Unit #4 Readings Video Essay

timer Asked: Dec 26th, 2018
account_balance_wallet $20

Question description

Refer to the sections on Political Socialization (pages 136 to 141) and the Video about "What is Democracy?" Breaking It Down with Robert Brem Part 2 (Links to an external site.)Links to an external site.Breaking It Down with Robert Brem Part 2. Now: Reflect upon your own process of political socialization and agents of socialization in your life.

  • What agents have been most influential in shaping your core political beliefs and specific attitudes regarding politics?
  • What do you think is the appropriate size and role of government in 21st century society?
  • Explain your answer and remember to reference the material in the course reader, video, and text book. Answer all questions utilizing “in-text citation” style (e.g. author, year, page).

Democracy in 21st Century America: Government and Politics in the United States Robert J. Brem College of Alameda Politics & Psychology CSU East Bay Public Affairs & Political Science Megan M. Sweeney City College of San Francisco Political Science Fall 2018 (V3) With Assistance from: Sherry Luong, Tatiana Da Silva, and Rouel Dichoso The cause of America is in a great measure the cause of all human kind. Many circumstances hath, and will arise, which are not local, but universal, and through which the principles of all Lovers of human kind are affected, and in the Event of which, their Affections are interested. The laying a Country desolate with Fire and Sword, declaring War against the natural rights of all human kind, and extirpating the Defenders thereof from the Face of the Earth, is the Concern of every person to whom Nature hath given the Power of feeling; of which Class, regardless of Party Censure, is the Author. …Who the Author of this Production is, is wholly …is the doctrine itself (and) the influence of reason and principle. The sun never shined on a cause of greater worth: 'Tis not the affair of a city, a country, a province, or a kingdom, but of a continent; of at least one eighth part of the habitable globe. 'Tis not the concern of a day, a year, or an age; posterity are virtually involved in the contest, and will be more or less affected, even to the end of time. ~ Thomas Paine (Common Sense, 1776) 1 | Brem & Sweeney ~ 2018 ~ Government and Politics in the United States Contents: Democracy in 21st Century America: Government and Politics in the United States Focus Topic By Way of Introduction FOCUS ESSAY: John Quincy Adams on Human Nature and Freedom 1. Foundations of Studying Government Past, Present, and Future Critical political thinking Words Matter: Defining our Terms Asymptotical Socio-Political Questions & Phenomenon Democratic social order FOCUS ESSAY: Tocqueville: Individualism _______________ * _______________ 13 15 22 42 45 51 Figure 1,0 Figure 1.1 Model 1.0 Image 1.1 Model 1.1 Figure 1.2 Figure 1.3 Figure 1.4 Figure 1.5 Figure 1.6 Figure 1.7 Figure 1.8 Figure 1.9 2. Classical World Views & Political Ideologies: The Driving Force Behind all Politics! How World Views come together as Political Ideologies 65 The Idea of America 81   Figure 2.1 Table 2.1     Figure Figure Figure Figure 3. Constitutional Foundations The Declaration of Independence Key influences on the thoughts of the framers on governance The Preamble & Final Document Notable Components of the Constitution FOCUS ESSAY: Franklin on the Constitution and doubting certainties Federalism Iron Triangles, Interest Articulation, Picket Fence Federalism Civil Liberties and the Bill of Rights _______________ * _______________             Model 3.0 Chart 3.1 Figure 3.1 Figure 3.2 Figure 3.3 Figure 3.4 Figure 3.5 Figure 3.6 Figure 3.7 Figure 3.8 Figure 3.9 Figure 3.10 Interacting World Views Classical World Views: Answers & Responses to key questions & concepts 3D - Political Ideologies and world views Community Types -- The Patchwork Nation World views, modern and right/left evolution PEW – where do you fit? (2007 version) _______________ * _______________ Hamiltonian order - Jeffersonian liberty Compromises in the Constitution Separation of Powers & Checks & Balances The Constitution as THE Revolution Broader conception of Checks & Balances Who/What the Branches Represent Comparing Government Types How is Power Divided Iron Triangles and Interest Articulation Picket Fence Federalism Iron Triangles and Demands Picket Fence Federalism, Demands, and Federal Funding _______________ * _______________ 2 | Brem & Sweeney ~ 2018 ~ Government and Politics in the United States 5 9              2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 Montgomery Van Wart: Forms of Rationality Space-Time Sphere of Social Action Inquiry from the Transdisciplinary perspective Disciplines of Socio-Political studies Maslow & Dahrendorf and the Good Society What is a nation state The Social Contract out of which the Social Order Emerges Social Structures of the Social contract Three sectors of governance & social order Asymptotical psycho-social order curve Interacting Social Structures and Social Order Citizen vs Administration balance Demands & Supports & Legitimacy _______________ * _______________ Page 19 21 22 25 29 32 34 35 42 43 44 48 49 55 58 60 70 77 78 79 85 90 84 86 101 103 113 117 92 93 98 99 100 101 105 107 113 114 115 116 82 “Equal Protection Under the Law…” . 4. Civil Rights, Participation, and Voting Public Opinion & Why It SHOULD matter Political Socialization _______________ * _______________ 133 136  Figure 4.1 135 5. Political Parties, Interest Groups, & Social Movements Political Parties Interest Groups Social Movements Comparing political Movements, Interest Groups, Political Parties FOCUS ESSAY: Frederick Douglass ~ 'What To The Slave Is The Fourth Of July?' _______________ * _______________ Professional opinion on anthropogenic climate change _______________ * _______________ Figure 5.1 Figure 5.2 Chart 5.1 Figure 5.3 Figure 5.4 6. Congress, the Presidency, Public Administration, and The Court The Congress State legislatures & Municipal Government The Presidency The Public Administration The Federal Court System and The Supreme Court _______________ * _______________ 168 191 193 204 209             Figure 6.1 Figure 6.2 Chart 6.1 Chart 6.2 Figure 6.3 Figure 6.4 Image 6.1 Figure 6.5 Figure 6.6. Figure 6.7 Figure 6.8 Figure 6.9 173 174 175 176 179 192 193 207 209 212 214 216 7. Domestic Policy and Foreign Policy Criteria of Effective Policy Evaluation & Implementation Domestic Policy Foreign Policy _______________ * _______________ 222 224 230        Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure 221 226 229 233 233 234 235 Congressional leadership structure The structure of Congress Standing committees: House of Representatives and Senate. Differences between House and Senate The legislative process For comparison: How a Bill Becomes a Law in California Municipal Local government by comparison The Praxis Cycle Critical infrastructure Comparative Justice - three classical world views Types of Justice The American Dual Judicial System _______________ * _______________ The Public Policy Spectrum Hayek & Keynes Comparison The Policy Making Cycle Matric of Foreign Policy Attitudes Realism, Liberalism, and Idealism Realist & Moralist Approaches – IR Praxis The Foreign Policy Team _______________ * _______________ By Way of Conclusion ~ The Future and The Will to Peace Statecraft as Soulcraft 3 | Brem & Sweeney ~ 2018 ~ Government and Politics in the United States 142 165      7.1 7.2 7.3 7.4 7.5 7.6 7.7 Relationship between Government, groups, people The Party Platform The 2012 Democrat & Republican Party Platforms Compared Pluralist model of interest groups Comparing Parties, groups, movements _______________ * _______________ 142 152 159 160 128 144 147 148 159 160 168 220 238 246 Words Robert J. Brem Words matter! If you cannot clearly say what you mean; Then you cannot mean what you say. If you cannot mean what you say; Then you cannot take an effective stand. If you cannot take an effective stand; Then your actions will be rendered meaningless. There are no languages to speak without words to comprise them… There are no thoughts to think without language to form them… There are no actions to act without thoughts to guide them… There are no realities to emerge without actions to create them… Reality is spoken into existence… Guided by what you believe to be true! What you believe to be true Will be true for in its consequences for you and Your actions have consequences upon the people around you and By such actions you have an effect upon the world and What has an effect upon the world changes the universe… The universe as it is requires you to exist for if you did not exist The universe as it is would be different. So understanding this: It is a conversational universe and Your words create the cosmos… So… Say the word! Do you think about the things you think about? ~ Clarence Darrow 4 | Brem & Sweeney ~ 2018 ~ Government and Politics in the United States By Way of Introduction The study of Government, Politics, and Governance in the United States is a subdiscipline within the discipline of “political science” which itself is a sub-discipline with the larger social & behavioral sciences. A discipline is defined by adherence to certain rules and patterns of inquiry following standards of professional practice in ascertaining what we know and do not know and what we accept as verified truth and what we do not. This is also explicitly, the sub-discipline of “American Politics.” As citizens of this republic, one engages in this study (e.g. takes a course) explicitly to empower persons in their civic education as citizens of a larger world and life in The United States explicitly. It can be argued these are perilous times within which we must seek to thrive (rather than merely survive). From different points of view both the political Right and the political Left see the very nature of what this government and social contract may be as being at stake. Is the republic at risk? If so, how? Whose vision of America is more valid? And, how will you negotiate and thrive in this legitimacy crisis? This is by way of saying, the reason why one takes a course in American governance (or for that matter, any course one takes, I mean… hello!) is to empower you in becoming more effective in life as persons, workers, and as citizens of the world. We can assume you do not want to be victims of events nor do you want to define yourself as “survivors” of crisis. You want to be able to thrive! Or more simply, you want the means by which to live a happy life. That’s why we are here. The reason to study politics is So our children may have the liberty to engage in commerce; in order to give their children a right to pursue painting, poetry, and music. ~ John Adams The starting point of studies in political science is to define the parameters of this time in “the human story” (i.e. history). One ongoing struggle in American governance is the importance of the issues involved in the struggle for power between ideas in conflict. A complex set of ideas or “narrative” which guides all social, private, and public behavior in a society is called an “ideograph.” One major struggle between ideographs in America today is between the notion of “The Purposive State” ideograph (the ethos that the state has a purpose in building, maintaining, and supporting a vibrant public sphere & social contract wherein the pursuit of happiness is through a preferential option for human rights and appeals to reality based truth as interpreted differently by liberals, conservatives, and radicals) and “The Wilding State” ideograph (deferring to a more “right libertarian” or Ayn Rand conservative individualistic ethos of a concentration of individuals who purse happiness through self-interested acquisition of 5 | Brem & Sweeney ~ 2018 ~ Government and Politics in the United States property in an “ownership society” de-emphasizing a public sphere built upon prosperity gospel dogma and alternative to “reality based truths” or “alternative facts”). Ayn Rand and The Wilding Ideograph Who is Ayn Rand and why does she matter? Robert Reich (2018) argues the political movement represented by Donald Trump can be seen as rooted in the ideas of Ayn Rand.1 Many of the Trump power and the Republican Party of today in leadership; see themselves as followers of Rand’s ideas (e.g. Rex Tillerson – former Secretary of State, CIA chief Mike Pompeo, a nominee for Secretary of Labor - Andrew Posner, Republican leader of the House of Representatives Paul Ryan – who required his staff and all interns to read her, Uber's former CEO Travis Kalanick described himself as a Rand follower before he was fired for behavior rooted in the her ideas to Uber’s code of values, Grover Norquist – who has led the zero tolerance of taxes revolt in the GOP, and Rand Paul{named after Rand} a libertarian Republican member of the House and son and former Libertarian-Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul). They are all attracted to Rand’s heroic ideal of rich industrialist men who make it in the world with a disdain for any idea of community rules and or a common good driven by pure egocentrism and selfishness. In two popular novels: The Fountainhead (1943) and Atlas Shrugged (1957); Rand argued there is no common good, that selfishness is a highest virtue, and altruism is an evil that destroys nations. When Rand offered these ideas in the 1950s they seemed quaint if not farfetched. Reich notes that anyone who had lived through the first half of the 20th century witnessed first-hand how only our interdependence saw us all through the great depression with Roosevelt’s “New Deal” social programs and the Second World War together. After the war and through the 1960s with Johnson’s “Great Society” programs; we used an idea of a “purposive state” driven by a notion of a common good to harness seeming boundless prosperity; to finance all sorts of “public goods:” including: schools & universities, electrification, a national highway system, addressing poverty, and health care for the Aged and poor (Medicare). We rebuilt wartorn Europe, and sought to guarantee civil rights and voting rights for African Americans and other oppressed minorities, and open doors of opportunity to women. We reached for the stars in the NASA space programs. It was self-evident that of course there was a common good. We were living it! However, Reich and others have observed, that starting in the late 1970s, Rand's views gained ground with the birth of the Right wing anti-government and strictly pro-business movement (some of it funded by billionaires (e.g. the Koch brothers – one of whom ran for vicepresident as a Libertarian Party candidate and who funded think tanks and grade school and college curriculum materials advocating Ayn Rand’s ideas). Rand’s ideas came to animate what could be described as “Right Libertarian ideology,” and the newly emergent ideas driving the Republican “Freedom Caucus” Tea Party factions. With organized promotion and well-funded 1 Rich Kacmar (March 5, 2018). Trump’s Brand is Ayn Rand, San Diego Fee Press, https://sandiegofreepress.org/2018/03/trumps-brand-is-ayn-rand-video-worth-watching/ 6 | Brem & Sweeney ~ 2018 ~ Government and Politics in the United States backing from key billionaires, Rand became the intellectual godmother of modern-day American conservatism. Reich argues the ideology of this movement is one of pure selfishness, contempt for the public, a win at any cost mindset, and an intentional goal of defunding government (as Norquist argues to be able to make it so small so as to be able to drown it in a bathtub), deconstructing the administrative state, and privatizing the public sphere - setting it wild with private sector corporate values and property rights focus replacing public sector values rooted in human rights focus and a notion of the public good. This is called by Gregg Cawley “The Wilding Ideograph.” As such, as it gains power in the political culture and is enacted as policy by 21st century Republican conservatives (who reject the ideology of “Gerald Ford conservative Republicans” of the 1970s who believed in community responsibility); this mentality is eroding American life by degrading the public sphere and undermining any notion of an adherence to a set of common values about what is right and wrong – replacing these with pure greed driven selfishness and magnified by a toxic form of evangelist “prosperity gospel” religion” that argues Jesus wants people to be rich and has ordained this world view of selfishness. The result is we are living in a jungle where only the strongest cleverest and most unscrupulous get ahead. Similar to Thomas Hobbes’ notion of a war of all against all where life is nasty, short, and brutish; we are creating a political culture wherein everyone must be wary in order to survive. This is not a society. It's not even a civilization; because there's no civility at its core. It's a disaster to the very notion of civil society. We have to understand who Ayn Rand is so we can reject her philosophy and dedicate ourselves to rebuilding the idea of the common good that was once widely understood and accepted in American political culture. After all, Reich argues, the U.S. Constitution was designed for “We the People” seeking to promote the general welfare in the public sphere not for “me the selfish” seeking as much wealth and power as possible at the expense of “the commons” in the name of only private & elite concerns. Yet here we are today with evidence growing every day of the loss of civil society and civic virtue. We see this evidence when we hear of CEOs who loot their corporations and defraud their customers & investors. We see it when we hear of lawyers & accountants who “look the other way” when corporate clients play fast and loose with the law and personal integrity & ethics, and who even collude with them to skirt the law. We see it when Wall Street bankers defraud customers and investors, and when film producers & publicists choose not to see a powerful movie mogul (whom they depend upon financially) who sexually harasses and abuses young women. We see politicians who take donations - really bribes - from wealthy donors and corporations to enact laws their patrons want. And then these politicians shutdown the government when they don't get the partisan results they seek; completely undermining even the illusion of a government system designed to be built upon compromise between people with opposing world views. And in leadership, we support a president of the United States who repeatedly lies about important issues and uses easily identified falsehoods to support inhumane policies; all while he refuses to put his financial holdings into a blind trust and then personally profits off his office. 7 | Brem & Sweeney ~ 2018 ~ Government and Politics in the United States All of this is magnified by his leadership towards the promotion of racial and ethnic conflict; with the full support of his movement and party leaders. Reich reminds us that “the common good” consists of our shared values about what we owe one another as citizens who are bound together in the same society with a concern for one another in community together. As such, keeping the common good in mind is a moral attitude and it recognizes that we're all in it together. And Reich reminds us that if there is no common good there is no society. The Battle of Ideas This struggle of ideas is occurring in the context of globalization, destabilization of the world economy, identity confusions, vast growing inequality between rich & powerful and poor & more powerless, and all this in the context of global climate change. These can be seen as perhaps “exciting” issues; certainly the stakes are bigger than at any other time in the story of the human species. Hannah Arendt notes that when the “public sphere” is at risk, we live in “dark times” with the undermining of public life of the community of “polis” (Greek for “city” - a body of citizens – dwellers in the city – as a community wherein we live bound together by customs, laws, and cooperation). Looking at American governance as social scientists then, we need ask “What is politics?” from the perspectives of both the discipline of political science and classical political philosophy. Through exploration of these distinctions, the concepts of science, theory, and philosophy will be explored, as well as the notion of "critical political thinking." In this endeavor, we explore public law (the rule of law which holds the polis together) and the realities 8 | Brem & Sweeney ~ 2018 ~ Government and Politics in the United States and roles of being citizen in day-to-day life (all politics is personal) and what the concept of “politics” mean to ordinary people. We need to look at the justifications for government as a social contract conceptualized as not just government (the public sector) but as “governance” (how the public, private, and social sectors work together to create the social order). We look at social order (from more totalitarian to more authoritarian to more democratic) and world views (liberal / liberty, conservative / order, and radical / equality) in “the context of democratic values” and democratic community building. Camilla Stivers asks how can we have healthy democratic values driven governance in dark times? This where we begin our inquiry into American governance; by remembering one of the foundational principles in democracy is that people as citizens have a civic duty to be responsible to the polis. In this we find The Constitution is a search for a way to a “More Perfect Union.” In this, Barack Obama noted “There is not a liberal America and a conservative America - there is the United States of America. There is not a Black America and a White America and Latino America and Asian America - there's ‘the United States of America.’ This union may never be perfect, but generation after generation has shown that it can always be perfected. We are the ones we have been waiting for.” FOCUS ESSAY: John Quincy Adams on Human Nature and Freedom Freedom, the nature of humanity, and Who we might become with respects to who we have been Selected and edited text from the representation of John Quincy Adams arguing the Case of the Amistad Defendants before the Supreme Court in the film: Amistad. Barbara Chase-Riboud, David Franzoni, and Robert Brem2 On February 24th 1841, John Quincy Adams argued before the Supreme Court of the United States in defense of a group of “slaves” who killed their captors on the slave ship Amistad. The technical arguments of the case were themselves significant; addressing issues between the Executive Branch and the Judicial Branch, and upon constitutional law as to whether these people were in fact slaves under the laws or free. However, in Adams’ summary argument, he explores the notion of freedom in particular. In his summary, Adams argument was focused upon the question whether there was ever the Constitutional right to liberty in the 2 This text was taken and edited for reasons of message, style, and flow from the website: American Rhetoric: Movie Speech "Amistad" (1997). Speech delivered by Anthony Hopkins; http://www.americanrhetoric.com/MovieSpeeches/moviespeechamistadjqadams.html; Accessed: 7-16-2009. Note: there is controversy over the issue of whether the ideas of Barbara Chase-Riboud in her novel "Echo of Lions" were “stolen” by David Franzoni, credited author of the screenplay for the film. Both are named here for purposes of reference. 9 | Brem & Sweeney ~ 2018 ~ Government and Politics in the United States face of the darker side – or baser demons – of our human nature. From this dark side, humans are capable of doing great “evil” to one another precisely because we surrender the better angels of our human nature to it. In this, we forget to remember that our better angels can guide us in remembering we also have the power to change ourselves and our society if we to commit to being “good humans.” The question is about the degree to which we in fact actually believe in the principles in which we say we believe. It is in this sense that Clarence Darrow asked: do we think about the things we think about? Do we? Thus: Adams asks: Why are we here? Is it to find truth? The truth, in truth, has been driven from this case like a slave, flogged from court to court, wretched and destitute. But we must find truth and what in fact concerns us here is the very nature of man. The very nature of human freedom is at stake. That is the truth we seek to get at. Adams recalled John Calhoun’s assertion about slavery: There has never existed a civilized society in which one segment did not thrive upon the labor of another. As far back as one chooses to look -- to ancient times, to biblical times -- history bears this out. In Eden, where only two were created, even there one was pronounced subordinate to the other. Slavery has always been with us and is neither sinful nor immoral. Rather, as war and antagonism are the natural states of man, so, too, slavery, as natural as it is inevitable." Adams counter Calhoun’s assertion; arguing that: …the natural state of mankind is instead -- and I know this is a controversial idea -is freedom. Is freedom. And the proof is the length to which a man, woman, or child will go to regain it, once taken. He will break loose his chains, He will decimate his enemies. He will try and try and try against all odds, against all prejudices, to get home. Adams then calls out the inherent Racism in American political and social culture, noting: If such a man is black, we would deny the truth he is a true hero. Now, if he were white, he wouldn't be able to stand; so heavy the weight of the medals and honors we would bestow upon him. Songs would be written about him. The great authors of our times would fill books about him. His story would be told and retold in our classrooms. Our children -- because we would make sure of it -- would know his name, as well as they know that of Patrick Henry. Yet, if Calhoun and those who agree with him is right, what are we to do with that embarrassing, annoying document: "The Declaration of Independence?" 10 | Brem & Sweeney ~ 2018 ~ Government and Politics in the United States What of its conceits? "All men...created equal," "inalienable rights," "life," "liberty," and so on and so forth? What on earth are we to do with this? I have a modest suggestion. We can tear apart and discard it… for all the meaning it has in the society Calhoun describes and his followers prefer. Today, we must ask: Is this “who we are” today still? Or is this only a part of our past? Yes, Calhoun is in our past. Yet, he too and those like him are part of the body politic and their ideas are a part of our heritage – even though they be part of the baser demons of our nature. Calhoun is not evil. No. He was a great man and his ideas – though in part surrendering to darkness – were also in part of our greater story of who are and who we are becoming. Calhoun is also the man who wrote: Stripped of all its covering, the naked question is, whether ours is a federal or consolidated government; a constitutional or absolute one; a government resting solidly on the basis of the sovereignty of the States, or on the unrestrained will of a majority; a form of government, as in all other unlimited ones, in which injustice, violence, and force must ultimately prevail. The truth is not found in denying the past for its darker side. For so too in the past do we find the founding authors of our greater heritage in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. We find the foundations of a democratic republic in which all men are in fact treated with dignity. No, the path of denying our past or rejecting it all because some of it was dark could very well lead us to recreate the evils of the past we seek to transcend. Rather, actually seeking to live the lofty language in which we say we believe; of liberty, independence, the rule of law… that is what we must do; call upon other parts of our past. And even in recognition of our own deep imperfections and darker side, we do not surrender to the dark side… rather; we call upon what Lincoln would call the better angels of our nature. The parts we seem to too easily to forget in the rush of our silent and not so silent assent to Calhoun in living our lives; unconscious of what the consequences of our actions make us to be. We do this when we crave the ease of convenience rather than the responsibility of liberty. Liberty demands more of us! Joseph Cinque of the Mende people of Africa tells us that when a member of his the people encounters a situation where there appears no hope at all, they invoke their ancestors. It's a tradition. See, the Mende believe that if one can summon the spirits of one's ancestors, then they have never left, and the wisdom and strength they fathered and inspired will come to his aid. For today, if we call, they must come for we are here today the whole reason for their existence in the past. From the past we honor our forebears and they support us here and now as we move into a future where our lofty words mean something. Freedom! That is what Freedom or “liberty” is for. And in our 11 | Brem & Sweeney ~ 2018 ~ Government and Politics in the United States actions we find out whether liberty is substance or merely shadow. Who do we want to be? In this; what of we: “Americans?” We look to our own founders: James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, George Washington… John Adams… We've long resisted asking them for guidance. How did they – despite their own dark demons – become the ones we seek to remember and honor and name schools after and make sure it is their names our children remember? Perhaps we haven’t asked fearing in doing so we might acknowledge that our individuality which we so, so revere, is not entirely our own. Perhaps we've feared an appeal to them might be taken for weakness. But, we've come to understand, finally, that this is not so. We understand now, we've been made to understand, and to embrace the understanding that who we are, is who we were. We desperately need their strength and wisdom and – even as we acknowledge their own baser demons of their natures – we might learn to triumph over our fears, our prejudices, and ourselves and make their and our highest aspirations; real. Peter Ustinov once said: “It is our responsibilities, not ourselves that we should take seriously” Being good and being responsible http://m.dmc.tv/dhamma/index.php?action=page&id=10105 …So, let us study Politics! 12 | Brem & Sweeney ~ 2018 ~ Government and Politics in the United States Foundations of Studying Government Past, Present, and Future Politics in your life There are many definitions of “politics!” Politics is always about power in relationships and how it is used. Pericles (430 B.C.E.) noted: "Just because you do not take an interest in politics, does not mean politics does not take an interest in you." Therefore, to think about the things you think about (as asked by Clarence Darrow) here: take a moment and reflect on how government and politics affects your life. Can you identify all the ways in which politics impacts your life? Just as Pericles noted, politics is all around us. Whether we are aware of it or not, politics and government structures and influences much of our lives. Some examples include:           politics dictates what side of the road you drive on who and how you marry how much of your income is taken by local, state and federal government in the form of taxes how many police officers patrol your streets and thus how safe your neighborhood is who can go to school and the quality of the education you will receive how much is funded to education versus prisons (i.e. how much it cost to attend school) who goes to war and what type of benefits veteran's receive who gets health care and what quality what type of language is permissible on television and the radio what types of substances you may put into your body ...and the list goes on and on! And these political decisions will affect you, your entire life, for decades to come. 13 | Brem & Sweeney ~ 2018 ~ Government and Politics in the United States NOTE! As a general principle, in a democratic society; private affairs only become public issues (of compelling public interest for government of intervene) when private behavior has public consequences. Yet, we see that Americans are increasingly cynical about politics. Rather than use politics to create their desired society, many Americans instead decide to opt out (i.e. not vote, remain ignorant on political issues, and not be involved in politics). However, just because one may be disillusioned with politics does not simply make politics disappear. Instead, decisions are then being made without that individual's input! Here it may be interesting to note that in Athenian democracy in ancient Greece; an “idiot” was someone concerned only with private, as opposed to public, affairs. And this is the opposite of being a citizen exercising the civic or republican virtue of duty to the polis. The Greeks of Athens believed idiots were born and citizens were made, through education. However, anyone refusing to be a citizen - avoiding politics and debate - was seen as dishonorable and selfish. They were thus: idiotes! On Being an Idiot In Classical Greek philosophy, an “idiotes” or ”idion” is a person who does not participate in public life – or the political affairs - of the polis (the City-state). Pericles argues that someone who lives life with only a focus upon an individual life - unconcerned with larger affairs – is an idiotes. Pericles argued the ideal of participation in the body politic was characterized in Greek thought by people involved as engaged citizens (dwellers of the city) in the civic or civil affairs of their polis. To the Greeks, ones development as an individual is decadent, lacking, developmentally delayed (modern term that), if it has no civic engagement (i.e. in the public and civil sectors of society wherein the public interest and the social good are of importance). Life solely focused upon the private sector (i.e. the economic arena of only self-interest) then is in effect, psychologically, well, retarded. That is to say, such a person is in fact, an idiot! This is whence from which that term was derived! This is also related to the Greek classical philosophical understanding that individual development is rooted in active participation in the “story of social development” as a member of an audience in drama via literature and theatre. With each audience, the drama, dramatic work, and society as drama are changed; how these evolve. This is how society develops as well; in agonistic tensions of dramatic interplay. It is the task of the arts and humanities then to move people emotionally to see points of concern in society and evoke their passions to move them to action. The Arts move people to revolutionary (radical – drama of agon) or evolutionary (liberal - drama of comedy) action challenging the social order; whereas religions (as a form of drama as well) tend to encourage people to maintain piety being in conformity with and in an equilibrium (conservative – drama of tragedy) with the social order. So! Aristotle argued that human beings are social & political animals. We cannot escape politics because it is part of our nature; it is innate within us – we are born with it and live with it 14 | Brem & Sweeney ~ 2018 ~ Government and Politics in the United States - whether we acknowledge it or not. If this is true, that we are all political animals and politics is a fact of our lives, then we need to understand it and we need to know how to make it work. Whether your future is taking you into business, law, public administration, education, health care, the arts, the sciences, or even unemployment (!); politics will touch your life in many ways. The point is that the study of politics is not just an abstract idea! It is crucial to your survival in the 21st century modern world system. On this note, Ralph Dahrendorf noted that the world only offers uncertainty with no guarantees. There is only a balance between ligatures (which hold you back) and what options for action you have at your command; knowledge is power (as noted by Michel Foucault) and all you are left with in the end is probabilities. There are three kinds of future: possible, probable, and preferable. Your life tasks include doing whatever it takes to make your preferred future “story of self” more probable than only and merely “possible.” Whatever you can do to increase your odds increases your “life chances.” And as noted in “The Hunger Games” stories: “May the odds ever be in your favor!” Critical political thinking The science of politics: beginning with definitions People often ask: 'Is political science really a science? Isn't politics just opinion?' Well, it is one of the social & behavioral sciences and that is a matter of “disciplined inquiry” seeking conclusions based upon being “informed” by evidence. This is what we call having a “disciplined informed opinion” (as opposed to having a less than informed opinion… such as an “undisciplined uniformed opinion” or: ignorance!). Our purpose is to open minds and to make the agony of decision making so intense you can only escape it by thinking. ~ Fred Friendly (constitutional scholar) The central importance of critical thinking to the democratic prospect: We must first note, not every argument for a given position is valid… Edward R. Murrow suggested we need to be aware there is no logical reason to say there is always more than one “reasonable” side to an issue. While there is more than one side to most issues -- on some issues there is in fact only one logical or valid position; and when that is the case it is not partisanship to report it as such. As in the case of the Holocaust having occurred in World War II at the hands of the NAZIs (which is denied by some anti-Semitic people), when among professional historians trained in the social science of historical analysis agree that overall facts are not in dispute (even if some details are still being worked out), then that story is the case. As Daniel Patrick Moynihan argued: "Everyone is entitled to their own opinion; no one is entitled to their own facts." It is prudent to recall as William James observed that “a great many people think they are thinking when they are merely rearranging their prejudices.” 15 | Brem & Sweeney ~ 2018 ~ Government and Politics in the United States One must note that only the discipline of math can use the notion of a proof. All other sciences must use the idea of a “theory” or “hypothesis” for which we have so much evidence supporting the “theory” or “hypothesis” and so little evidence “falsifying” the “theory” or “hypothesis” that we are compelled to accept the “theory” or “hypothesis” as a “working fact.” And as such, these “working facts” are a special kind of educated, informed, and disciplined opinion. These are the basis for all social scientific thinking and analysis. Types of Opinions: We can argue there are different kinds of opinion. But the only opinions of merit in a democratic discussion are those which are both informed by supporting knowledge and facts constituting valid and reliable evidence that is presented in a disciplined -critically thought out and presented -- fashion. Only a disciplined and informed opinion, offered in an authentic voice in search of truth, privileges one with a “warrant for discourse ” in democratic deliberations. Appeals to emotion or beliefs for which there is no evidence are not sufficient in forming the foundations of democratic values driven decision making. To make competent decisions about public policy and the future of society, we need a fundamental commitment to truth . Note, in this regard, there is a continuum of opinion types ranging from more idea (evolving ideas and living knowledge) systems to belief structures (static beliefs and dead knowledge):  Disciplined Informed (Idea Systems or I.S. deal better with reality – “what is” verifiable truth) – conclusions arrived at through inquiry which follows a discipline and is based upon evidence – e.g. social scientific rigorous inquiry and/ or critical thinking generally.  Undisciplined Informed – conclusions based upon unstructured inquiry that is the result of much reading often driven by the pursuit of pleasure or interest – e.g. being a dilettante or other general interest pursuit modalities.  Undisciplined Uninformed – conclusions based upon little or no inquiry at all other than just a gut reaction – e.g. emotional reaction (often fear) or ignorance or both. o It is prudent to recall that “going with one’s feelings” is not always an invitation to being happy the next morning… and o As the pursuit of happiness is a goal of politics, we might wish to ponder this. o It is also prudent to recall the founding fathers of the American Republic explicitly built a system of laws rather than of men to encourage us to manage our passions such that our passions would not manage us…. o This is disciplined thought tempering passionate exuberance?  Disciplined Uninformed (Belief Structures – B.S. deal with beliefs about what is presented as “revealed truth”) – conclusions based upon a system of dogma – e.g. religions. o There is the special case of conclusions based upon faith. o Faith is a belief in things for which there is no evidence. This is not necessarily a dysfunctional ground upon which to base a belief, however, it may not be a good ground to formulate policy upon). o Faith may also be seen as “the substance of things hoped for; the evidence of things not yet seen" (Hebrews 11:1); it is a substance, it's something tangible to hold onto in the absence of evidence. 