American Government Discussion Outline
Why are we here learning about government, politics, and law?
It’s generally agreed THE most important question as a human being is “what is the meaning of life.” Really what this is asking is "how am I to live?" or, "What is the best way to live?” But the question “how am I to live?” means, unless your alone and isolated on a deserted island, "how am I to live with other people?". This question is usually answered by religious and ethical philosophy. BUT deciding how to live together necessarily means asking "what rules should we live by?": That is, how should our society be structured? What laws should we have? Who should have power to enforce those laws? What limitations will there be on such enforcement (that is, what rights will people have against arbitrary enforcement of the laws?) etc. So HIGHLY inter-related with religious and ethical philosophy is the question "what government and laws" should we have? Questions of government, politics, and law are only one step (if that) removed from the deepest and most important religious, moral, and ethical questions known to humanity.
***Thus, an understanding of government, law and politics through the study of them all under the heading of “political science” is FUNDAMENTALLY necessary in deciding how we should live together as a human beings.
Moreover, education in civics and government is essential for democracy to exist and succeed. Without an informed electorate, democratic decisions will be based on ignorance or emotions. Demagogues (leaders who manipulate public opinion through lies and psychological tactics merely for their own political purposes and advantage) will be able to convince the voting public to go along with them (e.g. Hitler). So any democracy needs its citizens to be informed about the powers of government, limits on powers of government, how government works, how laws are made, what laws there are, what the true political facts are, etc. Otherwise, the democracy is either not a true democracy (uninformed people will not be making genuine political choices) or it is a fragile democracy (demagogues will be able to easily manipulate the public opinion in harmful ways, especially by eliminating democracy, freedom, equality, etc.—again, see Hitler).
POLITICS: “Who gets what, when, and how.” Decisions over how to allocate scarce resources. Technically, politics is everywhere, not just in government—family, office, school; Roommates—loud music, parties, dirty clothes, smoking, having overnight guests. BUT power in society is MOSTLY in hands of government, and so “political science” studies “political power” whereas the field of sociology studies power in other places: e.g. power in relationships, in families, in the workplace, in organizations, etc.
WHY must POLITICAL questions (questions of power) be decided (in families, workplace, society, etc.)?:
a. scarcity of resources (jobs, money, health care, housing, food, land, clean water, even life
But if EVERYONE agreed on how to use those resources, there would be no conflict, and hence, no politics. But what happens is:
b. differences in values and priorities what to do with those scarce resources—i.e. logging jobs versus wildlife preservation, rights of pregnant women versus rights of fetus, health care from government private insurance, rights of majorities versus rights of minorities
c. insistence that one’s values and priorities dominate over others.
"Government"—is the institutions and rules that regulate the inhabitants of a particular geographic area
ALL governments have ability to coerce obedience to its rules (fines, police, courts, prisons, military) –that is, to force obedience to law.
e.g. National Government, state government, local government, even school government. If no ability to coerce, its NOT a government.
and in fact, government has a monopoly on the “legitimate” use of force—i.e.ONLY entity that can force adults to obedience; i.e. no private slavery, yet government can “legitimately” coerce you to do as it says.
Q: So why have Government? (What’s the purpose?) i.e. why not leave these disputes in hands of private, peaceful decisionmaking
There are several reasons people have offered throughout the years, but by far the most commonly given reason, the most basic reason, is:
to Maintain Order: Ideally, to Prevent violent crimes against people and property, b/c fights over scarce resources (and other things)
so government and laws resolves conflict through peaceful means.
Philosophical background to the American Revolution and the Constitution:
To understand today, you need to understand where we came from. This is NECESSARY to understand the DoI, and the Constitution.
OLD view of where governments get their power and authority: up to and during middle ages, "divine right of kings"—from Romans 13: 1-2
“"Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God." – NIV; god granted the king (and king's family) authority to rule, so you couldn't disagree with king because that would be to disagree with god. That’s HERESY/BLASPHEMY.
John Locke (English Philosopher) Two Treatises on Government (1690) ***NOT first one to think of all these concepts, but developed them most fully, presented most clearly and forcefully: Treatise One: Spends entire treatise rejecting divine right theory.
Treatise Two: State of nature=pre-society anarchy. People were born with god-given, inalienable natural rights—life, liberty, property, but state of nature left those rights unprotected. Government would protect life, liberty, and property—so people enter into a "social contract"--mutually agree to government (a “Civil Society”) for own mutual advantage and protection; ONLY reason government exists is to protect your natural rights: legitimate government power is based on consent of the governed (popular sovereignty) because the creator must be greater than the creation; thus, people have right to change government if rulers break the social contract by interfering with natural rights rather than protecting natural rights. (people are then free to withdraw their consent from the current government (abolish the current government) and put in new government.
Social Contract theory: No government (anarchy, "State of nature") but have natural rightsà but violence between individuals (insecure protection for natural rights)à so people form "social contract"; "Civil Society" (government) to protect rightsàpopular sovereignty (people are supreme, so the only legitimate power comes from consent of governed)à right to abolish government (if govt. breaks social contract and infringes on natural rights)
***I.E. choose freedom over order because people can be trusted more than government.
NOTE that is a RADICAL idea. It directly repudiates divine right theory based on Romans 13:1-2, saying part of the Christian New Testament is absolutely false. AND calls into question the authority of every ruler then existing on the planet, saying everyone one of them is illegitimate.
E.G. Mayflower Compact first
example of social contract by Europeans in
American colonies were not given any representation
or voting rights in the English parliament, yet they were taxed and otherwise
economically exploited by
At first the colonists hoped for negotiation to end the fighting, so it was really a “war for representation” and not a “war for independence” but eventually the colonists gave up hope and called for independence 1776; publicly announced on July 4 (Declaration of Independence was sort of like a press release). This was a RADICAL idea at the time because such a thing had never been done before. This challenged the authority of EVERY national government then existing on the planet... So they needed to philosophically justify this to the world.
***The Declaration of
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government . . .” (without citing him; i.e. plagiarism.);
DoI gives a detailed list how
***DoI is so important NOT because it’s historical (which it is) but because of philosophical principles and applications in it....
***The Declaration of
the entire rest of the world governments were on the side of
Q: What government did new
1.Who rules? (based on Number of rulers)
a. Autocracy--rule by one (e.g. monarchy=royalty (king/queen); dictator) (Alexander Hamilton wanted a monarchy.)
Oligarchy--rule by elite few (e.g aristocracy=rule by best, plutocracy=rule by wealthy, theocracy=rule by religious rulers; e.g.
c. ***Democracy--rule by people (many/everyone (in theory))
2. Central/regional govt? 3 types of government based on division of power between national/central govt. and regional (subnational) govts:
a. Unitary government--
b. Confederal government--UN,
Confederate States of
Articles of Confederation(1777-89)--"confederation" was first Social contract of U.S. Was also first “constitution” they just didn’t call it that.
BUT AoC created only VERY WEAK national government:
*(1) no power to tax--had to ASK states to give it money, and couldn't pay Revolutionary War debts
*(2) couldn't regulate interstate or foreign
commerce, and had no power over states, so states imposed tariffs against each
other, states had conflicting business regulations, refused to order citizens
to pay debts to non-citizens, states could create own money if wanted, states
could make foreign commerce treaties.
*(3) no ability to raise an army to protect against British, Spanish, or even pirates.
(4) states could make foreign treaties or break US treaties
(5) no independent, executive leader position
(6) no courts.
(7) decisions had to be by supermajority (9/13 states)
(8) couldn't amend without unanimous agreement of 13 states.
NOTE: not until late 1781 that Revolutionary War
was won by the
BUT delegates soon realized the Articles of Confederation were hopelessly beyond repair, and needed a WHOLE NEW social contract. A few delegates disagreed and left the convention out of protest, and later made public statements and writings in protest. But most agreed, and made:
***Second Social Contract of
SO WHY did we bother to learn AoC? Because almost everything that was put into the Constitution was based on the failures of the AoC. So learning about the AoC tells us LOTS about the intent behind the Constitution, and disagreement over the intentions STILL is big in politics today.—Both sides of issues surrounding the President, Congress, Supreme Court, powers of State governments, ALMOST ALWAYS refer to “intentions” of the framers and ratifiers of the Constitution (original intent or original understanding).
KEY ELEMENTS OF CONSTITUTION: DIFFERED from AoC:
1.***MORE power was given to the national government than AoC (tax, regulate commerce, have an army, )
2. FEDERAL system
3. legislature AND added executive and judicial branches Article I: Legislature; Article II: Executive; Article III: Courts
4. Amendments: Easier to do (will look at in more detail when we look at Bill of Rights)
From the records of the debates during the Constitutional Convention, we know that the delegates pushed their own agendas, and
EVERYTHING in the Constitution was a political compromise; it was not “divinely inspired” and no “magic formula” was used. Like hot dogs: you really don’t want to know how they’re made. It looks and tastes good from the outside, but it was made through a lot of down-and-dirty political haggling in the mud. But: 3 BIG Compromises: these were the toughest agreements to reach and biggest fights were over these issues: national power over states, big versus small states, and slavery. 2 of these almost caused convention to break up.
ISSUE 1: A. All agreed the national government needed some additional power over the States, but how much more?
Options: (1) UNITARY abolish
the states and have a unitary system (
(2) National POLICE POWER (from VERB “to police” (to oversee): like a blanket grant of power;
the states but let nat’l govt. make whatever laws it wants
E.G. could say states get education, crime, and health care, national government gets all others.
(4) FEW FEDERAL POWERS,
E.G. could say national government gets military, interstate commerce, states get all others.
(5) STATES NEGATIVE FEDS let states "negative" (Veto) national laws –this would be the return of confederalism.
They chose number 4: 1-3 too strong; 5 return to confederalism, and that failed. So 4: just enough additional national power to create federalism.
Why is this important? Because (as we shall see) National government has evolved to have the police power (#2) and this is still considered highly controversial and is highly debated in politics. Again, notice the difference: If a teachers leaves class for a few minutes and says “do whatever you want” you have the police power. If the teacher say “you can study readings or compare notes together, but that’s all” you have enumerated powers.
This was now a FEDERAL form of government – powers are divided between national and state governments, but national govt supreme. Thus, theory of Limited Government: national government is limited in its powers, less is better philosophy towards government.
ISSUE 2: How states should be represented in national legislature?
Must keep in mind that early
loyalties were to states, not “
B. Virginia Plan (by Edmund Randolph) –large states wanted representation in legislature in proportion to population, thought unfair that small states should get disproportionate vote and decide how large state’s tax money gets spent.
C. "Great Compromise" (aka Connecticut Compromise)--BICAMERAL (2-chamber) legislature--HOUSE (population) and Senate (states—2 votes); Laws must be passed by BOTH chambers, BUT “All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives.” A 1. s. 7
Congress= House + Senate
ISSUE 3. What to do about Slavery? : Delegates BITTERLY DIVIDED over slavery—convention almost broke up.
A. HOW TO COUNT SLAVES IN THE POPULATION (FOR DETERMINING REPRESENTATION IN HOUSE OF REPS)
1. Slave states wanted to count slaves in apportioning seats in House of Rep; otherwise, North had larger free population and could out-vote South on regulating or outlawing slavery, so south was ADAMANT about counting slaves;
1790 data: Southern states: slaves were 33% of population; VA 42%, SC 43%.
2. Non-slave states wanted slaves not be counted—hypocritical that slaves are property yet get counted as people; gave Southern whites disproportionately (and thus unfair) large vote;
3. "3/5 Compromise": each slave counts as 3/5 of a person in determining how many FREE WHITE representatives each Southern State receives “and direct taxes). NO RIGHTS given to slaves—e.g. NOT 3/5 vote by the slave. NOTICE that this encouraged, rewarded the South for having MORE slaves—more slaves=more representation Southern states would receive in the House of Reps.
B. Escaped slaves?—Fugitive Slave Clause Article IV, Section 2. South didn’t want slaves to have a reason to escape to North, so insisted on requirement that North would have to return any escaped slaves: “No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour, but shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due.” Note it only says “claim” and not “evidence” or “proof.” This led to many (hundreds? thousands?) of free blacks being taken into slavery on false claims. See Solomon Northup, Twelve Years a Slave.
C. SLAVERY REGULATION?—Can Congress regulate slavery as “commerce” according to the Constitution’s Commerce Clause? North: Congress should have power to regulate slavery. South: Congress should not have power to regulate slavery. Compromise: No laws could restrict IMPORT of slaves until 1808 (20 year's time had passed). I.E. INTERNATIONAL slave trade could be banned after 1808. This would give South 20 years to bring in enough slaves to continue slave trade without capturing new slaves.
“The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.” Art. I, sec. 9 Basically, they were unable to reach a compromise, and realized the U.S. would split up if they tried to force a deal then, so they put the issue off for twenty years for the next generation of leaders to deal with in the future and hopefully come up with a good compromise then (of course, that never happened, as we eventually had the Civil War.)
*** Constitutional delegates avoided using term "slave" or "slavery," in Constitution, because realized it's unseemliness. Instead, used terms like “free and . . . other persons” or “persons held to service or labor.” or “importation of persons.” ARTICLE I, SECTIONS 2, 9
Now that we have looked at some of the big compromises, including slavery, this makes it a good place/time to talk about:
INCONSISTENCY OF THE FRAMERS: The American founders were human beings, and like all human beings, they were not perfect. Like everyone else then and now, they often had mixed motives, had to reach political compromises given what was reasonably feasible at the time, and thus did not always apply their moral ideals consistently. Thus, on the one hand they were political geniuses and established a nation based on the great ideals of freedom and equality. On the other hand, the founders did not live their lives completely consistent with those ideals. For example, Thomas Jefferson, who wrote the Declaration of Independence and said “all men are created equal,” owned many slaves and never freed them, not even in his will upon death. There are some course readings that illustrate this inconsistency mostly from the perspective of those at the time (late 1700’s and early 1800’s) who wanted equal treatment for themselves.
1. Deleted paragraph of Declaration of Independence—criticized King for slave trade; removed because of realized hypocrisy
2. Petition by slaves to
3. Benjamin Banneker’s letter to Thomas Jefferson (and reply)—blacks are as intelligent as whites, and deserve equality
4. Frederick Douglass: What to a Slave is the Fourth of July—total hypocrisy of white “Christian” majority.
5. Abigail Adam’s correspondence with husband John Adams—John Adams scoffs at Abigail’s request for women’s rights
7. Words of Chief Joseph—leader of Nez Perce Nation,
speech to Congress: peace treaties repeatedly broken by
8. Trail of Tears—Cherokee Nation driven from the South at gunpoint; thousands died.
9. John Adams letter—showing his disdain for giving vote to poor (white) men; comparing them to women and children.
It’s important to note,
though, that the American founders understood when they established the
principles of democratic liberty and equality, that the
“It may be argued that there are certain conditions
that make necessities and impose them upon us, and to the extent that a
necessity is imposed upon a man he must submit to it. I think that was the
condition in which we found ourselves when we established this Government. We
had slaves among us, we could not get our Constitution unless we permitted them
to remain in slavery, we could not secure the good we did secure if we grasped
for more; and having by necessity submitted to that much, it does not destroy
the principle that is the charter of our liberties. Let the charter remain as
our standard.” A. Lincoln, 7th Lincoln-Douglass Debate,
Ratification Debate: At the end of the summer of 1787, the Constitution was just a proposal, and had to be debated publicly and ratified by state conventions if it was going to take effect. Those who wanted strong central government, and thought the proposed Constitution added the right amount of additional power to the national government compared to the Articles of Confederation, supported the Constitution, and adopted the name "FEDERALISTS" to imply they wanted a true division of powers between the states and the national government.
The “ANTI-FEDERALISTS” opposed the constitution, arguing that TOO MUCH additional power had been given to the new national government in the proposed Constitution. In reality “federalists” were more like "unitarians" than "federalists" and Anti-federalists were really "confederalists" So really was “unitarians" versus the "Confederalists."
Anti-federalist arguments--"Brutus," and "The Federal Farmer" “Cato,” “An Old Whig,” but many others: COMMON THEME: national government would be too powerful: standing armies would oppress; Congressional power to set own times of elections would let it take permanent control by cancelling elections; the president might serve for life and become like a king; supreme court would have final say over interpretation of laws with no power to stop them; "necessary and proper" clause would lead to national power and elimination of state sovereignty.
