the system. More importantly, the total number of votes won by all minor parties should be watched.
B. Why a Two-Party System?
1. Why does the US have only two major parties? The idea of single winners chosen y a simple plurality of votes is known as majority representation. Legislature can also be chosen through proportional representation, where a party is awarded a number of seats in proportion to the number of votes they win. Because each party can win enough seats to wield an influence, multiple parties spring up.
2. But under plurality voting, only one candidate can win, forcing people to work within just two parties. Major parties are automatically given spots for candidates on ballots once they win a sizable vote percentage in an election.
3. Because the presidency is such a worthwhile political prize, groups are willing to pull together to mass a majority of votes across the nation. And because the Republican and Democratic parties have sustained and persisted for so long, political socialization allows them to go on doing so.
C. The Federal Basis of the Party System
1. But a loss in the presidency does not mean a total loss for a party. When Ronald Reagen swept the presidency in 1984, the Democratic Party kept control of the House. They also won 34 state governorships.
2. When the Republican Party continued to claim the Presidency with Bush, some could have said the Democrats were doomed to lose the presidency forever. But with the separation of state and national trends, the Democrats thrived instate elections.
D. Party Identification in America
1. Party identification signifies a voter’s sense of attachment to a party. But a devoted Democrat does not always vote for the Democratic candidate in an election. The number of Republicans and Democrats combined always exceeds the number of independents, while the Democrats always outnumber the Republicans. Yet shrinking in the Democratic party has left the three groups almost equal.
2. When voters repeatedly vote opposite their devoted party, they may consider switching parties. Such is the case with Southern Democrats. By 1996, the number of registered Republicans had seen substantial increases. People with lower SES levels are more likely to see themselves as Democrats.
3. Women, Jews, and blacks also tend to be more Democratic. The South remains the most heavily Democratic. Studies show that more than half of voters tend to adopt their parents party devotion. The youngest groups are more likely to be Independents. This is important because voters are more committed as they grow older and become interested in politics.
4. Some studies show that this erosion of Democrats may continue with the ratio of party identification among todays young voters. Even before an election is held, party identification tends to make the structure of an election predictable. Americans tend to pick their party and stay with it.
Chapter 8: Modern Part Evolution
I. Party Ideology and Organization
A. Differences in Party Ideology
1. The main differences between the two parties exist n the parties support of government programs. Democrats will spend more to advance social welfare, favoring equality. Republicans would rather invest in national defense. Ronal Reagen’s defense build up cost the nation more than one trillion dollars.
2. Party activists are an accurate judge of these differences. Only 16 percent Democrats consider themselves conservative, compared with 55 percent of Republicans. 3 percent of the Democratic convention delegates said they were conservative, compared with 79 percent Republican delegates.
3. Party platforms have been identified as important, because studies show that winning parties tend to accomplish more of their platform when in office. Sometimes the way platform issues are worded may win or lose a faction in a political party.
4. Differences in the platforms in 1996 became clear in their proposals. Democrats supported women’s’ choice between abortion and birth. They also wanted to ban assault weapons, while Republicans enforced the Constitutional right to bear arms. The two parties were also divided over gays in the military, funding for education, and medical care. These issues clearly delineate their stances on the values of freedom, order, and equality.
5. In ideology, the parties are sometimes claimed to be similar. Both support capitalism, Republicans regularly oppose increased government activity, and the differences between the two parties are similar in amount to other two party democracies. The two American parties are more conservative.
B. National Party Organization
1. Each party has four main organizational components nationally. First, the national convention, occurring every four years, determines party policy and designates a national committee. The national committee governs each party in between conventions, and is made up of chairman from the different states and territories. A chairperson is chosen by the presidential nominee, and then elected by the committee.
2. Party conferences, like the Republican caucus, are held by congressional members of the party, deal only with congressional matters, and do not relate to the national committee. Campaign committees raise funds to support its candidate in congressional elections. However, the national committee has no voice in congressional activity, but merely supports its candidate and staff.
3. The McGovern-Fraser commission formulated new candidate guidelines for the 1972 Democratic convention. To enforce this, the DNC threatened denial of seating to any state delegation who did not comply. After this, minorities, who were included in the guidelines, gained representation at the Democratic convention.
4. During this, the RNC made organizational reforms, and strengthened fund raising, research, and service roles. The Republicans made reforms which did things neither party had done before, but which other countries had been doing for years. Republican fund raising remains superior, and has raised money from a wider range of citizens.