16 | Brem & Sweeney ~ 2018 ~ Government and Politics in the United States Relative to Dogma, we often run into the problematique of mysticism based beliefs (i.e. Religions). It is not that there is no truth to be discovered in religious thought, rather, it is the case that religious belief structur3es are in fact ideologies that in implemented policy terms has consequences that are the result of these not being “reality based” belief structures (as opposed to the idea systems as basis for evidence based policy decisions. In this regard however, there are emotional attachments to beliefs that have been around for so long we cannot let them go easily even if on the face of it the beliefs are absurd. We have a great capacity for believing others’ beliefs are absurd but not seeing it in our own mystical beliefs of the universe. Carl Sagan argued that: One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we've been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We're no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It's simply too painful to acknowledge, even to ourselves, that we've been taken. Once you give a charlatan power over you, you almost never get it back. (The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark ). This dynamic Sagan describes explains much of human history. Faith is belief in things for which there is no evidence. Therefore, it is not an optimal basis for policy making which has real world consequences wherein evidence based recommendations are more practical. However, used as metaphorical guides to thinking about how to live one’s personal life? In this, most religions are minimally functional. Each of these types of opinion is sufficient grounds upon which to make conclusions and/or base a decision to act for given particular situations. However, in a situation wherein precision, and validity and reliability are issues of survival – e.g. when we are engaged in the analysis of policies which may have real impact in the world of lived and shared reality -- we ought to aspire to the highest standards of ascertaining certainty that what we are saying is so is actually in some consequential sense actually so. Public intellectual Marilyn Vos Savant notes there is a profound crisis involving a lack of critical thinking skills, or at least a failure to apply them, in the world today with profound consequences upon all our lives! I . . . don't know quite when I began to pay attention to all the misinformation, disinformation, and flagrant abuse of the general public's lack of education in logic and elementary mathematical skills, but I do know that I found it everywhere. I didn't just find a misleading statistic or pronouncement here and there, now and then. I found it (and still do) every day, in every way, throughout the most respected information sources in the country, but most especially from—no surprise—our government. This phenomenon isn't the exception. It's the rule. Again, there be profound consequences in the world resulting of “less than well thought out actions” of people in the world today and, in governance, sloppy decisions often result in great tragedy… sometimes mass death! Certainly, failures in effective governance have resulted in profound human misery resulting of inefficient, inequitable, and insufficient public service delivery. Perhaps then, we might want, therefore, always to aspire following the standards of critical thinking (thinking about the things we think about – as opposed to clinical stupidity: making conclusions without thinking about what we are doing….) in making important 17 | Brem & Sweeney ~ 2018 ~ Government and Politics in the United States decisions… especially about public policy. These standards are in at least one formulation: “expressed most generally, as “a way of taking up the problems of life.” Social scientific inquiry is inquiry driven by a set of rules and methods for investigating reality logically and systematically; what we may call “disciplined informed inquiry.” We may study any phenomenon (e.g. society, your family, or you!) using the rules of a discipline in inquiry (e.g. social science) and make conclusions about what we observe only based upon evidence (being informed by facts - as defined by the discipline). Michael Sodaro notes: Political science is a science to the extent that it observes the rules of scientific logic and engages in the following operations: definition, description, explanation, prediction, and prescription. As we look at American Government through the disciplined lens of a political scientist or of a policy analyst, we will begin with the first task that political scientists need to perform: definition. Leo Strauss argued that in modern society and with modern liberalism, we are merely focused upon “universal freedom.” This is inferior to "classical liberalism" and its focus around striving towards human excellence. Thus, modern liberalism has a tendency towards relativism and a loss of moral focus resulting in a descent into nihilism. Either, on the one hand, it is towards a "brutal nihilism” whereby an attempt is made, in the name of some kind of enlightenment, to reject traditions, history, ethics, and moral standards; replacing these (by force if necessary) with some new regime of human nature engineering whether from the left or from the right. On the other hand there is a "gentle nihilism” evident in Western liberal democracy towards aimless and hedonistic value-free permissiveness in the name of some kind of egalitarianism. Strauss argued we needed to return to and recover classical political philosophy as a renewed point of departure for making assessments of political actions as to whether they are worthy or “good” …or not. Thus, we must start all inquiry with first principles and return to classical meanings of words and move forward from there. Words matter! If you cannot say what you mean, you cannot mean what you say! All words are alive but must be considered in their evolutionary flow in context from original meaning and interpreted in the context of here and now: hermeneutic sand exegesis. Thus: any science must define its terms as precisely as possible. Carl Sagan argued: “What counts is not what sounds plausible, not what we would like to believe, not what one or two witnesses claim, but only what is supported by hard evidence rigorously and skeptically examined. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.” Reason – just as all concepts – takes on many different forms, and all of these describe what members of any given group call “reasonable discourse” but what members of other groups consider to be “unreasonable…” Thus: political tension or “agon.” 18 | Brem & Sweeney ~ 2018 ~ Government and Politics in the United States Montgomery Van Wart presents the forms of rationality in public discourse in three major groupings. These are “forms of reasoning” offered by different groups as grounds upon which they justify political demands or claims they make upon other groups in society. These forms of reasoning are the medium through which one and one’s shared attitude group “argues” points of contention over issues which are, to them, of concern. The rationality and decision making processes are as follows: Figure 1.0 Category Montgomery Van Wart: Forms of Rationality Form of Rationality Market Rationality (Rational Choice; e.g. competitive capitalism) Cognitive Rationality Extra-Logical Rationality Reasoned Choice Rationality (Solution Focused) Non-Linear Systems Rationality (Systems/Learning) Ends Knowledge Competition Efficiency Market Action Expertise Effectiveness Varied Experience and Study Variation (Both patterned and random) Dynamic Evolution Disequilibrium and Chaos Human Needs Rationality (“Power With” ~ communitarian) Coercive Rationality (“Power Over”) Perceived needs Satisfaction Instinct/ Advanced Drive Physical Confrontation Domination or Resistance Coercion Traditional Rationality (e.g. patriarchy) Customs Consistency Socialization Divine Guidance “God’s Will” Divine Teaching & Scripture Perceptions of other’s needs Helping others Compassion & Empathy Aristocratic Key Group Support Special Endowments Popular Electoral Agreement Consensus Rules Procedural Consistency Mastery of Rules Lack of Rules or Social Structure Complete Freedom Being Unencumbered Religious Rationality (e.g. Christianity, Islam) Altruistic Rationality Elite Rationality Political Rationality Means Democratic Rationality Legal Rationality Anarchic Rationality 19 | Brem & Sweeney ~ 2018 ~ Government and Politics in the United States Definitional clarity is especially necessary in politics because terms like democracy, socialism, and conservatism often have more than one meaning and are commonly misused or misunderstood. Before we can engage in fully competent analysis of socio-political action however, we need to first truly identify the “stage” upon which actions take place. Action in Space and Time To analyze any social and behavioral phenomenon (remember, this is the social and behavioral sciences!); we need to note and “see” that humans exist in the context of what I am calling a Space-Time Sphere of Social Action. That is, there is a psycho-narrative social interactional sphere within which one lives day-to-day and acts here and now (action space) which surrounds our conscious experience of ourselves in the world. Our story of self (everything we believe we are and what we do and what we experience) and our story of us (how we experience our relationships with other and are experienced by others); happens in the context of our story of here and now. Thus, this is a space-time sphere of social action. Within this Space-Time Sphere of Social Action, that which we believe to be true, will be true for us in our experience regardless of whether it is true in fact or not (the Thomas Theorem). The degree to which our beliefs about reality (belief structures or B.S.) are not in concurrence with actual reality (idea systems or reality as it I.S.) is the degree to which our psychological way of being is neurotic or dysfunctional versus being healthy and functional. Our world view or frame of perceptual reference is manifested always within the sphere of relationship with others (social interaction in dynamic action space here and now). What is proposed here is that when one comes from the world view of the life ethic (seeking to understand and heal {together} rather than to morally judge and exclude {or “wound” others}); they come to see and understand people as “merely” behaving in a SpaceTime Sphere of Social Action; wherein they enact their lives through interwoven narratives: a story of self in the context of a story of us (our relations) in the context of a story of now (only “now” exists driven by the past and pulled by the future). We craft our story and our lives in unique moments of decision; (here and now is the 20 | Brem & Sweeney ~ 2018 ~ Government and Politics in the United States only time an individual has any power) the cumulative consequences of which results in the story of our lives: who we become. That is we exist here (space) and now (time); and we are at once persons (psychologically at the micro-narrative level of analysis) and workers and local citizens (at the macro-level of analysis) and global citizens and spiritual beings (at the Grande-narrative level of analysis). Humans actually think in continuums (from more to less) in classical liberal, classical conservative, and classical radical ways of seeing, thinking, and expressing. We do this unconsciously (rendering us functionally blind to the multiple dimensions of the world in which we live). When we discipline our thinking to do think “transdimensionally” consciously; increase our personal psycho-social and political efficacy. That is we become more capable of making a difference in our lives as persons, workers, and as citizens; in each and every moment of decision; which together weave the future in which we all shall live… one decision and its consequences at a time. Think about that. And each of these moments of decision is impacted upon by myriad psychological, familial, social, political, cultural, geographic, environmental, and even cosmological dynamics revolving at once around us and within us as enculturated stories and reactions and drives. It is this narrative contextual systems phenomenon which we seek to understand and come to know as the human condition of people becoming themselves in the lived and shared world of reality. Figure 1.1 Space-Time Sphere of Social Action 21 | Brem & Sweeney ~ 2018 ~ Government and Politics in the United States However, for us to understand anything, we must come to see it through a multidimensional frame of inquiry. This frame can be termed as being a Transdisciplinary Perspective on Life in the World3 Humans exist and act in inter-relationships in a world of lived and shared reality. We do this as persons, workers, and citizens. To comprehend any question of the human experience in this world, we need to look at it from a transdisciplinary perspective. Through this framework, the challenges and issues humans face in the 21st century modern world system of global significance to all life on Planet Earth become more comprehensible to us in inquiry. This framework enables us to transcend beyond the confines of overly focused inquiry (e.g. just as Political science”) and empowers people as workers and citizens as whole persons engaged in inquiry in the larger world. Words Matter: Defining our Terms The meaning of words matters! If you cannot say what you mean, you cannot mean what you say. This said then, we will begin with examining commonly accepted definitions of key concepts in American government. 3 Adapted from the McKinnon Primary Curriculum Programme model: http://mckinnon-primary.vic.edu.au/pypnews/transdisciplinary-themes/ 22 | Brem & Sweeney ~ 2018 ~ Government and Politics in the United States What is politics? "Politics is a hard & slow boring of hard boards. It takes both passion and perspective." ~Max Weber The values you live, in your actions in each moment, creates the future in which you’ll live. There are several widely used definitions to describe politics. Political psychologist Harold Laswell defines politics as who gets what, when, how, why, and where. This is the most basic question of politics and the main task of any political system. This definition emphasizes politics as a process and implies that it is a process of allocating scarce values and resources. This definition of politics understands it as a process of determining:  How power and resources are distributed in a society?  Which members of society get certain benefits or privileges (because resources are always scarce) and  Which members of society are excluded from benefits or privilege (i.e. who wins and who loses) Laswell offers us then a pragmatic definition that emphasizes distribution, resources, timing, techniques and power. Political economist David Easton argues politics is the authoritative assignment of value. Some system of authority (social or cultural or structural) defines what is and what is not valuable in society. And that assignment determines the 23 | Brem & Sweeney ~ 2018 ~ Government and Politics in the United States outcomes for one in life as a person, a worker, or as a citizen; in groups or in society. The classical liberal philosopher Aristotle offers a more profound and all-encompassing philosophical definition of politics: “Politics is the pursuit of the good society.”' If philosophy is the search for the “Good Life” (what Thomas Jefferson later in history refers to as the “pursuit of happiness” and Epictetus referred to as “the search for virtuous life”); then the good society is that social order (or social contract) which enables it’s citizens to have meaningful access to the “blessings of liberty” to define for themselves what is a good life and then creates action space for people to have meaningful opportunities to pursue it. Aristotle’s definition raises a series of questions:  What is the good society?  What is political about pursuing the good society?  What assumptions are built into Aristotle’s definition? Aristotle is implying that, while everyone seeks a “good life” and therefore wants a ”good society;” people disagree as to what a good life and what a good society “should” look like. What is “Good” is a foundational issue that is interpreted in many whys by people in every context of life. We can all think of examples of this fight taking place in our communities. Plato (left) and Aristotle (right), a detail of The School of Athens, a fresco by Raphael. Aristotle argued politics is an ethical activity concerned with creating a just society -The Good Society – which has as its aim all of these dynamics which we just discussed. To achieve all these aims, politics necessarily entails all of the realms of inquiry and derivative practice explored in the social & behavioral sciences, the arts & humanities, and in fact a good deal of the natural sciences as well (e.g. environmental sciences, biology, geography, physics, 24 | Brem & Sweeney ~ 2018 ~ Government and Politics in the United States and chemistry). Thus; for Aristotle then, the study of politics is the master science. The entire Discipline of Socio-Political Studies can be envisioned (Image 1.0) as follows: Politics rules all that we do. Pericles argued in 430 B.C.E. that “Just because you do not take an interest in politics does not mean politics will not take an interest in you! Politics in the Grande Narrative sense is fundamentally about forging and maintaining community bonds. It is about how we manage and craft a common destiny guided by shared values. It is also about how we choose those values and what the power implications for people in and between people in relationships. It is about how a society determines its vision of justice and the good society. Politics is anything that has to do with beliefs about and the dynamics of power within and between people in relationships; and it is the search for the good society. Philosophy is about the search for meaning and defining that "good" and what values guide us in creating that aforementioned good society. Politics in the sense of governance is also the rules and means by which communities reconcile conflicts of interest among their members; determine their group interest; how they allocate power; and determine its just uses. Power may be used wisely or foolishly, rightly or cruelly, but it is always there; it cannot be wished away. That is why humans have been seen by many philosophers starting with Aristotle as political beings. 25 | Brem & Sweeney ~ 2018 ~ Government and Politics in the United States https://councilcommunity.com/2016/07/14/alchemy-for-the-common-good-visionand-purpose-in-leadership/ Political inquiry as a social science is an exploration and illumination of the ways that social power is grasped, maintained, challenged, or justified. When we see life as drama as the Greeks viewed it (conservative “tragedy” and liberal “comedy” and radical; “tragicomedy”); we see that struggles -- agonistic dialectical tensions -- over power and the values that power should promote give politics its drama and pathos. In this sense the discipline of political science is an effort to understand politics and not only to describe and explain, but also to improve political life. It is an attempt to inform and guide the efforts of people in their actions -- as individuals, in groups, and as society -to make the emergence of an envisioned good society more probable than merely possible. Three key ideas for sense making in politics: William Bianco (Indiana University) argues that there are three key ideas that help us to make sense of and demystify politics.  Politics is everywhere. It is fundamentally a part of life – governing: o What people can and cannot do, their quality of life, and how they think about events, other people, and situations. o It effects everything does as a person, a worker, and as citizen  Political processes matter. Governmental actions are the result of conscious choices made by voters, elected officials, bureaucrats, and citizens who o In order to be “engaged” must know about the institutions, rules, and procedures that have a decisive influence on the lives of all citizens of a country.  Politics is conflictual. The questions debated in elections, and the policy options considered by people in government, are generally marked by disagreement at all levels. o The conflict is rooted in the fact that human nature that liberals, conservatives, and radicals actually see and experience the challenges in life in the world differently. o So: listening, compromising, bargaining, civil engagement, and tough choices about trade-offs are central parts of the process. 