Federalist Papers: mostly James Madison and Alexander Hamilton, a little from John Jay ("PUBLIUS") responded to Anti-federalist arguments. They systematically argued in a series of 85 papers that constitution was best possible constitution. BETTER ORGANIZED THAN ANTI- Federalists, and wrote more completely, systematically, in favor of Constitution. According to proposed, Constitution, 9/13 states were needed to ratify the Constitution—to make it take effect as the new social contract.
Federalists NARROWLY won ratification (formal adoption) of the new Constitution—came down to a handful of votes in a couple state conventions, and once the 9 state threshold was reached, the rest joined so that they wouldn’t be left out, as they knew they couldn’t make it on their own. Last state ratified in 1789. BUT there were several MAJOR issues that were debated, ***WHICH ARE STILL MAJOR ISSUES DEBATED TODAY.......*** THAT”S WHY WE”RE GOING TO STUDY THEM.... ***AND as we’ll see, many people today think the Anti-federalists turned out to be correct on many points... (or that the future showed both the Feds. and Anti-feds. were partly correct.
In other words, as is the situation in most cases, the truth between different sides is somewhere in the middle.
PREAMBLE to the Constitution: incorporates Locke’s social contract theory: basically declares that the Constitution is a social contract.
popular sovereignty: “We the People, in order to form a more perfect Union, establish justice and ensure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”: Constitution is social contract formed by people for their own mutual protection benefit, so people are sovereign/supreme over govt., not other way around.
Rule of Law: if people are sovereign/supreme, then even government must follow the law. I.E. govt. is UNDER the law, not ABOVE the law.
NATURE OF DEMOCRACY
1. TWO KINDS OF DEMOCRACY classified by who is making (voting on) the proposed laws.
a. PARTICIPATORY/DIRECT/PURE--ALL meet to decide—e.g. state REFERENDUMs (mostly in Western states) where public votes on proposed laws listed on the ballot during regular elections; New England town hall meetings (over 1,000 small towns in Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island).
b. REPRESENTATIVE DEMOCRACY (REPUBLIC)--elect representatives who meet to decide on, vote on, make laws.
Why? Infeasible to have all people meet in one place if too large of a group... Thomas Paine, Common Sense—people on island meet first all together; then as too many, elect representatives to meet.
Why is this an issue? A
democracy of such a large scale (both size and population) had NEVER been
attempted in the history of the world, and many people said it could NOT be
done. So this was a serious argument against
Brutus No. 1 Brutus had
several objections in No. 1, but one was very powerful so
Big Republicàtoo many peopleàtoo many interestsà no agreementà GRIDLOCK (a grinding halt, paralysis, which is BAD)
i.e. representatives will be pulled in a thousand different directions at once, and not be able to agree on anything.
A. FACTION=group whose interest is adverse to the community; Group that acts in own selfish interest, “just looking out for themselves” rather than what’s in the common/public/society’s best interest. (TODAY: SPECIAL INTEREST GROUPS/Parties)
Thus, factions are DANGEROUS b/c if get control of govt., will make laws that are corrupt and oppress/abuse people.
B. Controlling Factions: How do you create a government that controls factions (minimizes their danger?)
1. Remove Causes (eliminate their existence) (like withholding water and sunlight from a weed)
a. Remove all liberty, thus faction’s can’t form (freedom of association). --Remedy worse than the problem.
b. Make everyone’s interest equal—then factions have no reason to exist. –Impossible.
2. Limit Effects (because removing their causes is not a viable option), so minimize their danger.
a. Protection against minority factions: majority outvotes minority
b. Protection against majority factions: direct democracy is no protection, as majority faction could outvote
minorities. so you need Republic, because
i. representatives are wise, benelovent and will not vote as factions want.
ii. BUT there a SMALL republic is easy to take over, so a LARGE republic is better.
1. fewer reps per population, so smaller proportion of reps will be the VERY wisest/best
2. harder to manipulate elections with such large area
***3. so many diverse interests, can’t unify into a majority faction (no ONE group can take control) THIS IS THEORY OF PLURALISM.... ***One of the key principles of American democracy: competing groups balance each other out, no one group is able to gain control, and thus liberty is protected because the only laws that can passed are laws that everyone agrees is good. ***THUS< GRIDLOCK IS GOOD.......*** This theory of pluralism which explains American democracy is so closely tied to Madison, this theory of U.S. democracy is often referred to as MADISONIAN DEMOCRACY.
Notice it’s a THEORY, because it hasn’t and doesn’t always work in practice (witness American history for examples—e.g. slavery, segregation, genocide of Native Americans, putting Japanese Americans in concentration camps during WWII, oppression of women, discrimination against gays and lesbians, etc.)
James Madison, Vices of the Political System of the
“3. Where slavery exists the republican Theory becomes still more fallacious.”
NOTICE: Both Madison and Brutus agree that the
OVERALL STRUCTURE OF THE
Separation of Powers and Checks and Balances (READ: MONTESQUIEU, Federalist 51)
Locke’s theory justified the EXISTENCE of government, Montesqieu’s theory justified the STRUCTURE of government.
Baron de Montesqieu—French political philosopher, “On the Spirit of Laws” 1748
ANY AND ALL government is dangerous: “every man invested with power is apt to abuse it” Government is humans, and humans are at root selfish—“Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely” i.e. Can’t trust anyone...
all humans selfishàgovernment is humansàall government corruptàall government dangerous
SO how minimize risk? i.e. how can you build the structure of government to minimize the risk that selfish rulers will abuse power?
1. Divide government functions into legislative, executive, and judicial subunits/divisions/BRANCHES This is SEPARATION OF POWERS: major functions of government are placed in different branches of overall government.; AND
2. give each a check on each one another: executive “rejects” legislature’s laws, legislature “impeaches” executive, and legislature is two bodies, one for people and one for “nobles.” This is CHECKS AND BALANCES: government branches in a system of SoP have built-in ability to block or influence actions of other branches (sub-units/divisions) of government ***DO NOT confuse SoP with C+B—they’re highly related, but different concepts. SoP can exist without C+B, but C+B is addition to SoP. (like a hat can rest on a person’s head, but can’t float on its own)
AMERICAN SoP/C&B: Framers agreed in part with BOTH Hobbes AND Locke: didn’t trust EITHER people OR govt...
So, framers of Constitution
feared masses, AND government (after experience with
Separation of Powers:
1. Article I: Legislature (bicameral CONGRESS)—makes laws, "enumerated powers"--levy taxes, coin money, regulate interstate commerce, raise army, and "implied powers"--do anything "necessary and proper" (necessary and proper clause a.k.a. the elastic clause) to execute its authority.
2. Article II: Executive (THE PRESIDENT)—enforces laws, Commander-in-chief of military, negotiates and signs treaties
3. Article III: Judiciary (THE SUPREME COURT)—interpret laws (federal laws and Constitution)
Checks & Balances:
President vetoes bills passed by Congress and nominates Supreme Court judges
Congress: overrides vetoes, creates courts, House impeaches President and judges, Senate tries impeachments (2/3 vote to convict), confirms Supreme court judges, confirms executive appointments, ratifies treaties (2/3 vote to ratify); because bicameral, each chamber can block other chamber’s proposed laws
Supreme Court reviews acts of President and Congress
JUDICIAL REVIEW: ability of a court to declare actions by other branches of government unconstitutional (and hence void). IMPLIED by Supremacy Clause (more on this later when we focus on the Supreme Court in more detail)
***SoP/C&B chooses liberty OVER efficiency—I.E. framers of Constitution KNOWLINGLY INTENTIONALLY CONSCIOUSLY PURPOSESLY DELIBERATELY CREATED INEFFICIENT GOVERNMENT to maximize protection of liberty.... FUNDAMENTAL...
So, TODAY, our government IS
inefficient. People OFTEN complain our
***FUNDAMENTAL foundations of
Constitutional DEMOCRACY Prior to 1787, political thinkers believed you could not have democracy (rule by the people) AND the Rule of Law, because the uneducated, impulsive masses would act irrationally and quickly and impose arbitrary TYRANNY OF THE MAJORITY. Philosophers like Hobbes argu ed in Leviathan that government need to be be strongly authoritative, ruling with iron fist, to control masses. Framers of U.S. Constitution didn’t trust either people OR government. In other words, they agreed with Hobbes, Locke, Montesqieu about human nature being untrustworthy. So, THIS IS THE POINT OF OUR CONSTITUTION: TO LIMIT THE POWERS OF GOVERNMENT. Philosophy of LIMITED GOVERNMENT. If you don’t care how much power the government has or what it does, you don’t need any piece of paper. The very reason to write things down is to put both substantive and procedural limitations on the powers of government.
SO, framers of U.S.
Constitution created complex,
inefficient system of government that made it hard for masses OR government
(either by non-virtuous masses or by non-virtuous minority) to impose tyranny: Government of enumerated powers, Separation
of Powers, Checks and Balances,
federalism, a large-sized Republic (representative rather than direct
democracy), a Bill of Rights, separation of church and state, staggered
elections, etc. As explained in
ANTIFEDERALISTS said this was too inefficient, OR that too much power was given to the branches to interfere or override other branches.
Fed 51 (Hamilton OR Madison): “If men were angels, no government would be necessary.” But if men could control men, government must control itself. So, divide government into offices legislature—2 branches, executive “negative” over legislature, and federal system divided between states and central/national government. Also, in larger republic, more diverse interests (factions) so that majority coalition is rare.
NOTE: The required Ninth state ratified the Constitution in 1789, so the Constitution officially took effect 1789. Now that we’ve looked at it’s beginnings, we’ll look at it’s components in much more depth and detail: federalism, the bill of rights, and the branches of government.
FEDERALISM: (READ: Federalist 45, 46 Anti-federalists (Brutus, An Old Whig (“Where Then is the Restraint”))
Inter-governmental relations between LEVELS not ARENAS of government
RECALL: Compromise of New Constitution was FEDERAL system of government
1. National Government of ENUMERATED Powers (tax, commerce, armies,
but also with IMPLIED powers from the Nec. and Proper Clause in Article I, sec. 8)
and Constitution and Federal law is SUPREME over states (Supremacy clause)
2. State governments of RESERVED powers (10th Amendment).
Q. So why not just rid of states? –i.e., What was basic purpose in having power divided between 2 levels? Why federal, not unitary govt?
1. liberty: part of system of checks and balances—factions less likely to control BOTH state and fed govts, thus hard for them to become oppressive, so federalism preserves liberty-- feared a strong federal government would oppress the states (like England had done) so wanted to give central government only limited powers
2. public good: thought states would better address local matters—states are LABORATORIES OF DEMOCRACY
big experiment, can make 50 attempts at education reform; see what works and what doesn’t, then other states adopt.
BUT Anti-federalists argued that Constitution would go TOO FAR and let federal govt. become more like unitary govt. . .
Brutus No. 1, An Old Whig: Anti-fed arguments focused on: 1. Necessary and Proper clause as dangerously expanding federal power over states (would let Congress declare that ANYTHING is “necessary and proper.” 2. Federal law is SUPREME under Supremacy Clause
***Thus, 1+2=3: federal government could practically abolish states and states couldn’t stop that.
EVOLUTION OF FEDERALISM (***ever greater federal power (balance of power increasing to federal, lessening to states)
1787 Federalism Compromise: give Congress list of specific powers, ("ENUMERATED POWERS") but broad limits to those powers (Article I, section 8)
1. TAX: -"to lay and collect taxes . . ."
2. SPEND: -"to provide for the
common Defence and general Welfare of the
3. COMMERCE: COMMERCE CLAUSE
-" to regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States"
4. RAISE ARMIES:-"to raise and support Armies"
5. IMPLIED POWERS: NECESSARY AND PROPER CLAUSE (like a catchall provision)
-"to make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing Powers"
6. SUPREMACY OVER STATE GOVERNMENTS: SUPREMACY CLAUSE (Art. VI)
-ART. VI: "This Constitution,
and the laws of the
7. 10th Amendment
of Bill of Rights (ratified 1791) said:
"The powers not delegated to the
E.g. health care, education, criminal law, contract law, tort law, property rights, family law (marriage, divorce, child custody/support), environment, regulating local and state businesses, employment and labor law, etc.
Evolution of federal power Diagram (tiny circles on top, big circles on bottomàhuge circle on top, tiny circles on bottom)
1. CIVIL WAR (1861-1865)
victory by North destroyed South’s theory that we were a confederal system of
government in which states could secede (leave) the
2. GREAT DEPRESSION: Until the Great Depression, state and federal governments had separate and distinct powers/ policy areas; no overlap); Supreme said Court said Congress was supreme, but in limited policy areas (e.g. no employment, health, environ., educ., crime, family, etc.)
a. GREAT DEPRESSION (1929-1941) economy was so bad, states couldn’t cope; people wanted national government to take action,
b. Elected FDR (1932)
who promised action; Congress passed NEW DEAL
c. BUT Sup.
AND Commerce Clause only allowed direct interstate commerce, not local state activities that just indirectly affected interstate commerce.
i.e. Congress had no sword (Commerce Clause), and even if it did, the states had a shield (10th Am.)
d. SO, FDR came up with "COURT-PACKING PLAN"—1937 appoint NEW ADDITIONAL justices to supreme court.
e. CPP opposed by public + Congress, BUT only weeks later, Court said 10th Amendment meaningless, did NOT act as any legal barrier.
f. BUT if fed. govt. is enumerated powers, where power to enact NEW DEAL? National govt. argued, and sup. crt. accepted, under COMMERCE CLAUSE, because ALL HUMAN ACTIVITY (EVERYTHING) effects the economy in some small way.
g. Obamacare U.S.S.C. tax ruling (2012): anything you don’t do can be taxed.
g. Thus, today with a FEW TINY TECHNICAL exceptions, fed. govt. has POLICE POWER under Commerce Clause and Tax Clause
h. Since 1937 New Deal laws still today—e.g. HUGE budget items: Medicare, Social Security to help people with economic security --U.S. now JOINTLY regulates in areas that used to be ONLY state areas—employment, health care, environment, education, crime, etc. Now LOTS fed laws. LOTS. Some say good, some say bad. Same arguments that Feds and Anti-feds argued.
i. PREEMPTION: federal law (“X”) pre-empts (overrides/supersedes) any inconsistent state law (“not-X”) (either expressly inconsistent or impliedly inconsistent) by action of the Supremacy Clause—e.g environmental rules, medical marijuana, doctor-assisted suicide
But besides the federal government doing something directly, it can also make the state do it
4. REVENUE SHARING—when the national government gives money to state and local governments. Recall in the New Deal, the states couldn’t handle the problems of the depression. The federal government began to share it’s money with the states, but this REALLY increased in the 1960’s and 1970’s. Fed. Govt. gives tax money to states and cities. citizensàcities, states, fed govt; fed govt.à state govt. and cities.
TODAY: varies by state and year, but roughly 25%. Cities: combined from Fed, state govt.: roughly 33%
GRANTS-IN-AID name for specific revenue sharing program (specific money for specific purpose). Usually just “federal grant.” TWO BASIC TYPES:
1. BLOCK grants (few or no restrictions) 1995 Crime bill-money to police departments
2. CATEGORICAL grants (many conditions/restrictions) e.g. 1995 Crime bill--money to hire police officers
SO WHY does revenue sharing increase federal power? categorical grants have SPENDING CONDITIONS—state can’t take money unless agree to them, and states can NOT afford not to take the money... e.g. Louisiana was the last state to hold out against raising the drinking age to 21 (tourism is a big part of New Orleans, especially the French Quarter and Bourbon Street/Mardi Gras), BUT highway funds in Louisiana are DESPARATELY needed.
SD v. Dole(1987) . -no highway funds unless 21 drinking age (1984) Sup. Crt said states are free to decline $ if they want.
-no highway funds unless 55 m.p.h. speed limit (repealed 1997)
-no highway funds unless .08 BAC (blood alcohol content) 2000
-no medicare/medicaid money unless state programs meets satisfaction of Dept. of Health and Human Services
***NEVER been a SINGLE example of ANY state that’s been able to hold out in the long run against ANY spending condition.
5. UNFUNDED MANDATES: Congress tells the states they have to do something, yet provides no money to help them do it. (because its politically and financially convenient for Congress). Examples:
-Americans with Disabilities Act--remodeling of state/local govt. bldgs.