C. State and Local Party Organizations
1. Party machines, like the democrats Tammany Hall in New York City, dominate local politics, and not always legally. But neither Republicans nor Democrats have an advantage in their local campaigns. The DNC and RNC have been contributing money in an opposite direction, to state parties.
D. Decentralized but Growing Stronger
1. American parties are getting stronger, but among the most decentralized in the world. Clinton was pushing for NAFTA, but was opposed by democratic majority leader Gephardt, and party whip Bonior. Although most Democrats rejected NAFTA, Republicans overwhelmingly favored it, and it was pushed through.
2. But both parties have had better funding and are more active in grass roots campaign activities. Leaders have become more involved in organizing and mobilizing voters.
II. The Model of Responsible Party Government
A. Responsible Party Government
1. Responsible party government dictates that parties present clear programs to voters. Voters should also choose candidates based on those programs, granted the winning party executes those programs once in office. The real problem is not the execution of programs, but whether or not voters judge candidates based on policies or not.
I. Political Parties and their Functions
A. Political Parties
1. Political parties play an odd role in American Democracy. Most Americans believe that the US would not have a democracy without the existence of parties. But a majority also believes they are not to be trusted. Americans see political parties as a necessary part of political life, but do not support their use.
B. What is a Political Party?
1. A political party sponsors candidates for political office under the organizations name. Through nomination, candidates are designated as belonging to a certain party. Interest groups do not have this process, which makes political parties unique.
2. Some believe that democracy should be defined in terms of political parties. To them, a nation-state requires at least two political parties that regularly contest elections.
C. Party Functions
1. Nominating candidates simplifies some election concerns. Without party nominations, many candidates would propose themselves, not based on a mass nomination. Those within a party can accurately judge a person’s credibility and strengths and then decide to nominate that person. Sometimes parties recruit candidates they think are more suitable for nomination.
2. Political parties structure the vote, by narrowing the number of candidates on the ballot to those who have a real chance of winning. Established parties form many followers who can secure a minimum vote for a party candidate. Having fewer political parties and fewer candidates makes voting for a candidate much easier.
3. Political Parties engender government programs and policies that their candidate will stand for in office. By doing this, voters do not have to know about a candidate’s issues or character. They need only know of the party’s policies and issues.
4. Political Parties also bridge the gap between government powers. Policy efforts can be joined by members of the same party within different branches of the government. When two branches differ, say the President and the House, members of the Republican party in both the House and the Republican President can work with common goals in mind.
D. A History of US Party Politics
1. The Democratic party has a strong claim to be the oldest party in existence, with the British Conservative Party, which was formed in 1832, coming close. The Republican party is still among the oldest in the world.
Chapter 8: Political Parties
I. The Preparty Period
A. The Preparty Period
1. The Constitution made no mention of political parties. Then, the only groups formed were called factions, and some proposed banning them to prevent their control of government. Supporters of British rule were called Tories, and opponents called Whigs. Then the federalists and antifederalists were formed when the Constitution was proposed.
2. An electoral college, mostly a handful of political leaders in the different states, met to decide on a presidential election. Caucuses, or secret group meetings, were actually the setting for George Washington’s election.
B. The First Party System: Federalists and Democratic Republicans
1. The reelection of George Washington saw the first skirmish between political parties. This was over Washington’s vice president John Adams, who was opposed by a Democratic Republican candidate. Then, when Adams and Jefferson went head to head in 1796, Adams won the electoral college majority.
2. But the constitution dictated that Jefferson, who received the other amount of votes, was to be Adams vice president. So the Constitution did not fathom that differences would exist between two candidates of political parties.
3. When party organization became clearer in 1800, both Democratic Republicans were chosen. But since they were tied, the House was given the task of choosing either Jefferson or Burr as president. The Twelfth Amendment prevented this from occurring again. The Federalist party soon dwindled, loosing the next four elections.
4. With widespread voting increasing after 1815, the role of parties in structuring the popular vote continued to develop. Citizens were soon allowed to choose the presidential electors, rather than Congress.
C. The Second Party System: democrats and Whigs
1. 1828 saw the creation of the modern Democratic party, which nominated Andrew Jackson to run for president. This election also saw a more than tripled increase in voters, due to relaxed voting requirements. But as the electorate grew, the few political leaders could no longer control the votes cast in the electoral college.