26 | Brem & Sweeney ~ 2018 ~ Government and Politics in the United States What is good? So how might we decide on the morality – or that which is “good” – which we might prefer and an ethical frame (what is “good behavior”) from which we might act? To explore this question, we must begin with the one fact of human existence that is undeniable: that which exists is both real and natural. Therefore it follows that reason is the natural medium through which humans interact and make choices in the universe; and, it also follows that we might look to nature for guidance in this reasoning for evidence of the grounds upon which we might base conclusions to our questions as to how to respond to challenges and problems in living in the day to day world of lived and shared reality (“the space-time social action sphere”). This is disciplined and informed inquiry. Disciplined and informed inquiry is rigorous critical thinking; the foundations of the scientific world view; and as such it is the most effective means available to humans for ascertaining what is and is not real with a high degree of confidence in validity, reliability, and probability as to degrees of trust we may place in our choices at any specific contextual moment in space and time: here and now. Therefore, we are able to explore the question as to “what is moral and ethical?” or “what is “good”? through a series of propositions that of necessity must begin with the proposition that it is preferable to exist and be alive than not exist and to not be alive. Of course, if one does not accept this proposition, all else in this discussion is probably irrelevant. And, if we accept this proposition then it follows that psychologically and biologically speaking, it is preferable to have a healthy life than to have an unhealthy life. Again, if one does not accept this second proposition, all else in this discussion is probably irrelevant. If we do accept these propositions, then, from these we are able to construct a series of logical propositions leading to a conclusion as to how we may arrive at moral decisions using disciplined and informed inquiry without regard to mysticism, dogma, or mere opinion. The Argument proceeds as follows: Proposition: what may be defined as “good” is that which enhances the prospect of living organisms-and, in this context: humans–to live in a healthy (i.e. nourishing and thriving life beyond mere survivability) fashion physiologically and psychologically. Proposition: if what enhances life in this fashion is good, then what diminishes life in these terms is morally unacceptable (but only in the context that we claim to believe in that which promotes the capacity of life to survive and to thrive). Proposition: any self-reflective organism that wishes to live beyond merely surviving unto thriving, would grant these first two propositions. Proposition: what enhances the capacity of life to survive and thrive – biologically and psychologically – is determinable to the highest degree of confidence and trust as to its “truth set” value (“it is a reliable working fact”) though the inquiry of the various health sciences. We can call this “The Life Ethic” 27 | Brem & Sweeney ~ 2018 ~ Government and Politics in the United States Proposition: there are certain ways of ordering society in a manner that enhances the capacity of life to survive and thrive in a physiologically and psychologically healthy fashion (that can be determined by health science inquiry) that are differentiated from those ways of social order that diminish life or enhance life prospects to a lesser degree (also verifiable by health science). Proposition: said social ordering modality would be the optimum or “good” and best social order in the context of this life enhancement perspective. Proposition: a social order in which interactions (behavior) within the system are defined by the boundaries of democratic values (not necessarily procedures) can be said to be that social order which enhances the life prospect to the highest degree of success. Proposition: any social order that is not democratic is not an optimum social order in that it diminishes the life prospect of the people within its system. Proposition: on this basis, it is possible to determine the morality of a given course of action. Quod erat demonstrandum ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From here on out, in this piece; when we use the word “good” or support or critique any person, system, group, or policy; we mean it is either congruent with or incongruent with the life ethic. On this basis then, we propose that the good society is a society ordered on democratic values wherein public law constitutes a purposive state structured to use power in building, maintaining, and supporting a vibrant public sphere & social contract wherein the pursuit of happiness is through a preferential option for civil rights and appeals to reality based truth as interpreted differently by people coming variably from different world views: classical liberal, classical conservative, and classical radical. Actualization, Life Chances, and Justice Whatever our philosophical proclivities, the Capacity to choose (a function of liberation from “life ligatures”) to be virtuous is a matter of the degree to which one is psychologically capable to do so (having the life skills to function and “life options”). This is a function of ones capacity to be “Self-Actualized” (psychological health) or not and this has much to do with the degree to which one has negotiated the requisites of survival (needs versus wants). To have this capacity is one’s ability to access “life chances.” People who have no faith they’ll survive live in primal fear and are more likely to surrender their liberty to tyranny. Tyrants promise people basic needs (order!) in exchange for unquestioned obedience. The struggle for democracy is rooted in this dynamic. So, for democracy to be substance and not shadow, it must provide meaningful access to the means of survival – access to the blessings of liberty - to its citizens more often than not over time. 28 | Brem & Sweeney ~ 2018 ~ Government and Politics in the United States Substantive “Liberty” has to do with one’s substantive “options” in life liberated from the oppression of unnecessary “ligatures” to -define one’s own identity, to selfdetermine what “happiness” is in that context, and has the right (by law) to express that “happiness” even if it differs from the social norms of society (and does none harm in doing so) in order for one to be able to live life in the “pursuit of happiness “or taking their shot at meaningful access to their “life chances.” This is “self-actualization.” Therefore, in order for a socially just social order to be said to exist; that “good society” must be structured such that people may have a fair chance at meeting their basic survival needs more often than not and that then frees them to “self-actualize” and that is what it means to be free in a society wherein liberty is substance and not merely shadow. This can be presented using the theories of Abraham Maslow and Ralf Dahrendorf as follows: Abraham Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs; Self-Actualization & Access to “Life Chances”4 Growth Needs are Non-Hierarchical Growth Needs Being Values & MetaNeeds. Foundational Emotional Needs Deficiency Needs “Just Social Order” structurally manifest the means by which the “needs” of the “most vulnerable” people in society are met… Truth Goodness Beauty Aliveness Individuality Perfection Necessity Completion Justice Order Simplicity Richness Playfulness Effortlessness Self-Sufficiency Meaningfulness Self esteem Esteem by Others Love and belongingness Basic Needs Safety and Security Physiological Air, Food, Shelter, Sleep, Sex The External Environment Precondition for need satisfaction Freedom, Justice, Orderliness, Challenge or Stimulation A matter of Existential or Spiritual Survival ~ The grounds of “Basic Fear” or Existential Angst (that one’s life is meaningless or has no purpose – undermining will to live). To some degree; this is the area of “wants”…necessary for actualizing one’s dreams – as in “the pursuit of happiness…” –the prime concern of democratic social order. In many cases, this is a matter of freeing people from “life ligatures” often framed as “traditions” to enable them access to “life options” – all of which pre-suppose basic survival needs have been met – which enables one’s “Life Chances.”. These are basic “Needs” relative to Identity; wherein a threat against these is also perceived an issue of “primal fear” to an individual A Matter of Embodied Survival ~ The grounds of “Primal Fear” (that one may not survive). Until these are met, actualization is impeded. “Civilized Societies” meet these needs as a matter of course; To make that society “Structurally Just” (Johan Galtung and John Rawls). 4 (Goble F. (1970). The Third Force: The Psychology of Abraham Maslow, P. 52.; merging the work of Ralf Dahrendorf, John Rawls and Johan Galtung relative to an overall view of the meaning of “justice”) 29 | Brem & Sweeney ~ 2018 ~ Government and Politics in the United States Thus, any social order that meets these requisites meets the terms of the Life Ethic and as such is what we may call a “good society” as defined by Aristotle and Abraham Maslow; also called Eudaimonia. And as politics is about power and how it is used in relationships and is the search for the good society; and that is one wherein its citizens have meaningful access to meeting their basic needs more often than not over time, then power in society is aimed at providing these blessings of liberty if we want to claim democracy and liberty is society are substance end not shadow! So what is power then? What is power? Politics and power are entwined and inter-related because politics always involves the exercise of power. Power can be an elusive term and there are many definitions of power. Michael Sodaro offered this neutral, all-encompassing definition: "Power is the capacity to affect outcomes." This definition of power may be seen in various components:  Capacity means the potential or ability that someone possesses. o Capacity could be held by individuals, groups, institutions or social structures. o It is important to note that power is a capability or potential (comes from Latin root ‘potere’ which means “to be able”). o Power may exist but not be exercised.  Affect means to cause or bring about. o There are countless ways in which power may be employed. o The two main methods are domination and influence.  Dominance is hard power and it is the ability to completely control or determine political outcomes (the maximum degree of power).  Influence is soft power and it is the form of power most often utilized. It is the capacity to influence outcomes indirectly or partially.  This is less all-encompassing than domination and implies that individuals have access to political decision makers. We will discuss this in more detail below.  Outcomes means actions of result. o Huey Newton argued “power is the ability to define phenomena and make them act in a desired manner.”5 The outcomes of your actions are consequences which may change the world; your world: as a person, as a worker, and as a citizen. There are many ways in which individuals, groups and institutions exercise power. For instance, totalitarian societies (e.g. North Korea) totally dominate the citizen population who are: ”totally subjugated under the power structure” of society in all realms of their lives (private & personal and public & social). This is done through both coercive power (force or the threat of force) and ideology (controlling the thoughts of a population by limiting access to information and using propaganda). Such dominant power is not the ideal way in which to exercise power as it “expensive” in terms of the amount of human effort and resources needed to bring about the desired outcomes. 5 Huey Newton, “Black Capitalism Re-Analyzed I: June 5, 1971,” The Huey P. Newton Reader, 227. 30 | Brem & Sweeney ~ 2018 ~ Government and Politics in the United States In more democratic nation states and communities, most power is exercised as a form of influence in the context of “power shared with” everyone in some meaningful fashion; such that: people are more free to express themselves in all realms of their lives (private & personal and public & social) as they see fit in the pursuit of a good life. When individuals or groups exercise “influence power,” they are affecting outcomes indirectly or partially. At the more “political” or government level, a President tries to influence Congress to pass desired legislation. At the more social or society level, interest groups – which are shared attitude groups - seek to influence the social order by making “political claims” on other groups in society. At the more personal level, one’s significant other may seek to influence a partner to watch a scary movie that “you” prefer not to see. An individual or group may influence another person or group due to many factors, such as: money, knowledge, status, fear, charisma, and or persuasion. Some key points:  Power is a potential or ability that someone possesses. o Just because someone has money, charisma, or expertise does not mean that the individual will be powerful. o An individual may have the potential for power because that person possesses money or charisma, but choose not to use his/her money or charisma to influence others.  Power always involves a degree of inequality. o Individuals/groups/institutions have different amounts of the attributes/resources needed to influence outcomes and o thus they have different amounts of power. It is an important exercise to reflect upon the ways that you have power (the capacity to affect outcomes) in your life and where and when you do not. This helps one to conceptualize where and under what condition one may find their leverage point in the world to affect change or to “define phenomena and make them act in a desired manner” as a person or as a worker or as a citizen. This finding one’s personal social-political efficacy: where one can be effective in making a difference. You have to ask:  In what ways do you have power in your life?  What type of power do you possess?  In what ways do you exercise this power (or not)? What is government? The term government is often used interchangeably with politics but it does in fact have a distinct meaning. Politics is a process or an activity through which power and resources are gained or lost. Government is a system or organization for exercising authority over a body of people. There are different forms of government (see figure 1.4 below); and all them represent the formal mechanisms, structures, and systemic rules of decision making defining value and concluding who gets what, when, where, how, and why. Government is shaped by rules (laws) and institutions. Politics is the process by which those rules or decisions are made. The rules can be thought of as the how in the definition 'who gets what, when and how.' The rules are directives that specify how resources will be distributed 31 | Brem & Sweeney ~ 2018 ~ Government and Politics in the United States and how collective action takes place. They determine how we try to get the things we want. We can do it violently or we can do it politically according to the rules: “the rule of law.” Those rules could provide for a single dictator, a king, for rule by God’s representatives on earth, for rule by the rich, for rule by the majority of the people or any other arrangement. The point of the rules is to provide some framework for us to solve – without violence – the problems that are generated in our collective lives. The institutions can be thought of as the 'where' of political struggle. Institutions are organizations in which governmental power is exercised. In the US, our rules (Constitution) provide for the institutions of a representative democracy (legislative, executive and judicial branches). Other systems might call for other institutions, like a parliament, a monarch or a committee of rulers. What is a state? A state is the term political scientist use for a 'country'. German sociologist Max Weber defined the state as 'a human community that successfully claims the monopoly of the legitimate use of physical force within a given territory.' Key to the definition of a state is the concept of national sovereignty. Sovereignty is the exercise of the exclusive legal authority of a government over its population and territory independent of external actors. Thus, a state is only considered a state if other states recognize the right of its government to exercise absolute legal authority within a given territory and over a given people. For example, Taiwan claims that it is a state, but The People’s Republic of China does not recognize the sovereignty of this entity. So is Taiwan a state? This definition also implies that states that cannot control violence within its territory are perhaps not states. They may be in fact: failed states. Many factors go into the bonds which create a nation state (Figure 1.2) as follows: These come together as the social structures – the overall social contract - of the world in which we live. The Social Order is variably more democratic to more authoritarian to more totalitarian over time as the “rules of the games” play out over time in the interaction of multiple variations of forms of government, economic systems, and cultural systems. What is a Social Order? *If* the goal of politics is to arrive at the creation of a “good society” or a social contract which enables its citizens as people (seeking happiness) & workers (seeking to “make a living”) to pursue “a good life”; 32 | Brem & Sweeney ~ 2018 ~ Government and Politics in the United States *Then* we need to note that there are three general ways people might believe we should order that social contract – or make rules (i.e. “the rule of law”) – to be more effective at doing that! Depending upon the values (see Brem, pages 20 to 23) by which people actually choose to live or work or make political decisions, in private life, or in the market place, or in the areas of government; these three social orders are: 1) more totalitarian social orders or 2) more authoritarian social orders, or 3) more democratic social orders (see Brem, page 18 and 19). Even most people in the United States claim our social contract is a “democratic republic” (i.e. a republican form of government {how we make decisions} which claims to follow democratic values (pages 21 to 24), many people do not actually know what that means or really do not believe in these values. Rather, all over the world and even here in this country, many people do not believe in democratic values. We won’t go into a lot of detail here – you can get more details in the reader on pages 20 to 27 (Brem reader); overall or essentially, these social orders are as follows:  In a more Totalitarian Social Order, people tend to believe there should be only one singular truth o a single religion to rule your private life, a single economic system (pages 28 to 32) to rule your work life– with the aim of the system serving the wants of the few ruling elites at the top (and anyone they favor who support them), with significant less regard for how the survival needs of the masses of people are achieved, and a single political ideology to rule your public life – under which everyone is totally subjugated (or absolutely ruled) o and wherein there is no dissent at any level allowed:  Your private life and thoughts and all public speech and behavior must conform to the social order or there is punishment for divergence.  In a more Authoritarian Social Order, people tend to believe there should be a limited range of proper truths o approved religions to rule your private life, a dominating economic system (pages 28 to 32) with some variations to rule your work life – with the aim of the system serving the wants of the ruling class over meeting the needs of the people to achieve sufficient survival needs being met, and generally one or a limited number of approved political ideologies to rule your public life – under which people are strictly ruled, o wherein there are limited or approved ways of dissent allowed:  your private life and thoughts are yours without restriction,  BUT, all public speech and behavior must not directly challenge the power structure of the social order or there may be various degrees of harshness of consequences.  