-pollution controls (municipal drinking water purity) (Clean Water Drinking Act?)
-Motor Voter (voter registration at driver's license or welfare offices)
-No Child Left Behind (school testing and student performance requirements)
--Homeland Security (police, firefighter, hospital emergency response preparedness)
6. SUMMARY: TODAY
A. Federal Government ALMOST has the POLICE POWER (instead of enumerated powers) under COMMERCE CLAUSE
don’t need rest of enumerated powers in Art. I, sec. 8 because ALL HUMAN ACTIVITY AFFECTS THE ECONOMY
B. Supremacy clause—PRE-EMPTION (superseding of state laws) EITHER express OR IMPLIED... e.g. medical marijuana
C. Anything fed. govt. can’t do directly, it achieves by coercing states using CONDITIONS ON REVENUE SHARING, or by imposing unfunded mandates.
D. 10th Amendment essentially meaningless/useless today; Supreme Court has said the states have no legal protection in the Constitution from the national govt.; the ONLY thing that protects the states is the political process; i.e. if they have political support from the people or not.
***** What does all this
***EXAM 1 COVERAGE ENDS
***EXAM 2 COVERAGE BEGINS
Civil Liberties/Civil Rights Main text of the Constitution listed/enumerated the powers of the government (Article I, section 8). Most constitutions also have a Bill of Rights lists powers that government does NOT have; i.e., list of things people can do free from GOVERNMENT interference. LIMITS on government power. Bill of Rights applies only to GOVERNMENT, NOT TO PRIVATE individuals, business, schools, organizations, etc. –can kick anyone out of your house you want because you don’t like their beliefs, what they’re saying, etc. ***Because a Bill of Rights is limitations on GOVERNMENT, BoR DOES NOT APPLY TO PRIVATE ACTION (persons, business, private university, churches, etc.... You can kick anyone out of your home if you don’t like their opinion, their race, their religion, and it does NOT violate the Constitution. Also, legislatures are free to make laws that bar private discrimination (in education, employment, housing).
BIGGEST WEAKNESS of proposed Constitution was no BoR-- stumbling block to ratification of the constitution: Federalists didn’t want to open up the drafting process again, so they pushed for ratification AS IS without a BoR. This meant any BoR would have to be amendments.
BRUTUS No.2: A. ALL GOVERNMENT SHOULD HAVE BILL OF RIGHTS:
1.When social contract was formed, individuals didn’t surrender all of their “natural rights.”
2. Surrender of all rights is unnecessary for government to operate, AND
3. Reservation of rights needed to prevent against tendency of all rulers to abuse power for selfish gain by oppressing people
B. (Response to
His main argument: a Bill of rights is DANGEROUS, because listing some rights implies lack of other rights (i.e. Congress DID have power)
e.g. I say "you have a right to use blue or black pen on exams" directly implies you don’t have a right to use red pen.
Several states likely would NOT ratify w/o BoR, so Federalists reached a bargain/compromise with some (NOT ALL) of anti-federalists: Federalists promised that if anti-federalists supported ratifying the constitution, FIRST thing new U.S. government would do would be to send a proposed Bill of Rights to the states (as amendments). Even though ultimate votes in many states were razor-thin victories, enough anti-federalists were convinced to support the Constitution that Constitution was ratified (9/13). And even many of the states (VA, NY, NC, RI) listed in their ratification declarations certain basic rights of the people; especially the freedom of the press and a right of conscience (religious liberty).
RECALL that Amendments: (modification/revision) 2-step process, each step having two alternatives, so 4 different ways total:
1. Formal proposal: 2/3 Congress (both chambers) OR 2/3 States call single national convention which proposes amendment,
2. Ratification: ¾ states legislatures OR 3/4 states in separate, individual conventions approve the proposal.
Always used: 2/3 congress, then ¾ states. EXCEPT 21st Amendment (repeal of prohibition), which was 2/3 Congress, ¾ state Conventions
In 220 years, thousands of amendments proposed, only 27 amendments made it through process. ***AND, given 10 amendments were added by 1791, there have been only 17 amendments in over 200 years... Thus, amending the Constitution is a VERY politically difficult process. Recent failures: equal rights amendment, school prayer amendment, flag burning amendment, balanced budget amendment, campaign finance amendment, electoral college amendment.
17 rights were proposed by Madison (natural rights including right to revolt because power derived from people; strict separation of powers); Congress passed 12 (# constituents/representative; congressional pay); states approved 10 (arbitrary number): BILL OF RIGHTS (1791).
1st AMENDMENT: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." ***ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY FOR DEMOCRACY TO FUNCTION... Can’t have democracy without freedom of speech.
Most important right in a democracy—without ability to discuss public policy issues, or debate effectiveness of government leaders, citizenry can't make informed choices, and thus can't reasonably exercise right of vote. Can't self-govern if can’t discuss how you should be governed
2nd Amendment—“right to bear arms”—highly debated today; historical evidence highly mixed but consider the “Dissent of the Pennsylvania Minority” (who disagree with their state’s ratification of the U.S. Constitution because, among other things, it had no bill of rights, and proposed a bill of rights that included the following: “That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and their own state, or the United States, or for the purpose of killing game.” Supreme Court ruled it an individual right in 2008 case, D.C. v. Heller.
3rd Amendment—“no quartering
4th through 8th Amendments—rights of criminally accused/criminal suspects, which together make up the large majority of all the rights in the bill of rights. These includes right against unreasonable searches, seizures, right against self-incrimination, right to jury trial, right against cruel and unusual punishment. Why? Because one aspect of tyrannical governments is arbitrary arrest, imprisonment, torture, execution, etc. without charges, evidence, trials, etc. . . . THUS, all these rights are meant to protect ALL people, not just actual criminals... They protect the INNOCENT from having their privacy invaded, or being wrongly convicted of a crime. And these rights say they apply to “people” (all people within U.S. Territory), NOT just citizens.
9th Amendment Concern (ala
I.E. “PEOPLE HAVE OTHER RIGHTS (than Ams. 1-8); WE JUST HAVEN”T LISTED THEM ALL.”
BUT 9th Amendment has been interpreted as
Only handful of NON-listed rights, Supreme Court has said they exist in the 14th Amendement:
Am. Privileges and Immunities Clause: “No state shall make or enforce any law which
shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the
14th Am. Due Process Clause“nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law” FAMILIAL PRIVACY (limited to intimate decisions involving sex, procreation, childrearing, and heterosexual marriage, and the right to refuse unwanted medical treatment, including life-sustaining nutrition and hydration)—i.e. you can choose who and whether to marry, whether to have children (either have kids or not have kids using contraception or abortion) and then raise your kids as you want—private schools, subjects learned.—i.e. familial privacy; freedom of choice involving family matters —HIGHLY controversial—what is “privacy”? what does it include? Should it be narrower/broader than what Supreme Court has said? e,g, gay marriage?
10th AMENDMENT of Bill of Rights
(ratified 1791) said: "The powers
not delegated to the
BUT 10th Am. interpreted as having ALMOST NO substantive meaning, ALMOST NO substantive limitation against fed. govt.
ORIGINALLY Bill of Rights applied only to NATIONAL govt; 14th Amendment (1868) applied BoR to states (and all state sub-units) as well, although the Supreme Court didn’t actually do this until the middle of the 1900’s. Now, 14th Amendment “incorporates” most of Bill of Rights.
Freedom of SPEECH: Recall: most important right in a democracy because absolutely necessary for democracy to function...
Why free speech? Why is it something we want to protect?
1. DEMOCRACY—we’ve already seen, how can you govern yourselves unless you can discuss and debate policies. so Free speech is NECESSARY for democracy to function.
2. TRUTH—MARKETPLACE OF IDEAS; people “buy” correct or better ideas; can’t know if truth unless it competes freely
but this means you must allow “false” “bad” or “evil” ideas to compete, or else you can’t be sure that you’re “buying” the
better belief. i.e. can’t make fully informed choice without fully hearing both/all sides. E.g. can’t choose X unless you can fully and freely compare it to Y and Z. else it’s NOT a free decision. i.e. “choose” with only one choice is NOT a choice.
“I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” Francis M. Voltaire, French Philosopher, 1694-1778.
Outline of how the Supreme Court has interpreted and applied the First Amendment’s Free Speech Clause—absolute if read literally:
“Congress shall make NO law abridging the freedom of speech . . “ so what is freedom of speech?
TWO ways government can regulate speech:
A. METHOD of communication—Time, Place, and Manner regulations is easy—no loudspeakers at night in a residential; no nudity on broadcast TV during daytime (when children are probably watching); no yelling political speeches in university classrooms when class is in session. TPM regulations must be “reasonable” with exceptions that go beyond the scope of this course.
B. CONENT of communication--Difficult and Controversial: 1st Am. is worded in absolute, so how has Supreme Court addressed content?:
Can be viewed as concentric rings of protection:
1. strong protection: political and religious beliefs and opinions, no matter how hated, is highly protected core of free speech, almost absolute: “No such thing as a false idea.” (Gertz v. Welch). Govt. must show “compelling” or “necessary” reason to restrict.
2. intermediate protection—commercial speech, symbolic speech (conduct that communicates a message; like school dress codes the regulate your clothing, hair, jewelry; burning something in protest, wearing a colored armband). government must show “important” or “substantial” reason to restrict.
3. little or no protection—threats, advocacy of violence, fighting words, defamation, obscenity (extremely hard-core pornography).
why are these not protected? Because they all have little to communicate regarding “ideas.” hate speech can be prohibited ONLY if it’s also fighting words; vulgarity can’t be prohibited because it’s necessary to convey IDEAS themselves (e.g. depth of emotion involved).
As can be seen, CONTENT DISCRIMINATION (topic/subject matter) is sometimes allowed (depending on circumstances, such as government property (like prison, government workplace, building or even public school classroom), broadcast media, school assignments)
BUT VIEWPOINT DISCRIMINATION (view/position) is ALMOST NEVER ALLOWED
Example of Freedom of
Separation of Church and State: Also one of key foundations of American Government contained in First Amendment: minimizing involvement between government and religion. Notice: it’s not “no involvement” because that’s impossible: humans will vote, or exercise political leadership, etc. based on their religious beliefs. So a “total” separation of church and state is impossible.
First Amendment: “Congress shall make no law respecting an Establishment of Religion, or prohibiting the Free Exercise thereof.” Two sides of same coin: Government can not interfere with religion EITHER WAY: by prohibiting it, or requiring it. Basically establishes government neutrality towards religions.
Why minimize involvement between government and
religion? That is, Framers wanted to
separate church and state, but why?
Negative historical experience in
1. Protect minority religions and religious
believers—so majority religion can’t use government to oppress minority,
this leaves religious believers free to practice their own religion free from
coercion which would force them to violate their
religious conscience. – religious majorities had implemented laws that
discriminated, fined, imprisoned, or even killed religious minorities.
-e.g. Protecting religious minorities was view of Thomas Jefferson, and many others.
2. Protect religious people from each other—i.e.
prevent violent social conflict otherwise could lead to severe political divisiveness,
bigotry, and persecution between different factions, even if no
majority—sectarian differences fragment society and lead to civil war even
(like former Yugoslavia; Lebanon). no religious civil war, which might occur if
religious groups think they can use the power of government to establish their
religion over all “the unbelievers.”
- e.g. view of preventing religious civil war was view of James Madison—see his Memorial and Remonstrance
3. Protect religion in general from the corrupting influence of government—corrupt worldly influence from control by, or dependency on, government -e.g. view of Roger Williams, evangelical minister in mid 1600’s, but many others as well.
***In sum, avoiding government involvement with
religion is meant to PROTECT religion in general, religious minorities, and
religious believers in general; i.e. meant to PROTECT AND NURTURE RELIGIOUS
Overview: There is a currently a great deal of public
misunderstanding regarding the religious views of the founders of the
1. disestablishment The established Protestant Christian churches in the American colonies and very first state Constitutions were the Anglican Church, along with the Congregationalists (Puritans). A broad coalition of persecuted minority religious groups wanted disestablishment of any official religion so that they could have equal religious themselves. Thus, evangelical Protestants at the time (Presbyterians, Methodists, and especially Baptists, who were regularly beaten), Catholics (who were hated by most Protestants), Jews, Providentialists (believers in one god who guides and helps us in this life), and deists (believers in one god who does not get involved in human affairs until the afterlife) all joined together to support disestablishment. Providentialism and deism were relatively popular religions at the time, especially among the educated class. This coalition of minority religious groups wanted to remain united in their effort at disestablishment, so they tried to focus on their COMMON, SHARED religious beliefs:
--there is one god (the term for belief in one god is theism)
--moral goodness comes from and is defined by this god, such as principles of honesty, peace, caring, respect for elders, etc.
--this god is also on the side of liberty and democracy, not monarchy or tyranny
--that in the afterlife, this god will judge us (individually and collectively as nations) for our sins against what god is on the side of.
As this coalition of many different believers in god (pluralistic theism) became a majority and won political victories for disestablishment in the 1770’s, 80’s and 90’s, they changed their state constitutions to prohibit any religion from being the established state religion.
3. the Constitution: Similarly, there was quite a political struggle to
ratify the Constitution. It barely
passed. To gain as much support as
political support possible, the writers of the Constitution continued to apply
disestablishment principles by not connecting the
4. Public speeches by Presidents and official
NOTE this was not a “strict” separation of church and state, because it was permissible and expected that public officials would promote the COMMON, SHARED theistic religious beliefs listed above in an inclusive way, but that public officials should AVOID taking a position on which religion or religions or denominations among that broad theistic coalition was the “better” or “best” or “true” denomination or religion.
The entirety of
Best direct statement at the time: The 1797 Treaty
of Tripoli, part of the Barbary Treaties (Treaty of Peace and
Friendship) ratified unanimously by the U.S. Senate and signed by Pres. John
Adams in 1797, and published in major U.S. newspapers without any public
controversy says “. . .the government of the United States of America is not in
any sense founded on the Christian religion . . .” (italics added). And according to the
Note: One common reply by supporters of the “Christian Nation” argument is that the phrase “the separation of church and state” is not in the Constitution. But remember from our course so far: NONE of the key terms that define the U.S. national system of government are in the Constitution : neither the terms “checks and balances” nor “separation of powers” nor “bill of rights” nor “enumerated powers” nor “limited government” nor “federalism” nor “representative democracy” nor even the word “democracy” are found anywhere in the U.S. Constitution. There is not even a “right to vote” listed in the Constitution. These are all just shorthand terms used to describe the basic fundamental structures that were put into the Constitution.
Since our founding period, we as a nation have
continued this neutral theistic pluralism when we do connect the
The FIRST AMENDMENT and religious liberty today:
So what are your rights today? Basically (this is oversimplifying things a bit and there are some relatively minor exceptions), the Supreme Court currently rules that together the Free Exercise Clause and the Establishment Clause requires the government to be mostly neutral between different religions, and between religion and non-religion. So the Supreme Court has broadened the equality of religious liberty beyond mere theism, to include essentially any type of religious belief, or no belief at all. You can believe anything you want, and the only limitation on how you can practice your religion is that you must comply otherwise with religiously neutral laws (e.g. You can’t commit human sacrifice because that violations murder statutes).
Civil Rights—Freedom from ARBITRARY (unjustified) Discrimination; i.e. a right to equality
The government “discriminates” all the time in most policies and laws—e.g. only families with lower incomes qualify for government-provided student loans. People with more money are being “discriminated against” by government. Only more intelligent people are admitted as public university students, so less intelligent people are being “discriminated against” by government. Government hires the most qualified workers for jobs, so less qualified workers are being “discriminated against” by government. But the question is whether treating people differently is justified and reasonable or is it instead arbitrary and unjustified. Certain types of discrimination have historically been based on nothing more than irrational fears and prejudices, negative stereotypes, and bigotry and hatred. Among these types are race, sex, and sexual orientation.