2. A new mechanism called a national convention was chosen to choose candidates for president and vice president and to to adopt a policy platform. The Anti-Masonic party, the first third party, called the first national convention in 1832.
3. Jackson was reelected and began exerting more control over the states, A new party, the Whigs, formed in response to this. The name implied that Jackson operated like King George in his rule over the colonies. The issues of slavery and sectionalism soon destroyed this new party, however.
D. The Current Party System: Democrats and Republicans
1. The Republican party was formed in opposition to extending slavery into Kansas and Nebraska. It entered the first presidential election in 1856, bringing candidate John Fremont, who carried 11 states. 1860 say Abraham Lincoln as the candidate, who defeated three other candidates to win the election.
2. A critical election is marked by sharp change in the existing patterns of party loyalty among groups of voters. The Democratic party had split into two groups, one still under the name Democrat. An electoral alignment, or change in voting patterns, like this, did not end with the election.
3. After the Civil War, no Republican candidate could win even one of the former Confederate states. In 1928, Republicans won five southern states. But until 1952 with Dwight Eisenhower, the Democrats dominated the South.
E. Eras of Party Dominance Since the Civil War
1. A two party system assumes a loyalty of voters to either of two parties, which forces independent candidates to form a third party. A majority party is one which is typically favored in a region. The other is called a minority party. Although the GOP candidates dominated elections from 1860 to 1894, its success was based on popular Civil War hero candidates. Seats in the House during this time were practically equal.
2. From 1896 to 1930, saw the true establishment of the Republican party as a majority party. With a depression and a Democratic President, Republicans nominated a sound candidate, while Democrats nominated an stark contrast. Their candidate pushed high inflation for paying off debts, the wrong direction for the country. Most people surged towards the Republicans, some permanently.
3. This Republican surge ended in 1932 with challenger FDR for the Presidential election. FDR won on a landslide. Democrats held the House and Senate mostly through 1994, and FDR was reelected three times. Republicans regained House control with the 104th Congress. The South has also cracked in its devotion to the Democratic party, beginning a period of electoral dealignment.
Chapter 8: Two Party System
I. The American Two-Party System
A. Minor Parties in America
1. Bolter parties, those which split off from major parties, are formed when leaders challenge their former parties. Examples include TDR’s Progressive party in 1912 and Wallace’s American Independent Party in 1968. Yet these Bolter parties have not affected the outcome of presidential elections.
2. Farmer-labor parties represent, obviously, farmers and workers who want a better share of society’s wealth. The People’s Party of 1892 is a good example. The Populist Party won 8.5 percent of the votes in1892, and became the first third party to win any electoral votes since 1860.
3. Parties of ideological protest go further in criticizing the established system, offering radical principles in place of traditional ones. Along with the Socialist Party, Libertarian Party stressed freedom over order and equality.
4. Single issue parties promote one principle. Prime examples are the Anti-Masonic Parties, the Free Soil Party, and the Prohibition Party. However, these parties only consistently acquire about one to two percent of the votes in an election. One thing all these minor parties have in common is their complaints or rejection of choices offered by the major parties
5. Minor parties do not succeed in getting votes, yet they advocate policy issues better. However, their policies lack public support, and therefore fail to get votes. Minor parties do allow citizens another choice for voicing their discontent with the system. More importantly, the total number of votes won by all minor parties should be watched.
B. Why a Two-Party System?
1. Why does the US have only two major parties? The idea of single winners chosen y a simple plurality of votes is known as majority representation. Legislature can also be chosen through proportional representation, where a party is awarded a number of seats in proportion to the number of votes they win. Because each party can win enough seats to wield an influence, multiple parties spring up.
2. But under plurality voting, only one candidate can win, forcing people to work within just two parties. Major parties are automatically given spots for candidates on ballots once they win a sizable vote percentage in an election.
3. Because the presidency is such a worthwhile political prize, groups are willing to pull together to mass a majority of votes across the nation. And because the Republican and Democratic parties have sustained and persisted for so long, political socialization allows them to go on doing so.
C. The Federal Basis of the Party System
1. But a loss in the presidency does not mean a total loss for a party. When Ronald Reagen swept the presidency in 1984, the Democratic Party kept control of the House. They also won 34 state governorships.
2. When the Republican Party continued to claim the Presidency with Bush, some could have said the Democrats were doomed to lose the presidency forever. But with the separation of state and national trends, the Democrats thrived instate elections.