In a more Democratic Social Order, people tend to believe there should be a wide range of diversity of truths o very open freedom of religions by which one may choose to live and express your private life-style, freedom to experiment with and challenge and even change the economic system (pages 28 to 32) to guide your work life in your work place – with the aim it enables all the people have equitable (just) access to the means to 33 | Brem & Sweeney ~ 2018 ~ Government and Politics in the United States meet their survival needs, and a wide array of political ideologies and free speech to engage in your public life o under which people are free to dissent:  your private life and thoughts are yours without restriction,  and so too is your public speech and behavior free from restriction,  Provided you do not hurt one another, logical and just consequences for causing harm to others. What type of social order a given society is; is itself a matter of degrees of which set of social ordering values and laws shape the behavior of the social contract over time in the public sector (government), the social sector (the market place), and the social sector (private life) together over time more often than not. This can be demonstrated in figure 1.3 and 1.4 Figure 1.3 The Social Contract out of which the Social Order Emerges 34 | Brem & Sweeney ~ 2018 ~ Government and Politics in the United States Figure 1.4 35 | Brem & Sweeney ~ 2018 ~ Government and Politics in the United States What is a representative democracy? A republic is a government in which the people (who meet certain qualifications such as citizenship and age) elect officials (who meet certain constitutionally mandated qualifications) to represent the interests of their constituents and make decisions, policy, or laws in governing society. Democracy, as a form of government, is a system in which the people (the masses) make decisions for themselves (i.e. rule by the demos {people} – the many). In a republic, the few rule through a framework of public law in the interests of the many. In the United States, the claim is made that our system a representative democracy or a democratic republic. Our form of government – it is claimed - is a republic that is underlined with democratic values found explicitly in the Bill of Rights and throughout the Constitution. There are many values which are democratic and many which are not. Every value (and every word or concept) can be interpreted differently by people coming variably from different world views: classical liberal, classical conservative and classical radical. However, three fundamental values of democracy in terms of governance are popular sovereignty, political liberty, and political equality. Popular Sovereignty Under the aegis of the rule of law (the constitution as the supreme law of the land); popular sovereignty means that the ultimate source of public authority is the people and that government does the bidding of the people. As noted by Abraham Lincoln, this is: “government of the people, by the people, and for the people.” Jeff Parker, Florida Today, 11.03.08 Popular sovereignty implies that: o Government policies reflect the wishes of the people. There is a close correspondence between what the government does and what the people want. This ideal does not require that government officials ALWAYS follow popular demands, but elected officials should conform to the people’s wishes over time as they act as a deliberative (cooling) body. 36 | Brem & Sweeney ~ 2018 ~ Government and Politics in the United States o Government leaders are elected. They are accountable to the people because their authority is granted by the people. o Elections are free and fair. Free means there is no coercion of voters or election officials and voter and virtually everyone is able to run for office and voter. Fair means that election rules do not favor some over others and ballots are accurately counted o People participate in the political process. Elections can be useful in conveying the will of the people only if the people participate. If elections and other forms of political participation only attract a minority of the eligible population, they cannot serve as a way to understand what the broad public wants or as an instrument in forcing leaders to pay attention to it. Widespread participation is necessary to ensure that responsive officials are chosen and that they will have an incentive to pay attention to it. o High quality information is available. Citizens need to have high quality information in order to make informed opinions about public policies and political leaders. They must have access to accurate political information, insightful interpretations and vigorous debate. If false or biases information is provided, if policies are not debated and challenged, or if misleading interpretations of the political world are offered, the people cannot form opinions in accordance with their values and interests – threatening popular sovereignty and democracy. o Majority Rules. Government adopts policies that the most people want. It is a fundamental reality based principle of democracy that all six of these conditions must be met for popular sovereignty to truly exist. Political Equality Political equality is the idea that each person carries equal weight in the conduct of public business. In terms of voting and political democratic decision making, this is the principles of “one person one vote.” This concept also means that everyone is equal in under the law; we are all treated the same by the government. Suffrage parade, New York City, May 6, 1912. Government programs should not favor one group over another or deny benefits or protections to identifiable groups, such as racial and religious minorities. One question which arises in political philosophy relative to the consequences of democratic “governance” (how power is used in society emerging out of all three sectors of the social order: public sector - government, social sector - culture, and private sector - market); it is 37 | Brem & Sweeney ~ 2018 ~ Government and Politics in the United States crucial to note that *if* “we” as a society are consistent with the notion of democratic values, *then* we cannot deny any person services in the private sector (e.g. businesses offering service in the public sphere) simply because we do not like them based in prejudices (e.g. race, sexuality, or religion). This is so because to do so is not democratic. Rather it is authoritarian in that we are imposing our values by which we seek to live our lives on the lives of others. In a democracy, freedom is always the right to be different, if one is not free to be different in the public sphere; one is not free (period). Another question to consider is does democratic governance require inequalities in the distribution of income and wealth not be too extreme? Robert Dahl addressed this question and argues that: “If citizens are unequal in economic resources, so are they likely to be unequal in political resources; and political equality will be impossible to achieve. In the extreme case, a minority of rich will possess so much greater political resources than other citizens that they will control the state, dominate the majority of citizens, and empty the democratic process of content.” John Adams "1964-65—The Free Speech Movement Thousands of UC-Berkeley students unite to protest campus regulations restricting political activities." (hri.ugis.berkeley.edu) Pluralism, freedom, limited government, and a legally ordered political system rest on a complex set of institutions. And democratic states, from classical Athens to our day, require careful allocation of powers and regulations of relations between entities. But even with detailed provisions, the existence of many autonomous and partly autonomous units of the polity implies countless potential misunderstandings and conflicts. Hence, the democratic apparatus will be paralyzed or will tear itself apart in a crisis unless there is a substantial agreement on its principles and a general desire that it should be made to work... ~ Robert Wesson (1968) Politics, Individual, and State; Praeger, (p.161) 38 | Brem & Sweeney ~ 2018 ~ Government and Politics in the United States Political Liberty Political liberty is the third fundamental value of democracy. Political liberty is the principle that citizens in a democracy are protected from government interference in the exercise of a range of basic civil liberties including: freedom of speech, freedom of association, and freedom of conscience. Without these liberties the other fundamental principles of democracy could not exist. Self-government in a representative democracy is impossible without political liberty. Popular sovereignty could not be guaranteed if people are prevented from participating in politics or if opposition to the government is crushed by the authorities. Popular sovereignty cannot prevail is the voice of the people is silenced and if citizens are not free to argue and debate, based on their own values, ideas and personal beliefs. Political equality is violated if some people can speak out and others cannot. All of these fundamental principles of democracy and the whole range of democratic values in manifesting a social order as a democratic society in practice; requires all people – as persons, workers, and citizens - understand “action philosophy” and “action ethics.” In these “action ethics” terms and in actually thinking carefully (full of care) about the things we say we think about: one must be willing to live the consequences for they say they believe or they do not in fact believe what they say. Words matter and if you cannot say what you mean you cannot mean what you say and if you will not live the consequences of what you say you mean; then you cannot be an honorable person. Now people with different world views (classical conservative, classical liberal and classical radical) who are people of good will in good faith can disagree over meanings of values. In this vein, Benjamin Rush noted that “Controversy is only dreaded by the advocates of error.” People dedicated to truth will engage in civil discourse with people from differing world views on points of contention to arrive at democratic consensus as to what we as a society shall do. This is what Charles Lindblom calls the “potential intelligence of democracy.” No word or value has only one meaning. However, using either the Oxford or Webster’s (full) English dictionary, one understands that words do have established meanings (which enables us to have shared language) and we cannot simply make up meanings to fit our prejudices. If we use undisciplined uninformed (ignorant) opinions about the nature of words (e.g. those who might be said to use “alternative facts”), then we cannot have meaningful discussions about policy, life, society, or anything; and democracy is at risk because for an informed citizenry to deliberate and effectively decide our common fate, facts and the truth matter. So, this said, *IF* one claims to believe in democratic values; *THEN* one must be willing to live the consequences of democratic values in the day to day governance of society in the public, private, and social spheres of public life in the polis. 39 | Brem & Sweeney ~ 2018 ~ Government and Politics in the United States The American polity as a purposive state defined by the public law of the constitution in the preamble is primarily aimed at: “securing the blessing so liberty for ourselves and our posterity.” Doing so has the consequences of making “political demands” upon all groups in society to honor the central classical democratic values (defined first in ancient Athens – the birthplace of democracy – and articulated by Pericles). These classical democratic values are: respect for diversity (freedom is always the right to be different), having civility in political discourse (deliberation cannot happen without working through disagreement respectfully), and taking on the civic duty in republican virtue of a responsibility to the polis (citizen engagement is needed to make democracy work). How democratic are we? To recap, when we refer to the United States as a 'democracy', we are referring to the values – found in the Bill of Rights and elsewhere in the Constitution - that underlie our representative form of government. We are then a “democratic republic.” However, the extent to which these democratic values are upheld has varied and depends on our collective (as persons: individuals, in groups, and as a citizenry) commitment to upholding these democratic values. As we move closer to or further from upholding the values of popular sovereignty, political equality and political liberty, we also become more or less fully 'democratic.' Thus, we can use democracy as an evaluative standard by which to assess American politics and government. Popular sovereignty, political equality, & political liberty, and diversity, civility, & responsibility to the polis, are not attainable in perfect forms. These are ideals to which we can aspire and standards against which we can measure the reality of whether in fact we are living the consequences of what we as a society say we believe. In securing the blessings of liberty, we need be guided by what our scholarship over the centuries has taught us about democratic values, as Benjamin rush noted: “Freedom can exist only in the society of knowledge. Without learning, men are incapable of knowing their rights.” As to the notion of “Liberty” itself, in 1786, Rush wondered if liberty under our new laws would be more substance or mere shadow. He noted the myth that The American Revolution was the war for independence. No he said! The American war is over; but this far from being the case with the American Revolution. On the contrary, nothing but the first act of the drama is closed. It remains yet to establish and perfect our new forms of government and to prepare the principles, morals, and manners of our citizens for these forms of government after they are established and brought to perfection. Therefore, as we engage in an inquiry into the American experiment in government seeking “to form a more perfect union;” we need to keep these questions in mind - and the questions in The Democracy Index explored a in a few pages below - as we consider if the democratic nature of American government and politics is more substance or more shadow.     Does government do what the citizens want it to do? Do citizens participate in politics? Can citizens be involved when they chose to be and are political leaders responsive? Do political linkage institutions, such as political parties, interest groups, elections, and social movements, effectively transmit what citizens want to elected officials?  What is the quality of political deliberation on the major public policy issues of our day? 40 | Brem & Sweeney ~ 2018 ~ Government and Politics in the United States  Do the media and political leaders provide accurate and complete information?  Do some individuals and groups have persistent and substantial advantages over other individuals and groups in the political process?  Is the political game open to all equally?  Do government decisions and policies benefit some individuals and groups more than others?  Are citizens’ civil rights and civil liberties universally available, protected and used?  Are people free to vote?  Can people speak openly and form groups freely to petition their government?  Do public authorities, private groups, or the majority threaten liberty or the rights of minorities? This list of questions about the health of democracy in America is not exhaustive; however, if the answer to these questions is no more often than not or the substance of the “yes” answers is more shadow more often than not, then democracy in America is at risk and we may in fact be headed into “Dark Time” a possibility of which as Hannah Arendt warned us to be wary! Political Ideology and Political Culture To understand the American social order and political system; we need to examine the differing world views (attitudes, beliefs, and values) that Americans hold about government and society. We start here because our belief structures shape, affect, and constrain everything we do and have done in American politics, from the design of our Constitution to the current battles over public policy at every level of government. In order to understand American government and politics, one must understand both the ideological divisions that exist in the United States as well as the degree of commitment to core values we have that may serve as a unifying force among Americans. If the degree of commitment is more shadow than substance, then democratic governance is at risk. We will begin first by exploring American political culture. Political Culture Political culture is the central tendency evident in the broad patterns of ideas, beliefs, and values about people, government, and the social order held by the citizens of a country as a whole: as a “citizenry” or as “we the people.” Every country has a unique political culture based on the shared values possessed by its people. Political culture acts as a unifying force, pulling us together, based on a core agreement as to how the world works and how the world should work. It is rooted in our explicit and implicit consensus regarding what we mean by “good” when we discuss politics as “the search for the good society.” Some examples of core values held by most Americans include commitments to:      liberty equality tolerance for diversity personal responsibility individualism   fair rules government by the people, for the people, of the people  capitalism 41 | Brem & Sweeney ~ 2018 ~ Government and Politics in the United States Again, recalling always that people with different world views (classical conservative, classical liberal and classical radical) who are people of good will in good faith can disagree over meanings of values; these “shared values” give us a common language that (if these are more substance than shadow) frames and constrains political discussions and debates in the United States. These shared values may not be descriptive of how the world actually is, but rather are normative statements about how we believe the world ought to be. Most Americans believe that our country ought to be free, guarantee equality, play by fair rules, respect the wishes of the people, respect diversity, etc. Asymptotical Socio-Political Questions & Phenomenon When asking is the United States or any society a “democratic society” or not; we need to really ask how and by what means and strategies do actors (individual, groups, rules, and/or policies) “play out” as the system “behaves” – because we get what we do! Actions have consequences and the consequences of our actions as a society – our collective policy choices and behaviors we as a people allow in society (in government, in the market, and in the culture) allow us to “see” the degree to which our social order is more authoritarian to totalitarian or more authoritarian - either more or less so - or is it that the social order is moving more towards being a democratic social order… more often than not over time. Depending upon the overall synergy of all the values of “play” or action in the public sector, the private sector, or in the social sector, as patterns emerge; at any given time in the life cycle of a society, the direction of the social order can be observed to move either towards being more totalitarian or more authoritarian or more democratic more often than not over time. Figure 1.5 Observable values in interaction in and between the three sectors of governance emerging as a social order Then to be more “social scientific” about it as political scientists; we can use a model of analyzing socio-political questions & phenomenon using an asymptotical curved function. An 42 | Brem & Sweeney ~ 2018 ~ Government and Politics in the United States Asymptotical Curved Function is a concept derived from analytic geometry. Building upon the idea of an asymptote; which is a curved line in a graph (e.g. between two points in an X, Y axis) between two point; such that as one moves towards either end of the curve between X and Y, the distance between the curve and the line approaches zero, tending to infinity. That is to say, the line never achieves its destination: arrive at either end of the curve; the lines of the graph never intersect the asymptotical curve. Asymptotic analysis of concepts in psychological, sociological, and political philosophy – as used here – enables us image human patterns of behavior in a “Dance of Nuance” between two extremes (e.g. Right and Left in political analysis) wherein one never is completely one of the other but is always somewhere in between either tending more towards on axis (e.g. to The Right) of more towards the other axis (e.g. to The Left); yet never gets there; and further, can retreat form one extreme towards the other extreme and again retreat and advance in either direction over time as one changes perception, learns new ideas which change one’s perspective, etc. An Asymptotical Curved Function can also be used to evaluate the degree to which our society – the social contract playing out and emerging as the social order - is more authoritarian to totalitarian or more authoritarian - either more or less so - or is the social order moving more towards being a democratic social order. Depending upon the overall synergy of all the values of “play” or action in the public sector, the private sector, or in the social sector, as patterns emerge; at any given time in the life cycle of a society, the direction of the social order can be observed to be moving towards being more authoritarian here and now or be seen to be moving more towards becoming more democratic here and now. This would appear as follows (figure 1.6): 43 | Brem & Sweeney ~ 2018 ~ Government and Politics in the United States Figure 1.7 Interacting Social Structures and Social Order 44 | Brem & Sweeney ~ 2018 ~ Government and Politics in the United States So! We can observe the actions of the people in government, of people running businesses and corporations, or how people are behaving towards one-another in our culture and ask:  Are we in fact a democratic society as we claim we are?  Or is that just an illusion?  