RACE: Arguably the MOST IMPORTANT POLICY ISSUE IN AMERICAN HISTORY—1787 Constitutional convention, territorial expansion tensions, civil war, Jim Crow laws, civil rights movement, today: affirmative action, legislative redistricting; most of social welfare, education and criminal justice policy is entangled with issues relating to race.
Must understand background of Civil War: remember Congress did ban the international slave trade in 1808, which the Constitution allowed.
But, they didn’t want the number of slaves decrease, or else Southern whites would get less votes in the House of Representatives (remember: under the Constitution, each slave counted as 3/5 of a person) and free blacks would of course add political opposition to slavery. So most Southern states (all but SC and LA) made it ILLEGAL to educate your slaves, give them property, OR TO FREE THEM (call “manumission”); even forbidden for free blacks to own guns. So even if you WANTED to free your slaves and help them obtain financial independence by giving them money and educating them, you were FORBIDDEN BY LAW to do so. This kept political power and voting strength in the hands of Southern whites. Read Frederick Douglass’ Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass.
But slave states needed to
keep power in Congress to block attempts at restricting or abolishing slavery,
needed number of slave states to always equal number of
Compromise of 1850 (1850) –Texas Slave, California Free, New Mexico and Utah territories created but neutral on slavery, end slavery in D.C. but enact a Fugitive Slave Law which toughened enforcement of the Fugitive Slave Clause of the Constitution.
Kansas-Nebraska Act (1854)---With let each state decide; “Bleeding Kansas”
mini-civil war within
Dred Scott v. Sanford—(1856) slaves not citizens of U.S. or states; NOT PART OF SOCIAL CONTRACT.... states can’t make them citizens, slaves are "property" and fed government can't make them citizens and thus take away your property, so slaves can be brought into all states and territories. ***NO POLITICAL/LEGAL COMPROMISE IS POSSIBLE—SLAVERY MUST BE ALLOWED TO EXIST EVERYWHERE in U.S.; ACCELERATED CIVIL WAR ONSET, because no the ONLY way to stop slavery is by war. No other option possible. Generally agreed it’s the worst Supreme Court decision ever, because (a) said blacks are property, not humans, and (b) forced civil war to occur.
The North openly refused to recognize Dred Scott; didn’t allow slavery to spread to spread to territories; wouldn’t obey fugitive slave clause and refused to return escaped slaves; helped slaves escape through the “underground railroad.” The “abolition” movement to abolish slavery was gaining support in the North, and published newspapers, and elected officials who had anti-slavery views.
Tensions were very high
between the North and South, with the South already threatening to leave the
Southern states then seceded
and formed Confederate States of America by Feb. 1862, Southern states issued
“declarations of secession” justifying why the were seceding (leaving) the U.S.
They argued that the North had violated the South’s “constitutional rights” to
“property.” (i.e. slaves) —by outlawing slavery in territories, refusing to
return escaped slaves, trying to have slavery be abolished, helping slaves
escape (through the Underground Railroad), etc.
See the Southern Address (by Southern members of Congress), Jefferson Davis’ Farewell Address, State
Declarations of Secession (e.g. Texas Declaration of Secession: “We hold as
undeniable truths that the governments of the various States, and of the
confederacy itself, were established exclusively by the white race, for
themselves and their posterity . . . That in this free government all white men are and of right ought to be
entitled to equal civil and political rights”), CSA President Jefferson
Davis’s inaugural speech to the CSA Congress.
See perhaps most clearly, Confederate States of
“The new [Confederate] constitution has put
at rest, forever, all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar
institution -- African slavery as it exists amongst us -- the proper status of
the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late
rupture and present revolution. Jefferson in his forecast, had anticipated
this, as the "rock upon which the old
The Civil War began 1861. Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation
in 1863, which technically only freed slaves in “areas still in rebellion” by a
deadline; so it wouldn’t have freed slaves in border states (e.g. Kentucky,
Missouri) and not in any Southern States that surrendered by the deadline. But after the deadline came and went without
any Southern States surrendering,
See James McPherson’s Battle Cry of Freedom, or Ken Burns’ PBS video series, The Civil War.
Civil War was fought from
Amendment (1865): “Neither slavery not
involuntary servitude . . . shall exist within the
Then, South implemented “BLACK CODES” denying right to vote, and imposing harsher criminal sentences on blacks (why? white-only juries, white-only judges, with white-only witnesses allowed could convict any political activist). So, North passed 2 more Amendments.
14th Amendment (1868): “no state shall deny to any person the EQUAL PROTECTION of the laws.” ALMOST ALL modern constitutional civil rights flow from the Equal Protection CLAUSE.
15th Amendment (1870): “the right to vote shall not be denied on account of race”. Although seemingly redundant with the 14th Amendment, supporters argued it was better to be safe than sorry, given the Southern white’s past attempts at evading the Constitution.
THUS, 13, 14, 15th Ams. “Civil War Amendments” Almost all modern constitutional civil rights come from EP Clause of 14th Am.
Reconstruction 1866-1877—at first, North (through military
occupation) made states respect rights of former slaves through enforcement of
the 13, 14, and 15th Am..
They had to rebuild, or ”reconstruct” the South which had been
devastated from the war, but rebuilt not just physically but also politically
and legally. Because the now free black
population was so large, (1870 census:
entire South: 34%; MS: 55%, SC: 57%).
Then, without Northern enforcement of equality, Southern whites first needed to retake political power again—the only way they could do that, given that blacks had so many voters and representatives, was by stopping blacks from voting. But since they didn’t have the political power to do that legally, they turned to terrorism: KKK (Ku Klux Klan) and other para-military white supremacist groups murdered thousands of black leaders and political activists, or even citizens if they exercised their right to vote. Black votes dropped substantially, so voting whites were able to retake political power. So the Southern whites had retaken power through outvoting fearful blacks who were threatened, beaten, or even killed if they voted. And since the white plantation owners had mostly been given back their land, and the free blacks were given none, former slaves had to go back to work as sharecroppers, often on the very same plantations where they had been slaves.
Once whites took back political power in the South, they bypassed the 14th and 15th Amendments, through 1. segregation, and 2. voting discrimination. This solidified and perpetuated rule by white supremacy. This lasted for almost a century (until the 1960’s) when segregation and voting discrimination was finally outlawed.
1. VOTING DISCRIMATION: South Bypassed the 15th Amendment: SOUTH DENIED BLACKS THE RIGHT TO VOTE, by:
(a) violence—lynchings, beatings, arson to homes, etc, led by the KKK (Ku Klux Klan). scared blacks into not voting.
THEN once whites outvoted blacks and retook control, they made it legally difficult for blacks to vote:
a. poll taxes—had to pay a tax to vote (free blacks of course had been former slaves, so had no savings to pay. There had been a proposal to give each former slave 40 acres and a mule to become self-sufficient, but the plan was politically defeated, and the large plantations were given back to their white owners. Thus, free blacks were forced to be sharecroppers with little income, renting land from the very same whites who had been their former owners. White majority in the South either (a) didn’t care about poor whites, or (b) selectively enforced the poll tax only against blacks.
b. literacy tests—same enforcement as poll taxes. Remember law had made it a crime to give any education to slaves, so
free blacks could not yet read. For
those that could, different tests given to different races. Or, the test might
be VERY difficult to pass even for whites (e.g.
c. Grandfather Clause (
d. One-Race party Primaries: Democratic Party in the South refused to let blacks take part in any party conventions, nominations, or primary elections
e. racial GERRYMANDERING: manipulating voting district boundaries to maximize your chance of winning. I.e. redrawing legislative districts (after each census “reapportionment”) to (usually) dilute a voting group’s strength.
In other words, rigging the voting district boundaries so that you will win, and your opponent will lose (at least more likely).
South engaged in racial gerrymandering, e.g. splitting up concentrations of black voters into majority-white voting districts.
And note that besides these legal means, whites continued to use death threats, lynchings, and other violent terrorism continued against blacks if you tried to vote or become politically active.
After these voting discrimination laws and practices were implemented, there was NOT ONE black elected official in the entire South, and the voting rate by blacks plummeted to .2% (not two percent, but point-two-percent.) But slowly, these discriminatory laws were eliminated over the fierce objections by white southern governments and white southerners:
24th Amendment (1964): outlawed poll taxes
Voting Rights Act of 1965--outlawed literacy tests; 1982 Section 2 Amendments to the 1965 Voting Rights Act-- prohibits any practice or procedure (e.g. such as redistricting), regardless of intent, that results in voting discrimination. This had the effect of outlawing racial gerrymandering.
Note the end of the Civil War was 1865; the Voting Rights Act was 1965. So the South had 100 years after the Civil War of the continued rule of “white supremacy.”
But even then, as civil rights groups attempted to
get blacks to register and vote, whites resorted to terrorism: assasinations (Mississippi NAACP leader
Medgar Evers in 1963; 3 Mississippi freedom riders in 1963 (made into the film
“Mississippi Burning”); MLK Memphis
1968; bombings of black churches, one which killed several children in
Birmingham in ; firebombing of Greyhound bus that carried both whites and
blacks; thousands beaten by white citizens and/or white police.) So again, federal troops, federal agents from
the FBI, federal
2. Racial SEGREGATION: South bypassed the 14th Amendment: "Jim Crow" Laws (SEGREGATION) (legally forced physical separation/isolation) segregating whites and blacks in just about EVERY possible public place—neighborhoods, schools, restaurants, theatres, courtrooms, trains, busses, hospitals, hotels, churches, restrooms, water fountains, parks, swimming pools, beaches, the military, jails, prisons, cemeteries, even Bibles used to take oaths in court. And private businesses (shops, restaurants, etc.) segregated as well. Interracial daters were not only ostracized but often violently beaten; interracial marriage received a long prison term. White homeowners were forbidden by law from selling their homes to a “noncaucasion.” This is all VERY similar to what Germans did to Jews in the 1930’s; that is, up to the point where Germans began outright extermination of the Jews.
See the film “The Help” for a mild portrayal of segregation in Jackson, Missisippi at the start of the Civil Rights era.
See the Film “Something the Lord Made” for a portrayal of racial prejudice in general during this time.
This became the SEPARATE BUT EQUAL doctrine
DISSENT: Justice Harlan---“True intent and meaning” of civil war amendments would protect civil rights of freedom an citizenship, prohibits even "badges of slavery." “Our constitution is colorblind, and neither knows nor tolerates classes among citizens.”
In reality, the “equal” part of “separate but equal” was never anywhere near equal, but this fact was ignored by the Supreme Court for decades.
Eventually, in the late 1940’s and early 1950’s, the Supreme Court started to strictly enforce the “equal” part of “separate but equal”—requiring equal funding for school buildings, teacher salaries, textbooks, course offerings, lab supplies, busses, extracurricular activities, etc. But what of INTANGIBLE things that you can not put a numeric measure on?
Brown v. Board of Education (1954) (Brown I) Unanimous 9-0
8-year old black girl denied enrollment in
BUT Southern whites hated this ruling. They openly (AND VIOLENTLY) resisted it—Southern governors, legislatures, school boards, police departments, and judges all refused.
1957 Governor of Arkansas used state national guard troops (with guns.)
to stop black children from going to school.
So President Eisenhower had to send over 1,000 troops from the 101st
Airborne division and 10,000 national guard troops(.) to
1962, Governor of Mississippi refused to stop whites from violent
rioting (which included two deaths) against admission of first black student,
James Meredith, to University of Mississippi.
So President Kennedy had to send
White school districts did everything to avoid the
ruling—redraw attendance zones, tear down schools, build new schools in different
neighborhoods, or simply close entire school districts! (Like in
Martin Luther King “I Have a Dream” speech, 1963 was instantly recognized as being one of the greatest speeches in U.S. history, most historians and scholars consider this speech and his actions makes King a “founder” of the U.S. as much as Madison, Hamilton, Jefferson, etc.
Notice his metaphor is that “freedom and equality” was a “promissory note” but which is a “bad check” when blacks try to cash it, as it comes back “marked “’insufficient funds.’” I.e. the American Experiment in equality and freedom is STILL ongoing and trying to achieve its goals...
Korematsu v. U.S. 1944—Americans of Japanese ancestry and Japanese resident aliens were forced into “relocation centers” away from West coast (like NV, UT because of panic over sabotage for a possible Japanese invasion of the west coast. Half of the interned people were children. Barbed wire fences, guard towers, cramped group barracks, most in the middle of deserts with harsh winters and hot summers etc. Lost jobs, homes, everything. Japanese American challenged. Court said "military urgency" required deference to Congress and military, even though racial classification is subject to “highest scrutiny.” DISSENT: “concentration camps.”; blatantly racist and unconstitutional
*Fred Korematsu Born in
*Eventually, Civil Liberties Act of 1988: President Reagan signed, formal apology and $20,000 per person interned, for a total of $1.25 Billion.
Why tell you about this case? TheAmerican philosopher George Santayana (1863-1952) said: "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" (from "Life of Reason I"). So let’s remember, so that we won’t repeat it. See the film “The Siege” for a fictional more modern possibility.
***Today, 14th Amendment Equal Protection Clause prohibits almost all race discrimination by government—the government must show some COMPELLING reason—it’s necessary to treat people differently—e.g. affirmative action.
Congress also has outlawed many types of private discrimination:
A. Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (as amended) (42 USC sex. 2000) prohibits discrimination in places of public accommodation because of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. Places of public accommodation are businesses: shops, restaurants, hotels, movie theaters, etc.
B. Title VII prohibits racial discrimination in employment—e.g. hiring, promotion, wages. and prohibits “hostile work environment” because of a person’s race otherwise a business could just treat a person so badly until they quit, in a way to otherwise get around the law.
C. Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968 (Fair Housing Act), prohibits discrimination in the sale, rental, and financing of dwellings, based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, familial status (e.g. single unwed mothers, etc.), and handicap (disability).]]]
SEX discrimination— Historically, at time of constitution, women in general had fewer legal rights of men: couldn’t vote, serve on juries, have many professions—e.g. doctor, lawyer, judge, clergy, elected official, etc. Married women, however, basically lost their separate legal identity under "coverture." Wife's identity was "covered" by the husband, and thus couldn't contract, own property, inherit, even be held responsible for own torts or crimes—everything flowed to and from husband. He could even "discipline" wife as if a child. In practical legal effect, it was as if the wife was a child of the husband; the property of the husband, and couldn’t divorce him except under extreme abuse or extreme infidelity; even rape of your wife was not a crime (i.e. husband had a “right” to sexual relations with his wife). The loss of the women’s identify to her husband was symbolized by losing her family name and becoming merely “Mrs. Smith” (the wife of Smith.)
Unmarried women had more rights than married women, but not a lot:couldn’t vote, have many professions—e.g. doctor, lawyer, etc.
19th Amendment (1920): Women received the right to vote, BUT women still not fully social or legal equals: STILL prohibited from voting and from many professions, received much lower wages for same job, limited marriage and divorce rights, marital rape exception, etc.
Throughout 1960’s and 1970’s, Supreme Court started applying Equal Protection Clause to protect women, but the Court almost always upheld the different (lesser) treatment of women. Because of this, women’s rights groups worked to amend the Constitution:
EQUAL RIGHTS AMENDMENT:
Equality of Rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the
Section 2. The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
Section 3. This amendment shall take effect two years after the date of ratification.
It passed Congress in passed in the above form in 1972, but with a 7 year deadline. An extension was given, but it was not ratified by the necessary thirty-eight states by the July 1982 deadline. It was ratified by only thirty-five states. So the ERA never passed.
FACTS: Woman denied admission to all-male military college, Virginia Military Institute (VMI). VA said women couldn’t handle rigor.
Held: "exceedingly persuasive
justification" needed. Here,
alleged policy of diversity in higher education opportunities contrary to
history of state's intended exclusion of women from higher ed. Govt also says interest in maintaining unique
atmosphere of physical training, absence of privacy, and
"adversative" approach. No
evidence that women can't handle these if they want to. Separate women's
military college doesn't offer same atmosphere, prestige, resources, etc., so
women wouldn't have access to equal education. (
There’s not much sex discrimination that is allowed by law now—military combat positions, e.g. selective service registration, infantry, tank and submarine crews, different ages of sexual consent, abortion regulations, separate bathroom facilities, etc. Also limited gender affirmative action.