D. Party Identification in America
1. Party identification signifies a voter’s sense of attachment to a party. But a devoted Democrat does not always vote for the Democratic candidate in an election. The number of Republicans and Democrats combined always exceeds the number of independents, while the Democrats always outnumber the Republicans. Yet shrinking in the Democratic party has left the three groups almost equal.
2. When voters repeatedly vote opposite their devoted party, they may consider switching parties. Such is the case with Southern Democrats. By 1996, the number of registered Republicans had seen substantial increases. People with lower SES levels are more likely to see themselves as Democrats.
3. Women, Jews, and blacks also tend to be more Democratic. The South remains the most heavily Democratic. Studies show that more than half of voters tend to adopt their parents party devotion. The youngest groups are more likely to be Independents. This is important because voters are more committed as they grow older and become interested in politics.
4. Some studies show that this erosion of Democrats may continue with the ratio of party identification among todays young voters. Even before an election is held, party identification tends to make the structure of an election predictable. Americans tend to pick their party and stay with it.
Chapter 8: Modern Part Evolution
I. Party Ideology and Organization
A. Differences in Party Ideology
1. The main differences between the two parties exist n the parties support of government programs. Democrats will spend more to advance social welfare, favoring equality. Republicans would rather invest in national defense. Ronal Reagen’s defense build up cost the nation more than one trillion dollars.
2. Party activists are an accurate judge of these differences. Only 16 percent Democrats consider themselves conservative, compared with 55 percent of Republicans. 3 percent of the Democratic convention delegates said they were conservative, compared with 79 percent Republican delegates.
3. Party platforms have been identified as important, because studies show that winning parties tend to accomplish more of their platform when in office. Sometimes the way platform issues are worded may win or lose a faction in a political party.
4. Differences in the platforms in 1996 became clear in their proposals. Democrats supported women’s’ choice between abortion and birth. They also wanted to ban assault weapons, while Republicans enforced the Constitutional right to bear arms. The two parties were also divided over gays in the military, funding for education, and medical care. These issues clearly delineate their stances on the values of freedom, order, and equality.
5. In ideology, the parties are sometimes claimed to be similar. Both support capitalism, Republicans regularly oppose increased government activity, and the differences between the two parties are similar in amount to other two party democracies. The two American parties are more conservative.
B. National Party Organization
1. Each party has four main organizational components nationally. First, the national convention, occurring every four years, determines party policy and designates a national committee. The national committee governs each party in between conventions, and is made up of chairman from the different states and territories. A chairperson is chosen by the presidential nominee, and then elected by the committee.
2. Party conferences, like the Republican caucus, are held by congressional members of the party, deal only with congressional matters, and do not relate to the national committee. Campaign committees raise funds to support its candidate in congressional elections. However, the national committee has no voice in congressional activity, but merely supports its candidate and staff.
3. The McGovern-Fraser commission formulated new candidate guidelines for the 1972 Democratic convention. To enforce this, the DNC threatened denial of seating to any state delegation who did not comply. After this, minorities, who were included in the guidelines, gained representation at the Democratic convention.
4. During this, the RNC made organizational reforms, and strengthened fund raising, research, and service roles. The Republicans made reforms which did things neither party had done before, but which other countries had been doing for years. Republican fund raising remains superior, and has raised money from a wider range of citizens.
C. State and Local Party Organizations
1. Party machines, like the democrats Tammany Hall in New York City, dominate local politics, and not always legally. But neither Republicans nor Democrats have an advantage in their local campaigns. The DNC and RNC have been contributing money in an opposite direction, to state parties.
D. Decentralized but Growing Stronger
1. American parties are getting stronger, but among the most decentralized in the world. Clinton was pushing for NAFTA, but was opposed by democratic majority leader Gephardt, and party whip Bonior. Although most Democrats rejected NAFTA, Republicans overwhelmingly favored it, and it was pushed through.
2. But both parties have had better funding and are more active in grass roots campaign activities. Leaders have become more involved in organizing and mobilizing voters.
II. The Model of Responsible Party Government
A. Responsible Party Government
1. Responsible party government dictates that parties present clear programs to voters. Voters should also choose candidates based on those programs, granted the winning party executes those programs once in office. The real problem is not the execution of programs, but whether or not voters judge candidates based on policies or not.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)