Is democracy substance or is it shadow in these Untied States? Democratic Social Order So what is a Democratic Social Orders – striving towards he democratic ideal? Kadmus (2015) notes that defacto, Greek Paganism (and other “Pagan” or nature centered cooperative cultures worldwide {e.g. the Iroquois League}) is the root cultural narrative system of democracy (pluralism) and monotheism is the root cultural narrative of authoritarianism (singular non-negotiable truth). So we need to distinguish the multidimensional pluralistic view of democracy from the singular truth focus of authoritarian systems. Democracy as conceived of by Pagan philosophy as a marketplace of ideas which seeks “to elevate difference to the point of its greatest creativity.” So what are the characteristics we must be able to see present in the collective behaviors of people and groups interacting in the social contract (public sector, social sector, and private sector) in order to know we are in fact a substantive democratic society as evident in a demonstrably democratic social order? DEMOCRATIC SOCIAL ORDER then; is predicated upon an ideal of: “Power with...”  Decisions made for the public good (often defined as equity); in the public interest; defined by governed in accordance with democratic values either direct or representational. Everyone (“the public”) is in co-stewardship within society.  Democratic values codified as means of governance are directed toward the manifestation of the public good via ensuring the foundations upon which meaningful modes of life (access to the needs of living) and self-definition of happiness and its pursuit may occur. Democratic social order seeks to ensure foundations (political and social infrastructure) for its citizens to take advantage of “life chances” by opening social action space. These emerge from the availability of options (possibilities and alternatives in social action space) and the dynamics of ligatures (psycho-socio-cultural bonds, linkages, boundaries, and “obligations”). Life chances are opportunities for personal growth (actualization), realization of talents, wishes, and hopes that are made possible by the social order (Dahrendorf, 1979). Social order emerges out of the collective pursuit of life chances of its citizenry. From the democratic perspective, the more robust the opportunity for everyone to pursue life chances, the more robust the social order. The extent to which the capacity for a society to provide life chances differs from the actual availability of social action space for people to pursue them is the extent to which the social order may be described as socially unjust (Galtung). Rights are framed as a-priori to the regime (e.g. human and civil rights). 45 | Brem & Sweeney ~ 2018 ~ Government and Politics in the United States  Inclusionary -- Tolerance and promotion of diversity essential to community vitality. Freedom is mediated by structures of accountability (e.g. to equality and order).  Logical but negotiable enforcement of and equal protection under law. Rule of democratic law.  Government protects the commons and acts in cases of need where no other actor will or is able.  Formal or informal Constitutional form of government guarantees the fundamental processes -through a guarantee of a dynamic balance between liberty, equality, and order -- that promote the values associated with democracy as a social order -- the rule of democratic principle driven law over the desires, whims, and passions of humans. The VALUES AND CHARACTERISTICS ASSOCIATED WITH DEMOCRATIC SOCIAL ORDER may be formulated in multiple ways – derived from multiple historical eras organized overall as follows: 1) Classical Pagan: Tolerance of 1) diversity; 2) civility (sensitivity to human feelings) to ensure civil discourse and deliberation among the people who have 3) responsibility to the polis (freedom always requires something of people), (Pericles) 2) Enlightenment: 4) liberty, 5) equality, 6) fraternity (community); Declarations of the Rights of (common) Man; Human or Civil Rights (T. Paine, J.J. Rousseau, J.S. Mill); With “Legitimacy” in government rooted in adherence to the perception of democratic values as a-priori “Natural Law”; 7) Life and the pursuit of 8) happiness are democratic rights (J. Locke, T. Jefferson); and 9) Equal protection under law; due process under the rule of law to ensure 10) justice; (“if men were angels there would be no need for government” or laws) (T. Hobbes, J. Madison) 3) Modern Era: grounded in “Association,” charity, and community (A. deToquesville); with 11) Decisions of the people, by the people, for the people -- deliberation -- social responsiveness and representativeness (A. Lincoln) 4) Progressive Era: Government protects the commons and uses its power in the interest of the people (T. Roosevelt). Positive (freedom to) and negative (freedom from) liberty: Freedom of expression and of conscience; Freedom from want and from fear. (F.D. Roosevelt, I. Berlin) 5) 18th Century Constitutional Rule of Law principles: as articulated in the U.S. Constitution & Bill of Rights - defining the tasks and limits of government “government of laws rather than of men,” secure the common good, separation of powers, federation, veto, multicameral government; (Franklin, Madison, Hamilton, Jay, Washington, Adams, et al; structure drawn from Greek, Roman, Presbyterian, and Iroquois political philosophy); this then is defined as the Tasks and principles of constitutional democratic republican government: “...In order to:  form a more perfect union,  establish justice,  insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense,  promote the general welfare, and  secure the blessings of liberty  To ourselves and our posterity...” 46 | Brem & Sweeney ~ 2018 ~ Government and Politics in the United States With Public interest is traditionally defined as democracy that ensures (see above) individual pursuit of happiness, private rather than public ownership, no established religion, and a fair free market. (Van Wart) The STRATEGY AND TACTICS OF DEMOCRATIC REPUBLICAN GOVERNANCE may be formulated in The Democracy Index: These ten indicators assess the health of a democratic civic community. The index is a selfevaluation tool that communities may use to examine the degree to which they do or do not function congruent with democratic processes and institutions in action. After evaluating each of the areas of the index and identifying areas of weakness, a democracy action plan can be created to bolster the health of civic community. The components of the index are articulated in what Democratic Societies are expected to demonstrate….  Community observably practices  The processes wherein community democratic values decision are made are congruent with democratic values  People participate in the political process  Role of the media in informing the community sufficiently to be  People participate in the community effective citizens  There is a clear means of educating  The degree of influence (the people in civic responsibility concerns of) “money” play in the  Business activity contributes to the community relative to (the needs and democratic lifestyle of the concerns of) democracy community  Citizen access to the political process  The means whereby conflicts are and people in government resolved is in line with democratic values ________________________________________________________________________ This “Democracy Index” is based upon work by the National Civic League. Civic vitality and democracy are integrally related. The democracy index has a different emphasis than republican virtue alone having to do more here with what the forms of governance are and the values as means and ends by which governance is engaged (e.g. are liberty, equality, & order in balance?). Democracy allows people who do not agree with one another to live together and make decisions together without killing one another. As an example; the social governance philosophy of Barack Obama was built upon the notion of his proposal that we are in an “Era of The Responsible Citizen.” This is the core of democratic community building. It is “republican virtue” – the responsibility of the people to ensure their society is legitimate. The National Civic League lists these “Republican Virtues” – the virtues which define a “good citizen” in a “good society.” 47 | Brem & Sweeney ~ 2018 ~ Government and Politics in the United States REPUBLICAN (Civic) VIRTUES are the duties & responsibilities of “republican” citizenship; in the context of a democratic social order, the measure healthy civic community is found in an index of republican virtues exhibited by the people and encouraged and empowered by the society and the government. The character of a democratic society and a republican government is a direct reflection of the character of its citizens. Democratic Citizens of a Republic are expected to......  actively participate in governance  become community leaders  monitor and are a part of government performance  volunteer and engage in philanthropy  facilitate healthy intergroup relations  seek out civic education -information to be good citizens  practice democratic values in day-today living      model and pass on democratic values and republican virtues to their children engage in community information sharing seek to enhance cooperation and consensus building become an active part of community visioning and pride building seek out means of inter-community cooperation Figure 1.8 48 | Brem & Sweeney ~ 2018 ~ Government and Politics in the United States Figure 1.9 Balance between Demands & Supports results in Legitimacy of the social order “Democracy” as a social order is a society dedicated to supporting the capacity of its people to engage in changing their social reality by design in the pursuit of life chances…. Sub-cultures within Political Culture Political culture is shared, but not every American is committed to each of these values to the same degree. For instance, while most Americans are committed to capitalism as the best way of structuring our economy, there certainly are some individuals in the US who do not share this belief. And, while most Americans say they believe in the values of democracy and honoring civil rights and civil liberties for all Americans; not all Americans believe this; for example, racists do not believe people of other races should have rights, misogynists do not grant women equal rights, some conservative religious people do not believe Queer people should have equal protection under the law. Thus! In fact, it is prudent be aware that some people do not believe in democratic values at all! Furthermore, there may be some variations in political culture based on region. For example, environmentalism has become a core value in some American communities but not others. Californians share a concern for the environment that is evident in innovative legislation passed within the state to protect our natural resources. California has taken the lead in many 49 | Brem & Sweeney ~ 2018 ~ Government and Politics in the United States areas of environmental policy over the last 40 years in part because of a political sub-culture that embraces values 'sustainability' and 'environmentalism'. Whereas in many other states (such as Mississippi or Texas or Missouri) there may be a substantially different perception of the need for regulations to protect the environment or even higher proclivities to doubt whether there is an environmental problem at all. “Eternal vigilance is the price of maintaining the substance of liberty “in American society. We cannot have any rights which are not able to or not willing to protect with the rule of law. If we say we believe in democracy, then we have to be willing to live the consequences of what we say we believe (action philosophy that). Political Socialization Our culture is passed on generation to generation through a complex process of political socialization (which we discuss in further detail later). Simply put, as individual “persons” we acquire these values at the micro-narrative level of analysis (that level we study in psychology) through our families, schools, communities, literature, churches, etc. This socialization becomes evident as we as “workers” and “citizens” at the macro-narrative level of analysis (that level we study in political science and economics) behaving & interacting together in groups in the public sphere co-create our political culture as a consequence of our collective behavior patterns. This political culture then creates stability and continuity between each generation even as each generation contributes to and evolves the ongoing defining narratives of our social order unfolding over time. Political culture can evolve and change, but it often does so slowly. For instance, Americans commitment to tolerance for diversity has slowly evolved over two hundred years to include more tolerance for diversity based on religion, gender, race/ethnicity, and sexual orientation. However, in the latter half of the second decade of the 21st century, there is evidence this commitment to tolerance for diversity might be in decline as some groups in society feel threatened by cultural shifts in the populace and the presence of more diversity which shall we say “smaller minds” tend to fear. We again recall Benjamin Rush noting controversy (and in this case difference) is only dreaded by the advocates of error. Individualism and American Culture Political culture is so embedded in American psyche that it can be helpful to compare our political culture to that of others to fully appreciate what makes our culture unique. One element of American culture that stands out compared to other country's political cultures is the American emphasis on individualism. Individualism is a social theory that advocates for liberty, 50 | Brem & Sweeney ~ 2018 ~ Government and Politics in the United States rights and independent action of the individual. It places an emphasis on individual over collective action. Alexis de Tocqueville, a French historian and political scientist, toured the United States in the 1820s and wrote a seminal book on the American political system called Democracy in America. In his research of early 19th century America, he was struck by the individualistic nature of Americans. Below is a one page excerpt from Alexis de Tocqueville‘s book entitled: "Of Individualism in Democratic Countries. FOCUS ESSAY: Alexis de Tocqueville ~ Of Individualism In Democratic Countries 6 I have shown how it is that in ages of equality every man seeks for his opinions within himself: I am now about to show how it is that, in the same ages, all his feelings are turned towards himself alone. Individualism *a is a novel expression, to which a novel idea has given birth. Our fathers were only acquainted with egotism. Egotism is a passionate and exaggerated love of self, which leads a man to connect everything with his own person, and to prefer himself to everything in the world. Individualism is a mature and calm feeling, which disposes each member of the community to sever himself from the mass of his fellow-creatures; and to draw apart with his family and his friends; so that, after he has thus formed a little circle of his own, he willingly leaves society at large to itself. Egotism originates in blind instinct: individualism proceeds from erroneous judgment more than from depraved feelings; it originates as much in the deficiencies of the mind as in the perversity of the heart. Egotism blights the germ of all virtue; individualism, at first, only saps the virtues of public life; but, in the long run, it attacks and destroys all others, and is at length absorbed in downright egotism. Egotism is a vice as old as the world, which does not belong to one form of society more than to 6 From: Alexis de Tocqueville (2000) Of Individualism In Democratic Countries, Democracy In America V2, New York, Hackett (pp. 204 – 206) 51 | Brem & Sweeney ~ 2018 ~ Government and Politics in the United States another: individualism is of democratic origin, and it threatens to spread in the same ratio as the equality of conditions. Amongst aristocratic nations, as families remain for centuries in the same condition, often on the same spot, all generations become as it were contemporaneous. A man almost always knows his forefathers, and respects them: he thinks he already sees his remote descendants, and he loves them. He willingly imposes duties on himself towards the former and the latter; and he will frequently sacrifice his personal gratifications to those who went before and to those who will come after him. Aristocratic institutions have, moreover, the effect of closely binding every man to several of his fellow-citizens. As the classes of an aristocratic people are strongly marked and permanent, each of them is regarded by its own members as a sort of lesser country, more tangible and more cherished than the country at large. As in aristocratic communities all the citizens occupy fixed positions, one above the other, the result is that each of them always sees a man above himself whose patronage is necessary to him, and below himself another man whose co-operation he may claim. Men living in aristocratic ages are therefore almost always closely attached to something placed out of their own sphere, and they are often disposed to forget themselves. It is true that in those ages the notion of human fellowship is faint, and that men seldom think of sacrificing themselves for mankind; but they often sacrifice themselves for other men. In democratic ages, on the contrary, when the duties of each individual to the race are much more clear, devoted service to any one man becomes more rare; the bond of human affection is extended, but it is relaxed. Amongst democratic nations new families are constantly springing up, others are constantly falling away, and all that remain change their condition; the woof of time is every instant broken, and the track of generations effaced. Those who went before are soon forgotten; of those who will come after no one has any idea: the interest of man is confined to those in close propinquity to himself. As each class approximates to other classes, and intermingles with them, its members become indifferent and as strangers to one another. Aristocracy had made a chain of all the members of the community, from the peasant to the king: democracy breaks that chain, and severs every link of it. As social conditions become more equal, the number of persons increases who, although they are neither rich enough nor powerful enough to exercise any great influence over their fellow-creatures, have nevertheless acquired or retained sufficient education and fortune to satisfy their own wants. They owe nothing to any man, they expect nothing from any man; they acquire the habit of always considering themselves as standing alone, and they are apt to imagine that their whole destiny is in their own hands. Thus not only does democracy make every man forget his ancestors, but it hides his descendants, and separates his contemporaries from him; it throws him back forever upon himself alone, and threatens in the end to confine him entirely within the solitude of his own heart. In this excerpt, we can see that de Tocqueville considers the democratic origins of individualism and compares this "I" focused culture to 19th century European culture. Tocqueville points out that in feudal and authoritarian societies, there is no allowance 52 | Brem & Sweeney ~ 2018 ~ Government and Politics in the United States for individual freedoms, rights and social mobility. America's experimentation with a representative form of government allows for the first time in modernity for individuals to exercise freedoms. Valuing individualism has long and deep roots in American history and is intimately connected to our 'American Dream.' The American Dream tells us that if an individual works hard, he or she will be successful. The emphasis of this dream is on individual effort and responsibility. These are values that most Americans embrace Liberty, Order, & Equality The values of liberty (liberal focus), order (conservative focus), and equality (radical focus) are in conflict with one another. More order will come at the expense of freedom and vice versa. Using government to create equality (whether equal opportunities or equal outcomes) requires order in the form of rules and laws. Thus, the tradeoff for equality is less freedom (being subjected to more rules). Americans for the most part value liberty more than equality. This is a distinct feature of American political culture. Our commitment to a capitalist economic order is illustrative of this value preference. We want a market place free from too many rules and regulations so that individuals can be free to make decisions about where to work, what to buy, etc.; and we believe in an American Dream where can be “rewarded for hard work.” A socialist economic system is one in which the society - or government in society’s name - owns “the private property” that is the means of production (NOT personal property) with the aim of creating more equality among citizens and protecting people as workers from the chaos of personal whims of private property owners disrupting work places (e.g. shutting down and moving to other countries to lower wages). Americans have never been supportive of such an economic structure as they have been persuaded to believe in “the American Dream narrative” that socialism would take away “our cherished freedoms;” which we believe will lead to our own wealth… even if it never seems to do so. Inequality on the Rise One issue that has arisen recently is a rising amount of inequality in the United States. In his recent film, Inequality for All, Robert Reich makes the point that “Government sets the rules by which the market functions. All of these rules are necessary to construct a free market. The real question is, who do these rules benefit and who do they hurt?” He argues that “the question is not inequality per se; the question is, when does inequality become a problem?” Below are some comparative statistics on wealth and inequality in the United States as of 2018 (source: Inequality for All):  The U.S. has the most unequal distribution of income of all developed nations. th  The U.S. ranks 64 in the world on income inequality  63 nations are more equal than the U.S.  