Congress has also outlawed PRIVATE Discrimination:
Title VII of Civil Rights Act of 1964 also now prohibits employment discrimination on the basis of sex (hiring, promotion, wages), including the prohibition of sexual harrassment, because it’s a hostile work environment that can force someone to quit, which would otherwise get around the law.
Title IX prohibits educational discrimination, which includes disparate sports teams ratios—e.g. teams, members, spending.]]]
3. ALL OTHER classes/categories of people: the law must be rationally/reasonably related to a legitimate/valid government purpose/interest ). ALMOST ALL laws survive minimal scrutiny.
*mental disability--(zoning ordinance
restricting home for mentally disabled not okay)
-most job and academic rewards based at least in part on mental ability . . .
*intelligence—public university admissions and government employment
*age-- (mandatory retirement age for state police okay) Mass. Brd. Of Retir’t v. Murgia (1976), voting, juries, alcohol, marry, drive, soc. sec.
*weight, strength—military, police, firefighters requirements for strength, weight, endurance
*wealth--school financing (San Antonio Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Rodriquez (1973)), medicaid, food stamps, most student loans, tax rates
Sexual orientation--Bowers v. Hardwick (1986) said states could criminalize homosexual sodomy (gay sex) (5-4 vote).
Romer v. Evans (1992) said state can’t eliminate gays and lesbians from protection of the laws.
Lawrence v. Texas (2003) Court overruled Bowers v. Hardwick (1986) and said “emerging understanding” that homosexual are entitled to some bask civil rights-to be free to engage in sexual or romantic relations between consenting adults of their choosing, free from it being made a crime. But used Due Process Clause, NOT Equal Protection Clause, so it’s an open question regarding the Equal Protection Clause—i.e. what about child custody? Adoption? Inheritance? Taxes? Health insurance? Housing discrimination? Employment discrimination? Marriage? Etc.
Private Discrimination: Not Congress, but Hundreds of Cities and many states
Psychologically, all forms of arbitrary discrimination are based on an irrational fear or misunderstanding of the unfamiliar or unknown:
Xenophobia, a Greek term, literally means “fear of strangers” but it is defined as “An irrational or unreasonable fear, distrust, or hatred of strangers, foreigners, or anything perceived as foreign or different.” Scientists have discovered at least three significant explanations for xenophobia:
1. Low Self-Esteem. Most commonly, a person with low or lacking self-esteem is able to manufacture a (false) sense of “self-esteem” by making a comparative judgment that “I am better than that other person and therefore I have self-worth.” This is comparative self-worth, rather than an absolute worth which would say “all people are equally valuable as human beings because we are human beings.” For example, white supremacists try to make themselves feel better about themselves by believing that other races are inferior. In fact, this was a primary argument in the American South during the U.S. Civil War to get non-slave-owning whites to fight for slavery: slavery meant that whites were “better than” blacks, and the ending of slavery would mean that poor whites were now “at the bottom” of the comparative worth scale. The solution here is to try to reach out to people who hate others and help them see that they do NOT need to hate others in order to feel good about themselves, and in fact they will feel better about themselves when they understand that ALL people EQUALLY have INHERENT worth as human beings. Of course there is no guarantee a prejudiced bigot will listen to you. All one can do is try.
2. Scapegoating. Often, people with problems, especially social problems like unemployment, look for “someone” or “something” to blame, and this often can translate into blaming some “group.” This is called “scapegoating” when you falsely blame an individual or group and assign them all the responsibility for some bad thing occurring, when they might have been only a small part, or none at all, of the cause.
3. Indoctrination. Also, many children are raised in families, neighborhoods, or communities (or even nations) where prejudicial stereotypes are taught. So children grow up to become adults who “hate” that “other” group (nationality, religion, race, sexuality, etc.) that is somehow different. It’s mere indoctrination, without any rational basis, but children grow up conforming to the surrounding social norms without questioning them.
See the film “American History X” for examples of all three of these.
CONGRESS (Article I)
Constitution establishes a bicameral (two-chamber) legislature called CONGRESS. (SENATE and HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES).
1. Major Differences in composition:
HOUSE: representation by population, minimum 1 per state, 435 total—2 year terms but no limit on number of term; 25 years old
populist institution (respond to will of people)
Federalist 52: House 2-year terms because constant elections will keep a close connection between representatives and the people.
SENATE: representation by states, 2 per state, total 100—6-year (staggered) terms but no limit on number of terms; 30 years old
:aristocratic (respond more to elites) ***Constitution originally had Senators elected by state legislatures; wanted Senate to be an aristocracy isolated from, and a check against, rapid changes in public mood; so elite chose the elite. 17th Amendment in 1913 changed to popular elections for Senators (as part of Progressive-era reforms which favored democratic participation)
Federalist 62: Senate 6-year terms because:
a. check against other chamber of legislature
b. check against people: long terms means representatives will be free from sudden, intense passions of factions (masses) in elections
c. good policy: long terms means experience in public policy and making laws, so better and wiser laws
d. govt. stability: long terms means stability in government, especially for relations with foreign governments
Aristocratic nature of Senate (moreso than House) is still true today.
2. Major differences in powers between House and Senate (Checks/ Balances; review CaB diagram in your notes):
HOUSE: a. originate bills that "raise revenues" (TAX) b/c will affect state proportionate to population
b. pass a bill of impeachment (of President, other executive officials, or federal judge)
SENATE – a. Try a case of impeachment (once House has accused federal official of wrongdoing by passing bill of impeachment)
takes 2/3 vote to convict (remove federal official from office)
b. -ratify treaties signed by president by 2/3 vote. President can negotiate, but doesn’t matter. EX:
c. -approve high-level executive nominees and federal judges nominated by the President by majority vote
3. Major powers in relation to other branches (two chambers together as CONGRESS; review history of federalism in your notes):
Article I, section 8: tax, spend, regulate commerce, raise and regulate military, necessary and proper laws
Today, Supreme Court has ALMOST given POLICE POWER to Congress through the Commerce Clause. 1 Sup. Crt. justice away.]]]
4. Functions (common to both House and Senate)
a. lawmaking-actually only function expressly listed in Constitution, but LEASE done; rest are inherent/implied or have developed.
b. investigation—inherent power in ANY legislature: learn what problems exist and their solutions, to make best laws
this is what Congress spends a majority of it’s time doing—e.g. post 9-11 investigations into EVERYTHING relating to 9-11
c. oversight of executive branch agencies—(subset of investigation, but done so much it’s treated as adifferent category)-- make sure the agencies are doing their job—making proper regulations, enforcing proper laws, spending money properly, etc.
d. client service/casework—help citizens with problems (usually with bureaucracy—e.g. social security check didn’t come) (this is most often what legislative staff does, sometimes more than all other legislative functions put together, because good PR and gets votes.)
5. Organization Congress is 535 people, needs to run smoothly/efficiently, so two structures (internal organizations) that help coordinate:
b. political party organization i.e. Dem/Rep: Why? someone needs to coordinate functioning of House and Senate, and parties have arranged these, even though no mention in Constitution of parties. Party in charge of a chamber controls what procedure regarding which bills are voted on, how long the debate is on those bills, committee assignments, etc. There are dozens of party positions, but here are some of the main party leadership positions:
House: Speaker of the House: position created by Constitution. LOTS of power in House.
Majority Leader: elected by the House members from the political party with the most seats in the House
Minority Leader: elected by the House members from the political party in the House minority
Senate: President Constitution says V.P is president of Senate, but Constitution says Senate should choose:.
President Pro Tempore : Temporary President in the V.P.’s Absence (chosen by majority party).
little power, but Constitution says VP of U.S. decides vote if tie in Senate, but ties are rare.
Majority Leader: elected by Senate members from the political party with the most seats in the Senate; LOTS of power in Senate.
Minority Leader: elected by Senate members from the party in the Senate minority
(Presidential Chain-of-Command: Pres., VP, Speaker of the House, President pro Tempore, then Cabinet Secretaries in order of Dept’s creation.)
a. Committee structure: Constitution doesn’t mention, but VAST MAJORITY of work of Congress is done here
—investigation, oversight, drafting, etc.
i. Standing Committees and subcommittees:
permanent committees in EACH of the House and Senate based on policy
areas—like education, health care, foreign policy, energy, the environment,
etc. Since 2 chambers, duplicate committees)— created on first day of first
Congress in 1789. Why? (1) efficiency (delegate workload and spread
workload around) and (2) they allow policy expertise in a policy area (which
also is efficient and more effective). They become top
subcommittees committees are subdivided into subcommittees, also based on policy area. Again, efficient and effective.
EX: Committee on Energy might have subcommittees on Oil, Natural Gas, Nuclear, Solar, Coal, etc.
Legislative (Lawmaking) Process (How a Bill becomes a Law) (How a Law is Made) (see flowchart) (SUPER-CONDENSED VERSION...)
BIG FLOWCHART ON BOARD
BILL (proposed law) Introduced (sponsored) by Legislator in either House or Senateàassigned committeeà assigned subcommitteeà investigated, amended and voted on in subcommitteeà investigated, amended and voted on in committee, conclusions and recommendations sent to full chamberàamended and voted on in full chamberà sent to other chamber (same process repeats.)à [conference committee (if H&S version not identical) then back to H&S for yes/no vote]àpresidentà law if signs or if veto, back to H&Sà law if 2/3 override in H&S.
THREATS to veto are common, actualVETOS UNCOMMON, OVERRIDES of vetoes are RARE. If no veto or signature in ten days, automatically becomes law UNLESS Congressional term expires, then NOT law =POCKET VETO .
One other thing worth noting: in the House, 435 people, so speakers and debate have STRICT and short time limits. BUT Senate has NO limits.
Filibuster—Senator continues to speak in order to block vote on
legislation. Rarely done; threat is more
common. Southern Senators tried to
filibuster Civil Rights legislation in the 1960’s. Watch the classic Jimmy Stewart Movie, Mr.
Smith goes to
*** Only a tiny handful of bills ever make it through this process to become law. Vast majority die in committee. Also, both parties use procedural technicalities all the time that are part of parliamentary procedure to stall or block legislation.
Practically ALL modern scholars who study Congress and who observe what it’s members do agree that the #1 priority of members of Congress, which takes priority over EVERYTHING else, is getting RE-ELECTED. Why? Without that, you can’t get help the public by making laws, you can’t get fame, power, prestige, money, etc. Everything flows from actually being a member of Congress, so STAYING one is TOP priority.
This means EVERYTHING a member of Congress does takes getting re-elected in mind: public speaking, news interviews, news events, mailings, advertising, client service, taking popular stands on issue and avoiding controversial stands. ESPECIALLY SPENDING MONEY... AND provide benefits under “entitlement” programs—Social Security, Medicare, etc. Thus, the budget ALMOST NEVER gets cut, and lawmakers of BOTH parties continue to support bigger, more complex federal government (despite what they say). AND PORK BARREL spending (money allocated to a specific voting district, rather than as part of a general spending program across the country)
e.g Federal Helium Reserve
(for military blimps), in
PRESIDENT (Article II)
What is the President? Primary, individual elected
leader of the
HOW chosen? ELECTORAL COLLEGE; Almost all elected leaders in the
How removed? IMPEACHMENT: for “treason, bribery, or other high crimes
and misdemeanors” serious crime OR abuse
of power, or neglect of duty (e.g. do nothing but play golf all the time).
House majority passes bill of impeachment, Senate tries case of impeachment,
2/3 vote convicts (removes from office).
Basically, it’s a political definition, not a legal one, of any serious wrongdoing. So for example, Pres. Bill Clinton was
“impeached” by the House (the House made an allegation of wrongdoing), but the
Senate did not convict him in the trial they conducted of those allegations, so
What are the president's powers? (Article II)
1. executive: a. administrative chief (nominate head of cabinet depts. and ind. agencies) over fed. gov. agencies, hiring, property,
b. commander-in-chief of the military—civilian always in charge of military (framers feared strong military—almost didn’t have one)
chief ambassador-- main representative of
SO, to help these 3 executive roles, president can:
(i) nominate top administrators, civilian leaders of military, and ambassadors; AND
(ii). issue “EXECUTIVE ORDERS” relating to management of personnel and property (e.g. aff. action, national parks), military policy (e.g. troop, ship, plane locations), and foreign relations.
2. legislative: propose laws, veto laws, call Congress into special session, required to inform Congress of “state of the union” (originally a mere formality, but now in the age of mass media, it’s been turned into a huge public relations media event).
3. judicial: a. nominate federal judges, which many people argue is the most powerful power by the president, because supreme court rulings can affect the basic structure and powers of government, as well as the rights of the people, for decades or even centuries.
b. pardon persons of FEDERAL crimes, EX: Pres. Ford pardoned former Pres. Nixon.
How much power was president EXPECTED to have?
Anti-Federalist (Cato) (and BRUTUS)—President would be King: power to veto laws, as commander in chief, and to pardon crimes would let president use military to take over, pardon criminals who supported him, and block (veto) legislatures from stopping him.
Federalist 70 (
--Don’t want weak PLURAL EXECUTIVE (council/committee/group);
rather a UNITARY EXECUTIVE (one person): unity, duration (4 years), power (can act quickly and decisively)
--unity would allow president to engage in decision, activity, secrecy, and dispatch (haste) rather than disputes, gridlock, info leaks, and delay
--unity also allows both blame and accountability (know exactly who to give blame or reward to), unlike a council would
*** the actual, full extent of the constitutional power of the president is one of the great yet-unanswered questions of our constitution.
How much actual, real power DOES the president today have in practice?
Foreign policy: lots: commander-in-chief of military, also
President establishes official
Domestic Policy: very little. Congress makes laws, not the president. Federal Reserve has big influence over the economy. All president can do is ask other institutions like Congress to do things like change taxes, health care, education, etc.
A near total consensus among Presidential scholars today, that the president has little real power acting individually; what the president must do is PERSUADE others (Congress, U.S. public, other world leaders, UN) to go along. SO what makes a president persuasive? POPULARITY.
So, What is the source of the President's popularity? Presidential APPROVAL/POPULARITY:
***1. ECONOMY: HIGH correlation, even though LITTLE-TO-NO influence over economy... (Like sitting in a rowboat on the pacific ocean) Human nature wants to assign responsibility (blame or reward), rather than accepting as complex, or that it “just happens.”
2. RALLY-ROUND-THE-FLAG EFFECT (National tragedies or crisis—e.g. WAR: Bush Sr. around 90 just as Gulf War won; WTC/pentagon attack, Bush Jr. above 90% within days after attack—record high for ANY president since measured.)
3. HONEYMOON PERIOD (first 100 days after take office)—people (even opposition) give new pres. benefit of doubt; “wait & see”
Thus, this period is key for a president to pass laws the president wants—100 days to pass president’s agenda.
NOTE: SCANDALS unpredictable. Sometimes devastating (Nixon & Watergate), sometimes little to no effect (Clinton & Lewinsky)
****EXAM 2 Coverage ends***
***FINAL EXAM COVERAGE BEGINS
BUREAUCRACY: people that administer the functions of an organization (either govt. like UL or private corp. like MacDonalds)
Federal Bureaucracy: Congress creates and funds programs (
FUNCTION/PURPOSE: (WHY have?)--Congress DELEGATES some of their lawmaking powers and responsibilities to agencies--efficiency, expertise, avoid political accountability. So what is the extent of the power delegated?
Organization of executive branch (President is only the tip of the iceburg.)
President, Vice President, Executive Office of the President: direct support staff for President (advisors, office help, etc.)
15 CABINET departments—MAJOR departments organized by policy area, (Ag. Commerce. Defense, Educ., Energy, HHS, HUD, Interior, Justice, Labor, State, Transp. Treasury, VA, Office of Homeland Security) heads (secretaries) appointed by Pres/senate confirms.
AND Hundreds of "independent agencies” nominated by president and confirmed by Congress for a FIXED term in office, or appointed by bipartisan commissions (EPA, FBI, CIA, EEOC, FCC, Federal Reserve Board, NASA, OSHA, SEC, FAA, IRS, FEC, NTSB, NLRB and government corporations--Postal Service, Amtrack) Congress/Press thought important to keep these somewhat free from politics
-e.g. Federal Reserve Board main agency for managing
President directs, but only few top positions appointed--rest of 3 Million are CIVIL SERVICE: NOT elected, not appointed, but instead hired by qualifications, fired only if incompetent. EX: post office, social security office, etc.