The top 1% of the population holds more than 35% of the nation’s overall wealth,  while the bottom 50% controls only 2.5%. 53 | Brem & Sweeney ~ 2018 ~ Government and Politics in the United States      The richest 400 Americans have more wealth than the bottom 150 million Americans combined. In 1970, the top 1% of earners took home 9% of the nation’s total income.  As of 2018, the 1% take-in approximately 23% of the nation’s total income. Between the 1970s and 2010, the median disposable income decreased while household expenses increased: 1970s 2010  $35,143 disposable  $26,578 disposable income; income;  housing cost $15,579;  housing cost $21,684;  healthcare expenses  healthcare expenses $1,686; $7,082;  college $903  childcare $3005;  college $1,833 In the U.S., 42% of children who are born into poverty will not get out. o While in Denmark, the figure is 25%. o In Great Britain, 30%. In the 1970s, the average CEO earned just under 50 times more than their average employee.  By the 2000s, average CEO pay was 350 times more than their average employee. To check out more statistics that illustrate a growing income gap in the United States, visit this site: www.billmoyers.com/2013/09/20/by-the-numbers-the-incredibly-shrinking-american-middle-class In future times a great majority of the people will not only be without land, but without any sort of property. These will either combine under the influence of their common situation; in which case the rights of property and the public liberty will not be secure in their hands, or, which is more probable, they will become the tools of opulence and ambition; in which case there will be equal danger on another side… We are free today, substantially, but the day will come when our Republic will be an impossibility. It will be an impossibility because wealth will be concentrated in the hands of few. A Republic cannot stand upon bayonets, and when the day comes…we must rely upon the wisdom of the best elements in the country to adjust the laws of the nation to the changed conditions. ~ James Madison (1787) http://www.cesj.org/resources/reference-tools/quotes-collection/ 54 | Brem & Sweeney ~ 2018 ~ Government and Politics in the United States Classical World Views & Political Ideologies: The Driving Force Behind all Politics! The concept of “Worldviews” has always been integral to the human experience (i.e. “classical worldviews”). However, it was formalized in theory in 19th century German social philosophy. Worldviews are psychobiological temperamental dispositions to change, the balance between idea systems & belief structures, sets of values & notions of ethics, and knowledge & language capacities. These in turn are then all shaped by embodiment factors and overall global assessment of functioning dynamics which shape the questions we ask, the facts we collect, provide us with explanatory and interpretive concepts, and suggest plausible answers to problematiques in living (personal, socio-political, and cultural). Worldviews provide the context in which political actors, leaders, or participants articulate their preferences and make their choices, and upon which social inquiry relies in arriving at and fashioning explanations of political positions, choices, actions, and policies. Worldviews are deeply embedded in many debates about legitimacy – the degrees to which systems function in a healthy manner more often than not over time - as they provide the grounds upon which appeals to rightness of rules and standards play out in social, political, and cultural discourses. Such discourses are usually framed by worldviews in a range of ways from the more profound to the more profane and from projections of cosmologies on the universe to and upon explanations of the social world (e.g. from solid theory grounded to loosely associated conspiracies). The Structure of Personality over Dimensions & Nuances Your World View is You! One’s Personality structure; paradigm, or world view gives one “eyes to see” and “ears to hear” only that defined as real by the “structure” of your view of the universe. If you do not perceive “it” (e.g. a phenomenon), “it” to you is not real! One’s World View is integrally rooted or grounded in one’s:  Embodiment & Psychological Profile (e.g. variability of degrees of physical & psychological functioning [e.g. body, senses, neurological functioning, emotional stability, and biochemical dynamics, etc.]) and 55 | Brem & Sweeney ~ 2018 ~ Government and Politics in the United States  Culture and how it frames gender, racial ethnicity, ability, etc.… culture frames you by embodiment!  Language (different languages are better at different kinds of conceptualizations – e.g. English versus Japanese… there are thoughts one can express in one language which cannot be expressed in another language...) – the number of words one has (knows) within a language with which to think and communicate… (You think in words) fewer words lead to fewer thoughts which can be thought resulting in an existentially smaller world… and universe. One’s culture is constructed of language structures.  Level of education relative to: foundational knowledge, critical thinking skills, personal development. Again, this has to do with how big a universe one is capable of perceiving, conceiving, experiencing… A World View is the structure from within which one perceives and experiences reality. It is where you stand and how you make sense of yourself in the universe. This structure is “constructed” of one’s:  Beliefs as to what is and is not so – what you believe to be true, will be true for you - in your experiences - regardless of its actual state of reality… o The more open one’s beliefs – an “idea system” (I.S.) -- the larger a universe one experiences… o The more closed one’s beliefs – a “belief structure” (B.S.) -- the smaller a universe one experiences… Beliefs lead to the other “constructs” of our personality structure, which are:  Values – what concepts are most cherished by you in your world (e.g. family, career, liberty, order, equality, honesty…) to be you…  Morals or beliefs about what is right and what is wrong; what is good and what is evil  Ethics as to what is the “correct” way to behave or “be” in the world. This structure is the complex of life ligatures which define the degrees of freedom one has in perceiving and choosing life options! It is therefore a “psychic prison” from which one must be liberated to increase the possible range of one’s life chances… This is “the box” outside of which everyone says you should be thinking… From this place we stand in the universe, we act and our actions create the world in which we live... Think about that. In classical or “ancient” Chinese culture, this agon between is also the gestalt dynamic shift between a background of non-change and order in the cosmos and a foreground of dynamic change and flux in day to day life here and now, with the nuanced phases shifts of tension in a continuum between the two. This, Chinese classical philosophers represented as a whole gestalt in the “yin and yang” mandala which we can see as being nuanced and asymptotically systems embedded within systems and gestalts embedded within gestalt. Leonardo Gonzalez7 offers this imagery thus: Upon exploring the apparent duality the Yin-Yang initially portrays, we find that it is recursive in nature and thus not absolute. Each separate half seems to be polarized into two aspects, as are those in turn. The key here is that each polarization, Yin and Yang, has in its heart the seed of the other. We can find no absolute purity in either. At the root of Yin’s existence is Yang; at the root of Yang’s is Yin. If the two poles are not absolute, 7 Gonzalez, L. (1999). Yin-Yang: Polarization, Recursion, and Transcendence in Daoism and Tantra, http://mor.phe.us/writings/Yin-Yang.html; accessed 8-212009). 56 | Brem & Sweeney ~ 2018 ~ Government and Politics in the United States neither can their seeds in each other be. This is how we can arrive at an introspective recursion: seeing the Yin within the Yang within the Yin, etc., and vice-versa. An alchemical version of the Yin-Yang symbol clearly illustrates: Classical Philosophy and World Views Cross Culturally: Let us begin with a note about commensurability. It is crucial to note that much of the “languaging” used here is rooted in European philosophy & history; there are four ways in which this is not as problematic as it might seem in terms of making meaningful points about human life on Planet Earth. These four points are as follows:  The way in which the systemic world story unfolded is a matter of record and this involved European dominance of the world system.  As a result, for good or ill, many cultures around the world then assimilated these stories into their own cultural narratives, mixed with their own stories, to achieve the same ends.  This dynamics is the dialectical nature of the human story (i.e. the way of history) through which we become who we are (c.f. Hegel).  finally; in all things there are commensurable psycho-social functional structures through which generalizations may be made as to the equivalent structures in each culture that represent the same functions of day to day life in the lived and shared world of reality. This said then, we may now discuss classical world views. Classical Philosophy is rooted in the “light of reason” found in the Pagan traditions of Greek and Roman thought (“pagan” meaning here: many perspectives exploring multiple stories of truth to determining what is most true). From multiple strains of commensurable classical thought traditions in the ”classical” Greek, Chinese, various African, and Polynesian philosophies; we can derive these positing three general approaches to answering every question into which one may inquire – those three may be framed as “dramas of life” as such:  order (tragedy found in consequences of defiance in the face of non-change in the universe – that is one seeks to change what ought not be changed and the result is tragedy – and yet, also when one refuses to accept change and the results are tragic pain inflicted in the name of maintaining order {e.g. rejecting family members for tradition and the resulting rejection of love in the face of insistence upon the correct order}),  liberty (comedy as a result of learning from flux or “fluidity” in the universe; when one insists on making things stay the same that won’t stay the same and one ends up looking the fool for the effort until one learns from experience), and  Equality (tragicomedy [what Shakespeare calls “history”] that reflects the tension or Agon of life in the lived and shared world of reality). “Classical” specifically refers to the trends in thought before “the modern era.” We trace this narrative of the human story of ideas from the extinguishing of “the light of reason” and the onset of the “age of faith” which brings upon us “the dark ages;” to the onset of “modernity” 57 | Brem & Sweeney ~ 2018 ~ Government and Politics in the United States which begins with the rebirth of “the light of reason” in the Renaissance which led to “the 18th Century Enlightenment.” All psychological, socio-political, and metaphysical discourse is found in one or a variation of a complex of these three world views. We can make a proposition: “we speak reality into existence;” therefore , when you listen to the arguments people make in their personal life and how to live, their social and political positions on issues, or their “beliefs” about the reality of the universe or how they make sense of their life in the cosmos; if you listen closely, you will hear how they will speak in language using words in fundamentally different ways from one another:  Classical Liberals  Classical Conservatives  Classical Radicals speaking liberal meanings into existence. speaking conservative meanings into existence. speaking radical meanings into existence. All of our thoughts and actions are driven by our world views and our degree of functioning as a human being (e.g. more healthy or more neurotic!). We choose our friends and who we associate (or cluster) with and interact with one another through our world views - comprised of our myriad personality traits interacting with and shaping our: experience of “our” unique embodiment, our values, morals, beliefs, language, critical thinking skills, and life skills. All of these then drive us in interacting within our intrapersonal space-time sphere of social action with others and this is why we argue! This is why all politics is conflictual. And this why we have to listen to one another if we want more functional politics! Figure 2.1 Interacting World Views 58 | Brem & Sweeney ~ 2018 ~ Government and Politics in the United States These world views within us and in between one another drive each of moments of decision: wherein our choices have consequences and these shape our social relations in the world and the resultant return response to us from others in the world have iterative effects upon our emerging and ever evolving personality matrix. In each moment then, our choices are creating the future within which we shall live. We thus speak ourselves into existence. So, before one can discuss anything about politics or American governance; we need to understand the different ways people construct their propositions about:      How should the world be arranged? What is the good life? What is the good society? How we should make policy or laws in create this? Who should benefit from the social contract? Political theorist Glenn Tinder argued these comprise in more depth certain “core” or “Perennial Questions” which guide political inquiry and political thinking. These perennial questions result in a variety of responses or proposed solutions to political problems from the three different world views (conservative, radical, and liberal). These propositions for a good social order are grounded in the dynamics of how most political ideas and complexes of ideas (ideographs) are rooted in particular conceptions of human nature; which include the problematique of human evil; functionalism and structuralism relative to just social orders; social contract theory. Perennial Questions in political theory:      Estrangement and Unity Inequality and Equality Power and Its Possessors Limits on Power The Ends of Power     Historical Change Human Uncertainty Conscious Evolution The Future ~ possible, probable, and preferred. So!  What do the specific answers from each world view look like?  What ‘scripts” drive all people when engaging in political discussions about how we should be governed?  …because, if you do not understand these; you can never understand politics! We can explore these world view narratives in depth in the following table. 59 | Brem & Sweeney ~ 2018 ~ Government and Politics in the United States Table 2.1 Concept Classical World Views: Answers to key questions; responses to key concepts CONSERVATIVE RADICAL LIBERAL Fundamental Temperament: Meaning in the cosmos What is the Nature of The Universe? Meaning is ascribed through singular a-priori truths or Revealed Truth - Constructed meaning and interpretive contextual or a-processus truth or Constructed Truth – Utility or pragmatics defines multiple a-posteriori truths or Discovered/Uncovered Truth - Inquiry is to Affirm & Conserve Structure Inquiry is to Support & Challenge Structure Inquiry is to Facilitate Functioning & Play with Structure The universe is organized by a god or gods and given meaning by divine providence The stories of the universe which “organize” perceptions of the universe according to the cultural and social stories and requisites of societies The universe is given meaning by each individual and groups in living day to day because a god or gods may not exist Distrustful of change for Fear – it will make things worse People are Flawed; cannot change their fundamental nature; attempts at change only make things worse. Demanding change for justice in response to Anger at injustice People cannot change when oppressed; change comes through liberation. Embracing change – since it is happening anyway; take Comfort with evolving situation People can change an become better through Education. (Van Wart) Attitude towards change ~~ Drama of Agon Tragi-Comedy ~~ Drama of Tragedy Primary Concern View of Human Nature What is the Nature of Humanity? ~~ Drama of Comedy Order and Fidelity with Traditions Enhancing Connection & Community Bonds; knowing of one’s place in the order of tradition; the requisites to Security & Safety Equity & Equality under law as key to Justice Excavation of “Root” Truth to foster Liberation from ligatures opening “Life Chances” Liberty and Pursuit of Happiness Self-Expression – Self-Definition Exploring Options Release from rules People are essentially bad (“evil”) and Fundamentally Flawed (fallen); need their urges controlled People are neither good nor ‘evil’; Rather, society “Constructs” people as more towards evil or more towards good People are essentially good yet “imperfect” and can become ever better via more education The humanity is innately weak and/or needs a religious or moral code as guiding support and a source of moral restraint. Humanity is basically good if societies are wholesome and supportive of social equity. Humanity is both good and evil; which the rules of the “societal game” either encourage or discourage. (Van Wart) Individuals answer to a god through religious institutions and find goodness relative to standards found in revealed truth; which liberates one from ignorance of that truth. Goodness for individuals is found through contributing to the social unity; wholesomeness for societies is equity of distribution; relative to a standard of social justice which liberates one from oppression.. The purpose of societies is to encourage goodness (and discourage “evil”) through education; relative to standards which emerges from the given society; all of which removes barriers to self-expression within limits of doing none harm. Explanatory Attribution as to the results of human action Focus on the person’s “moral” character as inherently causal of their fate – people get what they deserve (just universe hypothesis) Focus on social context; and/or oppression as the root causality of the situationality of people within the system and their lot in life. Focus upon luck & talent; skill & effort; as the cause of people’s lot in life – people get what they earn and work for in proportion to their competence. What we do creates social order Mirroring human actions Humans are progressive; a positive social order Prospect for Future Imperfect human action creates dark social order 60 | Brem & Sweeney ~ 2018 ~ Government and Politics in the United States Concept CONSERVATIVE RADICAL LIBERAL Philosophical Foundations: Classical Historical Roman order Political Ideals (Burns) Greek Roots Mediaeval Unity Modern Nationalism and Imperialism Tragic Drama (Pedagogic/Warning) Philosophers (Some) Nonchange or “order” is the background against which change is made possible        Athenian Liberty Revolutionary Rights Socialism Renaissance Sovereignty Individualism Agonistic (Tragi-Comedy or “History”) Drama (Tension/Dialectic) Comedic Drama (Expressive/Fun) Socrates Plato The I’Ching (Change via Creative tensions in coordinate “matrix space”) Cosmopolitan Equality Parmenides and Plato Hobbes and Burke Maimonides, Loyola, Augustine, Calvin Dickinson and Hamilton, Churchill John Paul II Antonin Scalia At a tension point between flux and equilibrium; Cyclic “organic” Change is recurrent rotational change between phenomena until return to a starting point.        