Power: 1. IMPLEMENT Congressional statutes at their discretion (within Congressional statutory authorization and direction of President)
EX: IRS implements tax rates sets by Congress, collects taxes, makes sure people pay, etc.
2. Make ADMINISTRATIVE RULES/REGULATIONS which have force of LAW (e.g. EPA rules; IRS tax regulations, NTSB train and auto safety, OSHA safety guidelines, FAA airport and airplane security—no knife blades, boxcutters, etc.)
BUT limits to this power because (a) Congressional laws override regulations; (b) president can direct (c) judicial oversight/review.
And USSC says ONLY if Congress has CLEARLY defined the scope of the agency authority (i.e. what rules it can make).
MODERN EVALUATIONS: LOTS of debate about bigger v. smaller government, more efficient government, etc.
1. BENEFITS: Pro: HELP PEOPLE: medicare, medicaid, social security, student loans, food stamps, unemployment comp, disability.
Con: WASTE, FRAUD, ABUSE—doesn’t solve problems; people abuse + commit fraud, unneeded (crop subsidies), can’t afford.
2. REGULATIONS: Pro: HEALTH AND SAFETY: consumer products, transportation safety, environmental cleanliness, workplace safety.
Cons: A. Excessively BURDENSOME—complex, confusing, costly for businesses (EPA, OSHA); hinders productivity, profits.
JUDICIAL BRANCH (Article III) Basic function/purpose: Interpret laws; i.e. resolve disputes over laws, such as U.S. Constitution.
(Federal Judiciary)” What does the Constitution say about Federal Courts?
A. REQUIRES ALL fed. judges nominated by pres., confirmed by Senate, serve during “good behavior” (which means life terms; i.e. until you die or retire) UNLESS IMPEACHED for “bad” behavior: serious crimes, bribery/corruption, abuse of power, neglect of duty
B. Gives fed. courts jurisdiction only over FEDERAL LAW (statutes, treaties, Const., regulations) (except “diversity” jurisdiction)
C. Creates SUPREME COURT, but gives Congress power to create federal courts other than SUPREME COURT. So . . .
ORGANIZATION of Federal Courts: (What system has Congress created?)
Federal District Courts—trial courts, minimum one per state, geographic area, 91 total,
Federal Circuit Courts of Appeal— appeals from Dist. Crts, geographic jurisdiction. of several states, 11 + DC
Supreme Court over almost all cases appealed to it (Fed Crts.
App AND State Sup. Crts IF FED. Law involved).
e.g. 2000 Presidential election,
>7,000 cases/yr; accept about <100. USSC’s own rule, for Supreme Court to hear appeal, 4/9 justices must agree to hear it.
Handful ORIGINAL JURISDICTION, listed in Constitution—e.g disputes between states, dispute between states and foreign governments, etc
How does the Supreme Court decide its cases?
9 justices (arbitrary odd number so no ties), majority vote decides.
1. Under separation of powers, all courts INTERPRET laws. Not that controversial. BUT what IS controversial is #2:
2. Power of JUDICIAL REVIEW: power to declare actions by other branches of government void if they conflict with the Constitution. Judicial Review is NOT listed in constitution, but USSC said in Marbury v. Madison (1809) IS a logical inference, implied by the Supremacy Clause and fact that Supreme Court applies the Constitution. Judicial Review is basically giving courts power to make sure government doesn’t violate social contract with people. Today, ALL U.S. courts have power.
Debate between Federalists and Anti-federalists surrounding Court was over the power of judicial review: (a new concept at the time.)
Federalist 78: (
1. Supreme Court is “LEAST DANGEROUS BRANCH”. Why? no power of the purse (like Congress); no power of sword (like President).
EX: USSC ruled in favor of Cherokee Indians in lawsuit to prevent government from taking their land; Pres. Jackson refused to enforce it.
EX: USSC ruled
Federalist 81 (
Brutus responds: 1. With life terms and no review of Court’s judicial review, Court will impose own interp. of law and be unstoppable. 2. Impeachment is useless check, because it applies to criminal wrongdoing (federal judges serve during “GOOD BEHAVIOR.”)
was accurate; only a handful of federal judges have ever been impeached (less
than 10 in the entire history of the
EX: 2000 presidential Election, Bush v. Gore—half of country was furious with the supreme court for deciding the election, but nothing happened to them.
How is judicial review today? 2 main views how judicial review should be exercised: (what the proper ROLE of judges/courts should be):
Judicial Activism: judicial review frequent, because courts should ensure justice and fairness, if arguable violation of Constitution.
Justice is more important than following the exact letter of the law; should be no hesitation to use judicial review.
Judicial review is simply enforcement of the terms of our social contract (the Constitution). It makes sure our elected leaders act within the limits of their powers and do not abuse power.
Judicial Restraint: judicial review rare, because courts should uphold democratically-made laws unless blatant violation of Const.;
i.e. should be used rarely, avoided if at all possible, and thus used only when absolutely necessary, as a last resort.
Role of courts is to interpret laws, NOT make laws. Activism is “judicial legislation” and antidemocratic because it overturns the decisions of the democratically elected branches of government, who represent the will of the people.
Counter-arg: it IS the role of USSC to enforce the BoR and Const., enacted by the democratic majority, against majority tyranny.
1. Activism is increasing in past decades by BOTH liberals and conservatives judges.
2. ONLY WAY for Congress to override Supreme Court’s exercise of judicial review would be
(a) amend Constitution—always threatened, but almost never done—recall, only 17 amendments in over 200 years (since BoR)
(b) impeach judges—almost never done—less than 10 federal judges EVER impeached in history, because of serious crime.
THEREFORE Supreme Court can do what it wants, and no one can stop them. EX: Brown v. Board of Education; Roe v. Wade; 2000 Pres. Election—1/2 country was OUTRAGED, but no amendments, no impeachment.
Modern Evaluations of the Supreme Court: (What factors influence judges when they vote (including judicial review.)
Political science studies show clear, consistent evidence that USSC votes based on political ideology (liberal-conservative) and judicial philosophy (activism-restraint). Note there are at least two different ideologies and two different judicial philosophies, which means judges can be any one of at least four different combinations (e.g. make 2-by-2 table and see). Thus, there is no necessary logical connection between any particular political ideology and any particular judicial philosophy.
Disputed, unclear, inconsistent, or minimal evidence that Supreme Court reacts to Congress, Pres, Public opinion, interest groups, or other factors.
POLITICAL BEHAVIOR How people act/behave within a political system (within the constraints of the social contract)
***DRAWING: Socializationàopinionizationà participationàrepresentation.
SOCIALIZATION (the learning process by which people acquire beliefs): ALL human learning is socialization; here political socialization.
Agents of (Political) Socialization –that is, sources of information/influence. (family, peers, religion, historical events, life cycle, education, media) how they socialize you is by giving you information. But what about OPINIONS, INTERESTS, VALUES???
Parents: raise you to be conservative, most likely you’ll be conservative. Raises you to be liberal, most likely you’ll be liberal. And most likely what your mother teaches you, rather than your father.
Friends: “Chicken and egg” question: Do you like people who agree with you, or do you decide to agree with the people you like. Probably a little of both: you seek out like-minded individuals, and then those friends reinforce your beliefs.
Religion: family and
location where you’re born largely determines your religion: E.g. If you’re born in
BUT CONSISTENT evidence found regarding life cycle, education, and media:
Life cycle: marry, kids, career and income, house and mortgageà conservativism (more at stake in community, want to preserve those interestsàwant safety, stability, securityàlaw and order, lower taxes, to preserve family and wealth
Education age < 14: (elementary school) blind, unquestioning patriotism and obedience to authority (parents, teachers, ministers, police, govt. leaders, etc.) i.e. you don’t question them, you love your country and you obey authority. NO questioning or criticism.
age > 14: (high school, + especially college) more education = more liberal. why? 2 views (no clear answer):
a. Liberals claim: enlightenment: political awareness, sophistication and tolerance (which makes one more liberal).
b. Conservatives claim: indoctrination by liberal college faculty (70+ % of social science faculty are liberal)
Social sciences and humanities are where politics would be discussed more, not physics, math, etc.
Media: ***BIGGEST Agent of Socialization. continues throughout adult life Ideal role in Democracy?:
A. "Mirror" role: mirror reality (“all the news that’s fit to print”) pass on bare facts, without imposing any subjective interpretation
---Just facts; no commentary, opinions, analysis, editorializing, etc.; like a mirror doesn’t tell you whether you’re looking good or bad, healthy or sick, it just shows you what you look like, and you judge your own appearance.
B. "Watchdog" role: investigative journalism, keep eye on politicians/govt., act as safeguard of public liberty against corruption/abuse
also political commentators/analysts fulfull this role. like another “check” in the system of “checks and balances.”
This is the dominant philosophical view of the media by our founders and the Supreme Court and 1st Amendment.
--facts + opinions
PROBLEM: one person’s watchdog role is another person’s political bias. Bias affects not only HOW you cover news, but WHAT news you cover. EX: MSNBC liberal, FOX conservative. Vastly different stories covered, and vast difference in how the same stories are covered.
THUS, in any media outlet, you’re getting a HIGHLY incomplete, and possibly very biased, version of the news. Thus, the only way to get a more accurate, complete version of the news is from a large VARIETY of news sources, from differing political biases, and from both inside and outside the U.S. (like the CBC or BBC).
What do people think and believe: The nature of our political opinions, beliefs, and attitudes.
PUBLIC OPINION: Preferences of adult population on matters relating to govt. and politics; NOT entertainment, sports, consumer products.
OPINION POLL/SURVEY measures public opinion. Common examples: pres approval, pre-election predictions, exit polls, etc.
Political Parties, Candidates, interest groups use. SO: How can you know if you can trust the results?
A. Sample: group you
measure (asked questions). Must be RANDOM
Otherwise, biased sample (e.g. women, wealthy, younger,
B. Question Wording NO perfect way to word poll question—best you can try as best as you can: simple, clear, UNBIASED.
e.g. abortion: “right to control our own bodies” v. “right to murder unborn babies”; “health care issue”” or “health care crisis”
Ideology –TOTAL SET OF POLITICAL BELIEFS (the sum of all your opinions), not necessarily having consistent underlying principles, but often they do, and many people would argue one’s political opinions should have consistent underlying principles.
1. Traditional (mistaken and incomplete) view of ideology: a ONE-dimensional “left-right” ideological spectrum only, something like:
Very Liberal ---------Liberal-----------Moderate/”Middle-of-the-Road” --------Conservative--------Very Conservative
The terms “left” or “left-wing” are often used for liberalism, and “right” or “right-wing” are often used for conservatism, because in the 1700’s in England, the liberal party was seated in the left wing of the chamber of the English Parliament, and the conservative party was seated in the right wing of the same chamber. The slang terms stuck. Thus:
Left-wing ideology = liberalism (the primary
Right-wing ideology =conservatism
(the primary conservative, right-wing
BUT really there are TWO dimensions of political ideology:
1. personal/idividual/moral/social liberty: i.e. what is the proper role of government in regulating our personal moral decisions?
2. Economic liberty: i.e. what is the proper role of government in regularing our economic decisions and relationships?
So what do the general labels “liberal” and “conservative” mean?
NOTE: these labels are mere stereotypes that grossly oversimplify things, but here is what journalists and politicians and citizens usually mean when they use the general terms “liberal” or “conservative”:
LIBERALS generall DO favor moral liberty but do NOT favor economic liberty. In other words, liberals generally do NOT want government to regulate issues of personal morality, but DO want government involvement in the economic issues and thus enforcement of social and economic equality (both equality of opportunity and equality of result through taxation and redistribution of wealth).
CONSERVATIVES are the opposite of liberals: they generally do NOT favor moral liberty, but DO favor economic liberty. In other words, conservatives generally DO want the government to regulate issues of personal morality but do NOT want government regulation of economic issues: they favor a “free-market” economy and equality of opportunity but NOT government-forced equality of result (e.g. redistribution of wealth).
E.g: COMPARE common examples of both personal and economic issues:
personal liberty: E.G. Flag burning, pornography, abortion, euthanasia and doctor assisted suicide, drugs, gays and lesbian rights
Liberals generally want little or no government regulation of these issues; but conservatives do.
economic liberty: minimum wage, working hours, workplace safety, the environment, taxes, social welfare, affirmative action
Conservatives generally want little or no government regulation of these issues, but liberals do
NOTE there ARE issue exceptions that don’t fit this pattern—e.g. guns: liberals want heavy government regulation of individual gun ownship, but conservatives want little government regulation of individual gun ownership .
AND many individuals don’t fit these molds. These are just the GENERAL policy positions of “liberalism” and “conservatism.”
2. BUT: There is a MUCH more complete and accurate understanding of ideology: Ideology is really TWO dimensions:
a. liberty that variously goes by the terms of personal/individual/social/moral (one can either favor or disfavor this liberty)
b. economic liberty (one can either favor or disfavor this liberty)
3. This means there are FOUR possible basic political ideologies (2 x 2 combinations plus a fifth in the middle):
a. left-liberalism (from the root word “liber” which meant “free” in ancient Greek) is what we traditionally know as “liberalism” (also “progressivism” from the root word “progress.”): liberals/progressives want wants government regulation of economic issues, which includes some redistribution of wealth, and the elimination of all forms of discrimination, so as to achieve what they call “social (or economic) justice.” But they want little government regulation of personal morality. The extreme form of left-liberalism is called socialism/communism/Marxism, which believes there should be no such thing as “private property”; instead everything should be owned in common by the people (that is, the government) and government should decide all wages, prices, type and number of goods produced, etc.) but yet people should be allowed total freedom to do what one chooses in matters of personal morality.
Political parties: Left-liberal ideology: Democratic Party. Socialist-leaning ideology: Green Party, Socialist Worker’s Party.
b. right-conservativism (from the root word “conserve” meaning “preserve” or “safeguard”) is what we traditionally know as “conservatism”: conservatives want government to preserve traditional moral order, but want little government regulation of economic issues, which econmically is know as capitalism or “free market” economics. There is no general term for the extreme form of right-conserviativsm, although one type of extreme form is theocracy (rule by religious leaders), which argues there should be no such thing as “rights” when it comes to personal morality because we should follow god’s commandments regarding what is right and wrong; another extreme type is laissez faire economics, which argues there should be absolutely no government regulation of economic issues. There is no general term for the extreme form of right-conservatism because one can support theocracy without laissez faire economics, or one can support laissez faire economics without a theocracy.
Political Parties: Right-conservative ideology: Republican Party. Far-right-leaning ideology: Constitution Party
c. libertarianism (from the root word “liberty” meaning freedom) wants little government regulation of either personal or economic issues; generally all they want is a police force and military to prevent violence against persons or property, and just enough taxes to pay for that those things, but that is all government should do. Another term often used for libertarianism is individualism, because the individual’s choices should almost always outweigh what society acting through government wants to tell the individual what to do. The extreme form of libertarianism is anarchism, which argues NO government should exist whatsover; to anarchists the term “legitimate government” is an oxymoron, as being ruled by others (even by a democratic majority) is simply a lesser degree of slavery than direct “ownership” by a master.
Political Parties: Libertarian ideology: Libertarian Party. Anarchist ideology: there are no political parties that represent an anarchist ideology, because they do not believe any form of government is legitimate, and forming a political party to work within any political system would be implicitly recognizing the legitimacy that political system.
d. The fourth ideology, which is the opposite of the libertarian ideology, unfortunately goes by a variety of names because no generally-agreed upon term has yet been adopted by people who believe in this ideology. The most common terms used by its believers are communitarianism, although many other terms might be used instead.. This ideology believes the collective rights and interests of the community (the majority of people) should outweigh the rights of individuals, in both economic and moral issues. Or, if the interests of the “nation” overrules individual rights, it is called nationalism. The extreme form of communitarianism and nationalism is fascism, which worships the government and “people” over any contrary individuals that would go against it. Fascism is also known as nazism, because “Nazi” was the short term for the political party of Adolf Hitler (the National Socialist Party, or “Natzionalsocialismus” party). “The state is a means to an end. Its end lies in the preservation and advancement of a community of physically and psychically identical homogeneous creatures.” Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf [in other words, any physical or psychological “differences” in people must be eliminated; thus “individual rights” do not exist].
Political parties: Communitarianism: One sub-group of the Reform Party; Fascism: American Nazi Party.
e. Centrism (from the root word “center” meaning “middle”) is placed in-between the other ideologies. Centrism generally supports a mixture or balance between individual freedoms, a free market econmy, but also “reasonable” government regulations of personal and economic issues. This ideology has also been called pragmatism, from the word “pragmatic” meaning “practical,” which takes a flexible “whatever works” approach to policy issues, rather than adopting rigid ideological stands on issues of either personal or economic issues. Because centrism is by definition a “middle-of-the-road” ideology, there is no extreme form of it.
Political Parties: Centrism: One sub-group of the Reform Party; the Natural Law Party.
4. Note that each ideology is driven by what it sees as the HIGHEST Goal of government:
left-liberalism: creating social and economic justice
right-conservatism: fostering personal morality
libertarianism: preserving liberty and freedom
communitarianism: establishing order in society
centrism: achieving practical solutions (that is, a balance of freedom and order in both personal and economic issues).
Concepts that cut across or transcend ideology:
5. Patriotism can exist with any of the ideologies; patriotism simply means “love of country.” But patriotism is like the love of a parent for a child; it encourages good behavior but recognizes, acknowledges, and corrects bad or unhealthy behavior. Too many people unfortunately confuse patriotism with nationalism, which is a quasi-religious blind worship of the “nation” which usually then includes a blind, unquestioning obedience to the government and government officials. Thus, to a true patriot, criticism of government leaders or government policy shows a great love of country, because it is like a parent using “tough love” to discipline a misbehaving child. A nationalist, on the other hand, cannot tolerate criticism of government leaders or government policies, because to the nationalist, that is akin to criticizing god (who is never wrong). So a nationalist will use the slogan “Love it or leave it” but the patriot can respond with “Love it by improving it” or “Improve it or lose it.”
6. View of human nature:
a. Idealism or Utopianism: ONLY anarchism assumes people are inherently good or at least NOT dangerous, or have the POTENTIAL to be non-dangerous if properly educated, and can all voluntarily live in peaceful harmony and co-existence, and thus no government is (or will ultimately be) needed to control them or to impose any moral or economic order. This may or may not be correct, but this theory is usually referred to as an “idealistic” or “utopian” view of human nature.
b. Realism: ALL ideologies and philosophies of government other than anarchism ASSUME PEOPLE ARE EITHER INHERENTLY BAD OR AT LEAST DANGEROUS; that is, people are irrational, driven by petty instincts, easily manipulated, etc. This is usually called a “realistic” view of human nature. Thus, government is needed to control people, to impose order (either personal moral order or economic justice and order). Thus, the question becomes what “order” is necessary; i.e., what morality/ethics/virtue should (must) be imposed on citizens by government. Ideally, believers in all the various ideologies would argue that morality should be TAUGHT through education so that government can have an easier time governing; that is, the fewer people who act non-morally, the easier time government will have imposing order on the few remaining non-ethical people. But whether morality is taught first or imposed later, the question of “what is moral/ethical/virtuous” thus necessarily becomes of the highest importance.
7. Since the question of morality/ethics is so important, what are the possible answers to that question?
A. Fixed moral absolutes (universalism): moral truths true everywhere at all time, for all people.
iv. absolutism or dogmatism is the extreme form of universalism: an absolute, uncompromising belief, usually without adequate evidence or consideration, and most importantly, not admitting to the slightest possibility of being even partly mistaken There are certain “fundamental” truths, and the opposition is not just totally wrong, but therefore evil and must be eliminated. A person can be libertarian, left-liberal, right-conservative, communitarian, or their extreme versions and not be dogmatic about it, but absolutists tend to be extremist in their ideology: E.g. militant anarchists, militant communists, or militant fascists; religious cults or religious fundamentalists that want to impose theocracy: e.g. Islamic fundamentalism, Christian fundamentalism, Jewish fundamentalism, etc.: NOTE that a person can be deeply religious, but still be open to the possibility that someone who disagrees might possess part (or even all) of the actual truth, so being deeply religious is NOT the same thing as religious fundamentalism. Example of fascist dogmatism: “I considered it my special duty to extract from the extensive but vague contents of a general world view the ideas which were essential and give them a more or less dogmatic form . . .” Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf
B. moral relativism: all morality is arbitrary. Again, considered in detail by philosophy courses in ethics, but main alternatives are:
ii. nihilism (amoralism) is the extreme form of moral relativism: because all morality is arbitrary, there is no such thing as “morality” (“a-moralism” means “no-moralism”) and there’s nothing worth believing in (“Nihilism” comes from Latin “nihil” meaning “nothing” so “nihilism” basically means “nothing-ism.” In it’s mild form, nihilism would be apathy or indifference towards questions of morality, ethics, ideology. A stronger form of nihilism would result in a belief that existence is futile and meaningless. At the extreme, nihilism would display even outright hostility to society’s attempts to create and impose morality: the institutions of government, religion, education, and even the family should be destroyed. Best modern example: hard-core versions of punk rock movement (which is NOT to say that all punk-rock fans are nihilists).
Note that A nihilist could masquerade as one of the other ideologies, simply for his or her own selfish gain (financial or political). This is what many people have suggested about Hitler, that he was a nihilist that used fascism to manipulate the masses for his own personal glorification.
Also note that if you do NOT believe these questions of ideology, ethics, and morality are important, or do not believe that these questions should guide our lives, then you are in fact a nihilist... It may be a mild form of nihilism, but it is still leaning towards nihilism.
NOTE 1: A person can be a libertarian, left-liberal, right-conservative, or communitarian, while adopting any of the forms of universalism or relativism. In other words, believing either universalism or relativism does not lead every such believer to adopt the same ideology. For example, even people of the same religion can disagree about which ideology their religion requires them to adopt. As merely one example, there are Christian individuals and groups that are left-liberal, right-conservative, libertarian, communitarian, centrist, and even anarchist or fascist.
NOTE 2. A person can strongly believe individual people should ideally act with certain standards of personal morality or with certain standards in economic relationships (or both) without believing that it is government’s role to require people to live up to those standards. For example, a person can be deeply religious, intensely believing their god asks and expects and commands individuals to strictly follow standards of personal and economic conduct, but yet also believe their god also wants everyone to voluntary choose whether or not to live by those standards through a decision of their own free will without any coercion by government. So, as merely one example, a person could be deeply religious, yet be an anarchist.
8. The question of “who rules” is separate from ideology and virtue; I.E. a democracy could be based on a libertarian, left-liberal, right-conservative, or communitarian ideology. Or, an elite group (aristocracy or oligarchy) or an individual (monarchy or even a dictatorship) could enact laws based on any of the ideologies as well. So, whether power/rule is in the hands of one, a few, or the many, the laws enacted will depend on the conception of virtue/right-and-wrong/ideology held by that one, few, or many that are in charge.
Knowledge of politics: VERY low percent e.g. <50% can name Vice President, <10% can name Chief Justice of U.S. Supreme Court.
Interest of politics: VERY low percent
Efficacy (internal and external): how effective one feels in influencing government (can they “make a difference” if tried): low
Trust in political institutions: was high <1963, then JFK, RFK, MLK, Malcom X, Warren Commission, Vietnam, Watergate; low since that era; BUT BOOST after 9-11-2001.
Tolerance-- willingness to grant basic civil liberties to people whose views you dislike or even hate. HIGH in abstract (80-90%)
BUT LOW in practice—e.g. let make speech, work as teacher, have book in library, etc.: Citizens: LOW: 33%
Conventional participation: political activity that lawfully uses the existing democratic system (working within the accepted democratic process). Active: join political party, join interest group, vote, write letter to editor, contact representative, work on a campaigns, engage in community activities, lobbying, etc. Passive: follow political news.
Conformity and OBEDIENCE:
Unconventional behavior:--work external to political system--challenging/defying existing political institutions/processes/systems/structures:
Why? feel alienated from politics and society, no sense of external efficacy in political system, so need to go outside system
Peaceful: Civil Disobedience: intentional but peaceful, nonviolent resistance/disobedience to a law (extreme form: Pacifism—violence should never be used, even in self defense or to resist violence against innocent people) e.g. Buddha, Jesus, Gandhi)
(You do NOT resist arrest or punishment for breaking the law)-Gandhi SEE THE MOVIE
E.G. Henry David Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1849) (refused to pay taxes and was jailed)
Civil Rights Movement: Martin Luther King: Letter from Birmingham Jail (1963) marched against discrimination and was jailed
Rights Movement began when Rosa Parks refused to yield seat to a white person
on a bus in
Violent: Terrorism. (US.: OK city bombing, anti-abortion, IRA, WTC
attack, Palestinians against
United States Department of Defense: the "calculated use of unlawful violence to inculcate fear; intended to coerce or intimidate governments or societies in pursuit of goals that are generally political, religious, or ideological."
yet, too much obedience can cause a huge problem. Example:
Obedience and conformity: To what degree do people blindly obey authority for no reason other than that an authority figure says they should do something?
1. Degree of obedience:
Stanley Milgram 1960-63 "Obedience to Authority" Told subjects they were testing the effect of
negative stimulus (a shock) on memory retention of a learner in the room on the
other side of the wall. Every time the “learner” got a wrong answer, the
“teacher” was to give a higher level electrical shock to the learner. The voltage dial said “Danger: Severe Shock”
at 375 volts. The learner actor began to
cry out at 150 volts “Experiment. Let me
out of here.” I won’t be in the
experiment anymore. I refuse to go
on.” At 180 volts “I can’t stand the
pain.” AT 300 volts, after an agonizing
scream, he shouted he would no longer answer the questions. At 315 volts, there was just an agonizing
scream. After 330 volts, there was
silence from him (no scream, which indicated he was either unconscious or
dead.) The experimenter simply told the
teacher “The experiment must continue.”
The earliest anyone stopped was at 300 volts, and 65% went all the way
to 450 volts. All around the world this
was repeated, with similar or higher results.
2. Why such a high degree of obedience? Debated for thousands of years: evolution? Created by god with free will but a sinful nature? Merely bad upbringing? Nature or nurture, or both? Regardless why we’re this way, humans are in general dangerous to each other!
3. But what if you point out to people their harmful behavior (harmful obedience or conformity)?
Psychological principle: “cognitive dissonance” (mental disharmony) created whenever we have two inconsistent, conflicting beliefs.
1. “I’m a good person.” Or 1. I’m a smart person.
2. “My behavior is bad.” 2. My behavior is foolish.
This creates cognitive dissonance: mental disharmony. There are two alternatives to avoid cognitive dissonance: Change one’s behavior, or change one’s belief that the behavior is bad. Which is easier? Behavioral studies show most people simply change their belief that there behavior is bad into their behavior is okay or even good!. If a person changes their behavior, they still must suffer several negative consequences: Guilt over harm caused by their behavior in the past, embarassment, humiliation, and loss of self esteem for engaging in the bad behavior, and loss of the benefit of that behavior (e.g physical pleasure, psychological security, a lavish lifestyle, etc.) BUT, If one gives up the belief the behavior is bad, there is NO negative consequence. So, one simply changes one’s belief that the behavior is bad, through many possible easily-made rationalizations. “I’m not hurting anyone” or “I’m not hurting anyone but myself” or “It’s my right to do that” or “It’s really not that bad” or “you’re exaggerating the risk” or “other people don’t think it’s bad” or “everyone else does it” or “my leaders say its okay” etc. etc., etc. This rationalization reduces or eliminates cognitive dissonance. This helps explain why the German people went along with Nazism and its oppression of Jews, or why Southern Whites enslaved and then segregated African Americans, etc.
Participation: JOIN PARTIES Ideology often
but not always leads to joining a particular political party. Often there’s a political need for a party to
get support, so it appeals to a group—says it will support a group, if the
group supports it in return.
Historically, there have been 4 key divisions within societies. Why important to know? B/c STILL huge basis
of political party differences today all around the world AND
a. ethnicity: center-periphery (dominant v. minority ethnic group)
b. religion: church-state (religion v. religion, religion v. nonreligion)
c. geography: Land-industry (rural v. urban, region v. region)
d. socio-economic class: owners-workers (business v. unions, rich v. poor)
Catholics, Jews evangelical protestants
Urban centers suburbs, rural areas
Unions business owners/execs
Working class upper class
2 PARTY SYSTEM—All other democracies have a multi-party (more than two-party) system. WHY do we have only 2 major political parties?
History of 3P: single issue/leader (e.g. Reform Party, Ross Perot); other 2 parties "steal" platform. Why 2-party monopoly (i.e. DUOPOLY):
1. MAINLY "winner-take-all" elections, (single member districts with plurality winner) in Congress, states, localities, UNLIKE Proportional Representation (PR): (multi-member district with at-large representatives) Almost every other democracy gives representation by % of vote: most established democracies, all former Soviet states, recently freed South Africa, even Japan and New Zealand adopted recently (1993) Mixed system: England, Germany (half parliament by individual district, half by PR) "Mixed Member System"
Participation : Join SPECIAL INTEREST GROUPS tries to influence public policy —i.e. influence law by supporting parties or candidates but do NOT provide candidates for political office themselves (that’s what political parties do). Also, whereas political parties adopt and fight for policies across a broad range of issues, special interest groups focus their efforts on one narrow policy area (hence the term, a “special” interest).
A few of the biggest/most powerful interest groups:
1. American Association for Retired Persons—AARP –-about 40 million members;
2. National Rifle Association—NRA—about 4 million members.
3. Labor unions (National Education Association (NEA)—3 million members; AFSCME (state and local govt. workers 1.4 million)
4. Umbrella business organizations (U.S. Chamber of Commerce—official 300,000 business, but also 3 million local members of local and state Chambers of Commerce.
Participation: VOTING in ELECTIONS
HISTORY of VOTING RIGHTS Late 1700's: only white property-owning males could vote. I.E. it was a democracy in name, but a plutocracy in practice. We’ve already looked at how right to vote was expanded first to non-property-owning white males, then to black males, then to women in general. ALSO: 26th Amendment (1971) 18-year-olds. So, almost none of you (if any) could legally vote when the Constitution was first adopted. So understand that most people take the right to vote for granted; don’t realize long, difficult political battles to gain the right.
HOW do people vote? (Voting Determinants)
Presidential Elections: A.***Party (biggest determinant by far--usually core of 37-43 percent for each party)
B. Swing voters (remaining 20% undecided voters):
1. Most swing voters are unsophisticated (i.e. don’t compare multiple issue positions): ***Economy ("right track") "retrospective voting"—verdict on peace and prosperity ***most often the deciding determinant in Pres elections, unless there's some other BIG crisis or scandal like WWII, Vietnam, Watergate, or Iran Hostage Crisis, EVEN THOUGH ALMOST NO INFLUENCE BY PRESIDENT ON ECONOMY. Like a president in a rowboat on the ocean, claiming credit for calm sea (but denying blame when the sea is rough).
HOW MUCH DO PEOPLE PARTICIPATE:
Conventional Participation: levels ***VERY LOW in
Voting Turnout: (whether to vote): Most common method of participation, and so most commonly studied by political scientists. Relatively low turnout compared to most industrial democracies.
Presidential elections: LOW in
MUCH less in other elections—midterm 40%, primaries 30%, state/local <20%, some local elections are less than 10% (e.g. local judge election)
***WHY care? b/c if democracy is rule by people, but most people aren’t voting, then it’s rule by a relatively elite few, which is oligarchy. Of adult voters, if half vote, and half who vote pick the winning candidate, then only 1/4 or less of the adult population is picking our leaders.
Q: So WHY is VOTING turnout so low? Education in U.S has increased, voting rights extended to all citizens, but STILL low.
And lower compared to most democracies, especially much lower compared to most European democracies. Why?
Obstacles unique to U.S.: no requirement to vote, polling on workdays, polls close too soon, polls close in East before West, primary outcomes often pre-decided, registration is a hassle, no mail-in ballot option, too many elections (state, local, national, primaries, etc.); 2-party system limits choices/no clear differences, 2 parties “race to the middle” toward MEDIAN VOTER so no real choice, divided government in our separation of powers weakens clear accountability
Q: But why is ALL
Political Participation Low? (BESIDES the unique
Americans USED TO
participate a lot by joining groups. Memberships down: fraternal orgs (Kiwanis, elks, moose), MOST church
membership, labor unions, volunteer associations, bowling leagues, bridge clubs
even political participation like voting, parties. Why not anymore? AND education and income have increased in
Robert Putnam: Bowling Alone (2000): "Social capital"= feelings of personal connection to your community; i.e. social trust/connection/involvement with other people that encourages cooperation for mutual benefit. This is developed by group activities, because you build a personal connection to, stake in, the community.: if I TRUST you'll do your part, and I care about you, then I'm more likely to do my part (even feel it as a duty) which reduce collective action/free rider problem. SOCIAL capital has declined in last 100 years. WHY??? Best Explanation: technological transformation of leisure ALMOST ALL leisure activities of 100 years ago, and other aspects of society, are less inter-personal today—that is, they involve MUCH less person-to-person human interaction...
Old Form New
neighborhood park drive to state park
Neighborhood bar drive to bar/nightclub
Town square news TV, radio
Meet to chat e-mail and internet chat
Neighborhood restaurant fast-food, drive-thru, home delivery
Go to local concert buy, listen to CD
Go to play/theatre watch movies, watch TV, rent videos
Watch/play sports watch on TV
Outdoor exercise home exercise machines
Interactive games computer/video games
Walk to corner store drive to distant mall, shop on internet
Sit on Front porch no front porch, inside air-conditioning
Drive in open buggy sit inside sealed window air-conditioned car.
Go to local bank ATM machine
Live in same town relocate often
Work in same town commute to work in other town
Work in office Work from home via computer
Technologyà lack of personal interactionàlack of trust/personal connection/"social capital"àlack of social/political participation
Thus, technology brings enormous benefits, BUT at enormous costs as well . . . How fix the problem? No simple or easy solution . . . And thus the big question: Can democracy survive the continued growth of technology?. Do the costs outweigh the benefits? Should be all go back to pre-industrial technology? Like the Amish have maintained? Movie: The Village?
The point is, technology brings us great benefits in medicine, communication, transportation, etc. BUT at a GREAT COST. (See also Neal Postman, Amusing Ourselves to Death). Is technology more harmful than beneficial.?
REPRESENTATION—what are RESULTS of participation, especially ELECTIONS?
ELECTIONS: Function in representative democracy: elect leaders to enact voter-preferred policies (which confers legitimacy on govt.)
This should be obvious—no one is going to vote for someone who they think is going to do the opposite of what you want.
BUT Congressional policy (laws) match preferences of public only about 2/3 of time. (i.e. 1/3 is NOT what public wants.) WHY NOT 100%?
1. Represenatives have different views of Representation i.e. what their proper role is as a representative. (Data: )
DELEGATE: act as represented wants, regardless whether in their best interest or not. Arrogant to presume know better than public.
TRUSTEE: act in interest of represented, regardless of what they want. Irresponsible to do what you know is mistake/bad/wrong.
POLITICO: sometimes one, sometimes the other. Do what public wants, unless REALLY bad/wrong. MOST politicians.
2. In party primary elections, where
the parties pick their own candidates who will late compete against other
parties’ candidates in the final general election, voters tend to be die-hard party
members, more extreme ideologues than general public. So in the general election, you tend to have
a very liberal Democrat candidate versus a very conservative Republican
candidate; thus whoever gets elected, they are out-of-the-mainstream, and so
will tend to support policies a majority of the public is against. Classic example: March 2005, Republican Congress and Pres. Bush
got involved to stop the withdrawal of a feeding tube from a permanently
comatose women in
3. Interest groups: most of your campaign money comes not from ordinary citizen-voters, but from big donors like interest groups. So you’ll tend to vote in favor of where the money comes from, because without big money, you can’t get re-elected.
What influences floor vote? On what do legislators base their votes?
Kingdon: "How did you go about making up your mind on the ____ bill? Percent of legislators who mentioned ____ as influential:
1. Colleagues in Congress 40%
2. Voting Constituency 37%
3. Interest Groups 31%
4. Presidential Administration 25%
5. Party Leaders in Congress 10%]]]
4. DIVIDED GOVERNMENT (Divided Party Government)— RECALL: candidate-centered, not party-centered campaigns. If so, then statistically, we’d expect near randomness in party control of House, Senate, and Pres. Thus, ½ * ½ * ½ = 1/8 of time we would expected unified government. (In fact vast majority of last 40 years have been divided government). But if President and Congress (one or both chambers) controlled by different parties, who do you blame? Thus, lack of accountability. (And both parties know this, so allows them to play the blame game and avoid accountability.) e.g. national debt. Each party blames the other, Congress and Pres. blame each other, when BOTH Democrats and Republicans, Presidents and Congresses have ALL been equally responsible.
5. INCUMBENT ADVANTAGE—Incumbent is person already elected and serving in office, running for re-election (in a democracy).
Incumbents always have a big advantage. WHY?
a. ***campaign contributions BIGGEST FACTOR:
FEC 2004 Congressional campaign data: Incumbents: 1.1 Billion, challengers; 160 million. 7 times advantage.
Why? Already proven winner, and can already directly influence public policy; large majority of $ from industry PACS
Most political scientists who have done studies on the financing of campaigns say money is the number #1 influence in winning an election—whichever candidate has more money, usually wins. So if you have the money, you can ignore what voters want, because all you have to do to win is outspend your opponent. Thus, winning elections is ALL about money and nothing but money.
2000 elections: spending under 500:000 odds zero. under 1 million, odds were 24:1. 1-1.5 M odds 15:1. Over 1.5 million, still 3:1.
b. name recognition—obviously, they have been in the news for several years (.e.g. Eddie Murphy in The Distinguished Gentleman).
c. media coverage--free, and can manufacture it by granting interviews, having press conferences, announcing law proposals, etc.
There are other advantages (such as gaining support from doing favors for voters) but money is the biggest one by far.
SOLUTION TO INCUMBENT ADVANTAGE: TERM LIMITS? (by law, limit elected officials to number of terms in office)
Both sides in favor and against term limits want same goal: prevent corruption, abuse of power, and poor representation by legislators. BUT two sides differ whether term limits would be the solution or the cause of corruption and abuse of power, and poor representation. But, U.S. Supreme Court has ruled term limits would violate the Constitution, because no limit is put on the terms. So amendment would be needed.
What has our Congressional representation—i.e. the political ambitions and policies of Congress--resulted in?
THE NATIONAL DEBT (NOTE: these figures are changing so rapidly (in a bad way) that these class notes can not constantly keep up with the worsening figures, so keep in mind current financial figures are worse than what you are reading.)
WHAT is it?
Deficit is amount budget is short in a given year; i.e. you spend more than you take in as revenue.
Debt is cumulative total debt owed (i.e total of current and all past deficits). Always been a little debt, it got bigger during WWII and then wasn’t so much a problem until 1980’s. Currently over 16 trillion dollars, and rapidly rising (by more than a trillion per year).
Who owns the debt?: --4 trillion held by “public” i.e. citizens,
but mostly big businesses, domestic and foreign investors (big
trillion held by
WHERE does the debt come
from? Congress and
Presidents want to get re-elected. This means promising NEW and HIGHER benefits
in social welfare programs while at the same time NOT raising taxes or even
CUTTING taxes—which means always more borrowing and more debt is needed.
Entitlement programs—Social Security and Medicare—pay out far more benefits
than they take in through tax revenues.
AND military spending: since 2004,
WHY is the debt problem getting worse?
BUDGET: 1. Entitlement programs: social security, Medicare, Medicaid) about 50% of the annual federal budget. UNFUNDED liabilities in coming decades, according to Boards of Trustees of Social Security and Medicare—over 100 Trillion.
How bad is the problem? Currently 100% debt-to-GDP ratio.
Congressional Budget Office estimates: 768% debt-to GDP in future if nothing done to fix social security and medicare.
What if we can’t afford the interest payments anymore? As the debt increases, more and more of the federal budget MUST go to pay the interest on the debt. At some point, problem will get so bad, interest payments will threaten to take up entire budget. Possible solutions:
Default/declare bankruptcy. Government can NOT just ignore the interest
payments; this would mean the government would default on it’s loans; and
--This is what some South American countries did in 1970’s—e.g.
2. Print currency: print TRILLIONS of dollars of new money to pay the debt. Problem: If you add more money, then inflation of prices occurs. Print off LOTS more money, and hyperinflation occurs. EVERTHING costs a lot more, and quickly costs more. Businesses can’t afford to raise wages to match, but then no one can buy much of anything, so many businesses go bankrupt, millions lose their jobs.
EX: --American Revolutionary War, Continental Congress printed so much money; the Continental Dollar became worthless.
Confederate States of
AND can’t just fix wages and prices, as people and merchants realize the money is worthless, they’ll turn to OTHER nation’s currencies (Pound, Yen, Euro, Yuan, Swiss Frank), or precious metals, thereby spiraling the existing money into worthlessness; also severe shortages result—e.g. everyone tries to buy all of a store’s food supply before the price increases.
CURE: re-value the currency; declare old currency worthless, and start over with new bills with limited supply. Lots of people—anyone with the old money-- loses out big-time this way! You still have economic depression.
3. MUCH higher taxes OR BIG spending cuts OR BOTH. This is called AUSTERITY. But much higher taxes and big spending cuts will cripple the economy—imagine all your taxes are doubled at the same time social security, medicare, and defense payments are cut in half—that’s a whole lot of people with far less income. So again, MASSIVE economic problem—maybe even another Great Depression.
4.*** The BEST (least bad) solution is to do something NOW rather than put it off. BUT Congress refuses because it wants to get re-elected, so it won’t raise taxes or cut spending. So basically, the current generation is enjoying all this borrowing and spending, and sticking the next generation with the big problem.
When will this reach a crisis? Even experts aren’t sure, BUT it’s starting to look really bad in the next 10-20 years, as the Baby Boom generation retires and so the costs of Social Security and Medicare start going way higher. And the problem will accelerate as the U.S. government has a harder time borrowing, the interest it pays will have to be higher in order to get people, banks, or nations to loan it money, and thus interest payments will increase, which means we’ll have to borrow more to pay that interest, and a negative feedback loop will thus be created. This is called a debt spiral.
What are possible SOLUTIONs?
1. BALANCED BUDGET AMENDMENT to the U.S. Constitution would require Congress to balance the annual budget. BUT Balanced budget amendment to the U.S. Constitution passed in the House but failed in the Senate in 1997. This goes against re-election chances.
2. Short of a balanced budget amendment, Congress could cap borrowing as a percent of the economy—e.g cap debt at 20% of the economy. But again, this would handcuff politicians who want re-election.
3. Reform current spending programs:
a. Entitlement programs: Social Security and Medicare-make them means tested, raise the retirement, lower benefits, trust funds held.
Defense Spending—cut costly and obsolete programs, nuclear triad; defense of
BUT these are all politically dangerous for any candidate or official to support. The public and elected officials want benefits and re-election NOW; so leave it for someone else to deal with when it reaches a crisis proportion.
So the current generations are enjoying all this borrowing and spending, and sticking the next generations with a massive problem, because a majority of people and politicians at the moment refuse to deal with the problem.
WHEN YOU BOIL IT ALL DOWN:
4 most common views of power in
1. Democratic Pluralism: Robert Dahl: Who
Governs? Policy made by different groups that dominate each policy area
(e.g. loggers and environmentalists decide national forest policy) BUT no ONE group dominates MANY
or ALL policy areas. Thus, diverse
people and interests govern.—ala
AND basic rights of minorities are protected against majority decisions of the majority, because majority isn’t always right/good.
If aliens from outer space came down and asked? "The American Creed" "Habits of the Heart"—Alexis de Tocqueville]
All things we’ve looked at during the semester:
1. Democracy (self government) with popular sovereignty—elections, majority rule
2. Limited Government--Separation of Powers, Checks and Balances, Federalism, Enumerated Powers, Sep. of Church and State
3. Pluralism (diversity of groups)--Ethnic, religious, economic, regional, etc.
4. Equality (of opportunity) (both political and economic)—Equal Protection Clause
5. Freedom/Liberty --Bill of Rights
2. Majoritarianism: policy made by majority: universal participation, political equality (of vote), majority rule. Over the long enough time period, the majority eventually gets its way (e.g. first slavery, but then the end of slavery; women’s rights, etc.).
3. ELITISM: policy is made by a few individuals or organizations that make up a relatively small percent of the overall population, because of either wealth/power/interest/motivation. Thus, on paper, in theory we’re a democracy, but in reality we’re an OLIGARCHY. (rule by elite few) and actually a PLUTOCRACY (rule by wealthy)—e.g. big corporations, wealthy individuals, government leaders, political party leaders, large and powerful interest groups.
a. Elitism (negative view): C. Wright Mills, The Power Elite: Elitism is a bad (democracy is good, oligarchy is bad). Why? because government policy either neglects or oppresses the masses. But more than just that . . .
1. political participants are elites: --older, educated, high income people (formerly white males) more involved in politics.
65-74 voting turnout twice that of 24-35; advanced or professional degree three times that of high school;
2. elites in public choose elites representatives—again, Congress 2000: 40% lawyers and 25% millionaires, and
2000: House 86% white, Senate 97% white, House 85% Men, Senate 97% Men.
2002 Half of 62 entering Members of Congress were millionaires, compared with less than 1% of population.
I.e. white male millionaire lawyers
3. elite representatives guarantee their own lock on power: 2-party system, incumbent advantage.
4. policy enacted by representatives favors elites—lower tax rates on rich, corporate subsidies, low wages for workers, etc.
V.O. Key, The Responsible Electorate, American public is competent to participate in politics—they manage to reach meaningful decisions
Thus, we are oligarchic-plutocratic-democratic hybrid.
b. ELITISM (positive view): Thomas Dye and Harmon Zeigler: The Irony of Democracy; Walter Lippmann, the Phantom Public (The American public is incompetent to participate in politics—no interest, awareness, tolerance, etc.) classical political philosophy: Plato’s Republic; Socrates, Aristotle only “the best” (i.e. the wisest) are fit to rule:
Yes, Elitism exists but it is GOOD that our nation is run by elites (that is, is an oligarchy).
WHY?, because the MASSES of common, ordinary citizens are politically unaware, uninterested, uninvolved, intolerant, uneducated,etc. The are INCAPABLE of governing themselves, and don’t bother to do it even if they could, and we don’t want ignorant, uneducated masses to rule.
however, elites ARE politically aware, interested, involved, tolerant, educated
etc. Thus, they rule our nation much
better than the masses could or do. In
other words, elites are caretakers of the
Note that elections are an aristocratic institution: we vote for “the best” to govern. This presumes some are “better” rulers than others. Otherwise, democratic rulers would be chosen by lottery. e.g. like jury service is a civic duty for all today; Ancient Athens, Greece democracy: all free male adults were selected by lottery to govern in the Senate.
Thus, we are an aristocratic-democratic hybrid.
Note: this view that elitism is good is
controversial, and relatively few people adopt this view. BUT it has a long
history—Alexander Hamilton and some few other framers of the Constitution did
not trust the masses;
***If both forms of elitism are partially correct, then our nation is an aristocratic-oligarchic- plutocratic-democratic hybrid..
Also note that the framers of the Constitution intentionally created what is called a “mixed regime.” Where elements of different types of regimes are blended together:
Rule by one (Autocracy): the President
Rule by a few (Oligarchy/aristocracy): the U.S. Senate (remember the U.S. Senate was originally appointed by state legislatures)
Rule by many (Democracy): U.S. House of Representatives
Also recall the lawmaking process for federal laws:
House + Senate + President = Law
So then, one could argue that in
Democracy + Oligarchy + Autocracy = Law.
The point is that our system is not 100% anything, it is a mixture of many different types of political rule.
So the American Experiment is
not only ongoing, it will ALWAYS remain ongoing as long as there is a
***Don’t forget the final exam is partly cumulative! See the final exam review guide for details. J