Democritus, Socrates Spinoza, Rousseau, Marx Akiba, Giordano Bruno, Peter Abelard, Francis of Assisi Paine and Adams ML King, John XXIII, Francis I Thurgood Marshal Aristotle Sequent Change is onward moving progression which never returns to its starting point – in the foreground all is in Flux: it is fluid        Heraclitus and Aristotle Locke and Mills Hillel and Aquinas, Jefferson and Madison FDR Paul VI Ruth Bader Ginsburg Value Structures: Community Values (Crimmons) Responsibility Hard Choices Common Ground Participation Deliberation Leverage Freedom Information Opportunity Social Ordering Values Traditions (Continuity) Respect Yesterday Rights Life Tomorrow Property Happiness Today Types of “Goods” Social Goods serve the social or civil interests of community cohesion built upon social capital and inner private life virtue; what is “good for the soul” Public Goods serve the public interest and civic virtue built upon political capital for the “good of society.” Private Goods serve interests of private groups and material benefit upon entrepreneurial virtue and private capital what is “good for the body;” or feels good or appetite. Types of Moral Claims Universal deontological rules of conduct Aggregate Consequentialism Particular Duties 61 | Brem & Sweeney ~ 2018 ~ Government and Politics in the United States Concept CONSERVATIVE Given the Natures of The Universe and of Humanity; how should humanity be organized into society? (Van Theocratic states, kingdoms (ordained by a god); Societies are guided by a covenant with that divine source; crafted into a social contract to keep a moral social order. RADICAL LIBERAL Socialist (and communist) democracies; Laissez-faire capitalist democracies Society is given meaning by the nature of social relationships; and response and care of the requisites of healthy relationships guides the creation of social contracts for social justice. Societies exist as a result of individuals and groups; defacto entering into social contracts to ensure pragmatic functioning. Wart) Who they are most concerned about: Concern for the Just; Community Concern for the oppressed; Concern for the majority Relationships Individuals Attitude towards the “vulnerable” We take care of our own We take care of those in need We empower them to take care Of themselves Highest “calling” Community Trust Public Interest The Good & Moral Liberation Social Interest The Just & Equitable Self interest Private Interest The Profitable Order found in action which Conforms (“To Survive”) Cooperates (“To Act or Do”) Compete (“To Be”) Natural Laws rules humans for their good. People should get what they deserve. Principles guide & constitute law for human “good.” People should get what they need to live: Maslow’s “Basic Needs” to transcend “primal Fear” conditions. Reparative Justice – resocialization People make laws for their good Equality of Concern Equality of all Citizens Equality of Choice Ethics & Law of Reciprocity (i.e. “the Golden Rule) Concern for individual’s Sovereignty Integrity of identity of persons based upon the right to be one’s self Free access to all rights to choose (e.g. speech, arms, Movement, and association). Freedom is a capacity to do what is right as defined by what one ought do in accordance with tradition and the (revealed) “truth” of received wisdom – “you will know the truth and the truth will set you free” Freedom is the capacity to act in the context of the degree of ligatures or oppression. Substantive freedom is about functioning constitutive of a person's capability to achieve well-being; any ligatures to this are oppressive. Freedom is the capacity to act – free of restriction – aside from the restriction of doing no one harm. Individuals are only free to the degree they have “life options” to define their own sense of happiness and identity in being themselves, doing what they choose to do – except that they may do none harm Justice Retributive Justice- logical consequences Equality Freedom People should get what they earn Utilitarian Justice – “what works” usually at: deterrence 62 | Brem & Sweeney ~ 2018 ~ Government and Politics in the United States Concept CONSERVATIVE What is the purpose of "Art" RADICAL LIBERAL The Conservative would argue art is to reflect realism and uphold tradition and morality "as it should be" in response to reality. The Radical would argue Art is to enlighten and create the conditions for change, for education, and for liberation. The Liberal would argue that art is there to empower freedom, diversity, and joy; but also irreverence and fun. To Preserve “Good” Order; Protection of The Commons; maintain the social order in which one may pursue Life Chances To Preserve Justice & Equity; Protect the populace from oppression; support conditions which enable means to be liberated from ligatures. To Preserve Conditions for a substantive Free Market in balance with a Minimal State; maximize liberty by Addressing Market Failure; support grounds which open options Hierarchy Networks Market Created by commitment to a ruling (moral) code; authoritative, feudalistic, aristocratic; dynastic; structures conformity with traditions Created by commitment to justice and liberation from oppression; structured towards socialist and ecological justice; enhance positive civil liberty. Created by commitment to market and exchange; structural limits promoting negative liberty. Homeostasis Revolution Evolution Organic: linking past, present, and future. Evolving (Edmund Burke) Emergent from the “General Will” towards justice (Jean Jacques Rousseau) Contracted between individuals – the sum of their actions, desires, and visions. (John Locke) To ensure stability (Traditions) and the rights of people to keep what they and their family have earned. To ensure justice (Equity) and the right to get what one needs to live and the means to get it. To ensure contracts (Procedures) and the right to get what I earn not what my parents deserve. Centralized in the rule of tradition; exclusion from power by birth status; diversity honored in a hierarchy of differentiated value Centralized in the rule of law; inclusion in power is rooted in status as a human being; diversity is actively embraced as a human right. Decentralized pluralism inclusion is voluntary diversity is encouraged due to utility value. Place morality first (derived from religion or tradition). Placing individual virtue (for the social good) first. Placing Legality (upholding the social contract and its laws) first; this in turn safeguards individual rights and fair competition. By following the precepts of a god and tradition; laws are civil support for religiously divined knowledge; revealed truth; or the wisdom of the ages (culture). By acting for the common good as one’s primary drive; laws encourage social goodness and social equity By acting for one’s own satisfaction and personal fulfillment as long as it does not encroach on the rights of others; laws protect individuals’ rights and encourage fair competition. Ensure Security Free Identity Facilitate the Economy Directing (Steward) Sustainable Development Leader (“Vanguard”) Punctuated Equilibrium Facilitating (Counsel) Incrementalism & “Satisficing” Open and Accountable Government; Competent Government and Public Administration. Civil and Political Rights; equal protection under the law; “we only have the rights we are able and willing to protect. Free and Fair Elections:  Open Elections  Secret Ballot  Secure Count Political Order: Justification for Government: The “Purposive State” Ideograph Form and source Of “Good social order” View of “The State” Purpose of Law Power Dynamics How Should Government Officials act? (Van Wart) How Should Ordinary Citizens act? (Van Wart) National Task Policy Making “The Democracy Pyramid” ~ (David Beetham) democratic society has: a 63 | Brem & Sweeney ~ 2018 ~ Government and Politics in the United States Concept CONSERVATIVE RADICAL LIBERAL Inquiry: Thinking Modality Absolutist “Concrete” (What is) Reflective “Abstract” (What ought to be) Relativistic “Practical” (What works) Value in Research Normative sustaining Subjective in support of the moral order. Liberating action Subjective in support of cooperation and liberation from oppression Empirical descriptive Subjective in support of Competition Illuminate “Revealed Truth” and good moral order; affirm truths which fit belief (faith) and which conserve structure. To interpret contextual or aprocessus truth; construct real world truths consistent with goals of justice; support justice and & challenge structure Seek, discover, and uncover utilitarian and multiple pragmatic aposteriori truths; to facilitate functioning & play with structure Sufficiency Equity Efficiency Pathos is the audience for the story: presence (contact), connection (empathy), and presence; actor and story seek to evoke certain emotions to connect with the identity of the members of an audience; a "pathetic appeal" (e.g. empathy and identification). Ethos is self as actor in the story: perception by audience of credibility, trustworthiness, and authenticity (of you and your sources); an "ethical appeal" (e.g. link to cherished values). Logos is content or script of the story: information, facts, and data; this involves the attempt to persuade the audience by the use of arguments perceived as logical; a "logical appeal" (e.g. Cause and Consequentialism). Purpose of Research is: Effectiveness defined as: (Used as an Evaluation Criterion in terms of policy) Rhetorical Triangle: in persuasion and the role of the person in persuasion (the script or argument, the actor or performer, and the audience are one). Interest Groups: shared values (interests) groups which seek to make social and political claims on other groups in society. Type of Group Social Interest Group: devoted to social sector values and interests; seeks to shape the direction of society towards the shared social or cultural values of the group; framed as working towards a “good society” and social order; often religious in form (emphasizing the rights of traditions), yet can also reflect social ordering values of collective personality traits – from more democratic to more authoritarian; or can be of a spiritual nature promoting internal self-growth. Political Claims made on other groups ion society Appeal for conformity t some moral standard as defied by the shared values of the group members; the expansion of harmony and shared identity values in society; seeks moral righteousness. Focus of Efforts to Enact Claims Making Pragmatic Conservatives focus upon single policy aims – one at a timedisciplined efforts at advocacy and lobbying and campaign clarity on a specific aim; Iron Triangle Approach; Cultural Conservatives seek to meet social needs through familial or cultural venues over public policy channels Public Interest Group: devoted to public sector values and interests; seeks to serve the “public good” keeping the “public trust” to enact public policy aimed at making society function better (emphasizing civil or human rights) in accordance with the political value structure of the shared interest group; which are not readily commensurable – as if different groups “speak” different languages relative same issues – and often result in conflict over means and ends. Seek or demand assistance for those in need; the expansion of equity and equal protection under the law of a social order characterized by justice; seeks structural change. Private Interest Group: devoted to private sector values and interests; seeks to serve interests of “private stakeholders” with shared interests in commerce, often to increase private sector “business” profitability emphasizing property rights, or serve the interests of powerful individuals (which may or may not serve the public good); or can be of a “social club,” hobby, or “fun” activity group (promoting the pursuit of happiness) in nature. Promotion of an ideological mindset to change the nature of society: Movement Building Approach; seek to facilitate communitarian solutions to enact structural change in society. Orchestrated engagement to address a complex Problematique with set of polices to address multiple issues; seeks to meet social needs through Public Policy and shared cost (redistributive policy); a Policy Network Approach. Request for tolerance of diversity; the expansion of liberty and the right to be different and pursue private interests; seeks to educate society. 64 | Brem & Sweeney ~ 2018 ~ Government and Politics in the United States Concept CONSERVATIVE Ethical Principals driving group action internal & external    Hope Reverence Compassion RADICAL    Empathy Respect Justice LIBERAL    Integrity Recognition Courage How World Views come together as Political Ideologies A Political Ideology is a complex story with a mostly consistent set of ideas outlining the parameters of a “good society” grounded in sets of norms and values by which people ought to live their lives together. This is an “ideograph” or a discursive structure or a narrative comprised of ideas or beliefs about politics, society, economics, and culture; and ideas or beliefs about life as persons, life as workers, and life as citizens that: IF - were they to be used or “lived by” in daily life - by the people more often than not; THEN this ideographic structure would enable people as individuals and as society to help make sense of their world, while defining or placing the proper role of government in their lives and as such lead to the emergence of a ”good society” as defined by the ideology. As such, an ideology also includes a plan of action (asking and answering: What shall be done?) for applying these ideas to create a better “good” society and social order or social contract. In every civilization (Eastern & Western, Northern & Southern), historically, current or “modern” ideologies or ideographs are “rooted” in the classical philosophy of a culture (its “deep culture or grande narratives) defining civilization over time which is comprised of past ideas about the proper role of life in society and the place of government and culture in day to day life. Over time, these ideological roots and narratives evolve into current and/or “modern forms” of ideology which is the current ideas about the proper scope of culture, government, and life in society. What Shall Be Done? ~ World Views and Why do people believe what they believe and do what they do? Politics has to do with how you live your life. How do you want to live your life? Would you rather live in a more healthy way or in a less healthy way in how you experience day to day living? We can talk about politics through this question. First, it is noted there are three kinds of future: possible future, probable futures, and preferable futures. Then, we note further, that every person has to… that is, to function effectively, we all have to have a definition of what is truth, what is beauty, and what is good? Only this clarity enables us to decide what we prefer about anything in our life regarding, our choices of actions and our preference of what world we would prefer; in everything we do as a person, as a worker, or as a citizen in the world. So! In what kind of future world do you believe it is in which you would prefer to live as a person, as a worker, and as a citizen? Politics is everywhere and politics is always conflictual! However, we can handle conflicts in a more healthy way or in a less healthy way. Which would make you happier? Politics is about the pursuit of happiness by the way… Aristotle argued it is about the search for a good society 65 | Brem & Sweeney ~ 2018 ~ Government and Politics in the United States which empowers its citizens to pursue a good life: being happy! As social & political beings, our goal is to be “effective” at making our dreams come true (happiness) and making our society effective in supporting that! (By the way, do you really want to be “ineffective” at doing these? Think about that.). How healthy or “functional” (vs. “dysfunctional”) we are at doing these things is a matter of emotional development or maturity. To be effective at that is where we note: psychology matters! So to be effective at anything, we need to know how to do things better & more functionally more often than not; and this requires we do things in a functional balanced way with: 1) liberal efficiency, 2) conservative sufficiency, and 3) radical equity in balance over time in all we do, more often than not. Politics is always about how power is used in human relationships – between people in their personal lives, between workers & supervisors and customers & clients at work, and between citizens and government and other social groups in society (e.g. people from differing religious groups, with different lifestyles, and/or with different interests). Because of this, politics (power in relationships) matters and you cannot escape it! So it is better to deal with it more rationally than emotionally, or your conflicts may be more volatile and less healthy and less helpful. There are three ways we are “rational”– cognitively (thinking), extralogically (feeling & emotions), or “politically” (using power to decide). When people let their emotions control their thinking and then allow these emotions to be magnified by “ignorance” (i.e. what you do not know or understand enough about the world or about other people); their conflicts with others become less healthy (e.g. angry, coercive, or violent – and in that: undemocratic!). So to be effective at creating a more healthy and more democratic “way of being” in relationships with one another – as people, as coworkers, and/or as citizens together in community – we need to “think about the things we think about” in arriving at our decisions in life (at all levels of living) when we ask: “What Shall Be Done?” World Views and Decision Making in Life The way one views the world is a not so much “political” as it is a reflection of your psychological temperament. Just as you can be temperamentally more introverted or more extroverted, or more rational or more emotional; you can also temperamentally be more conservative, more liberal, or more radical at how you go about making decisions about living your life! These temperaments come from our deep cultural stories (e.g. traditions, religions, and ways we’ve been taught to believe people “should” be) – with which we are raised (or “socialized”) – going back to or “rooted in” classical times in our history (e.g. thousands of years ago) (see Brem, pages 11 to 15). The Classical Liberal, Classical Radical, and Classical Conservative perspectives then are the frames of reference from which you and everyone around you and people everywhere, arrive at their opinions about, well, about everything. It is how we come to decide what we think “the right answer” is to the question: “What Shall Be Done?” …about anything. 66 | Brem & Sweeney ~ 2018 ~ Government and Politics in the United States Psychologically & philosophically, these are the three ways everyone thinks about their world as a person, as a worker, and as a citizen. Each culture has its own words in different languages for these ideas, but regardless of different words, essentially, in every culture, there are commensurable ways of seeing the world that roughly looks like these “world views.” That is, people can “be” conservative, liberal, or radical in their opinions about anything (e.g. how to clean a house, how to live, how to view art, how to work, how to do politics, and/or how to be religious, etc. etc. etc.…..). It is through these “lenses” you make decisions about what is true, beautiful, or good in everything you do as a person, a worker, or a citizen in the world (You might note this is touched upon in my introduction video {you should review this}). Read pages 33 to 49 to see more details of these world views but in general, these views are as follows:  “Conservatives” seek to “conserve” and honor the standards of our community from the past (i.e. we don’t just throw out the past, we learn from it, and should be cautious about changing it), tradition (i.e. we honor the timeless truths from our forebears and ancestors), and the maintenance of order (i.e. there needs to be rules). o They embrace tried and true – “proper” - ways of doing things the way we have always done them; seeking social harmony & equilibrium with certain universal and never changing ideas & values.  “Liberals” seek to empower the “liberty” of individuals in the present (i.e. here & now matters most), in a pragmatic way (i.e. we do what works and if “what has been” no longer works, we should let it go), to empower self-expression (i.e. the pursuit of happiness; freedom is always the right to be different). o They embrace pragmatic ways of doing things which inevitable change anyway so one might as well go with the flow of societal evolution as it – and its ideas & values - inevitably changes.  “Radicals” challenge every idea at its very roots (i.e. the Latin work “radix” for roots) seek to empower “equality” or equity (i.e. justice) for people and in the community to build a better future (i.e. we are always seeking to become better and that is always ahead of us), which is based upon a socially just social contract (i.e. there can be no peace with no justice), and thereby we “liberate” people from oppression. o They embrace innovative and new ways of doing things and demand change of ideas & values (from the past or in the present) which we have come to know as oppressive! o The seeking revolutionary change in society at its roots to create a better life and world tomorrow! When you listen to (or read) any social or political commentator talking of how the world ought to be organized, and how they believe people should behave as persons, workers, or citizens; you can analyze their world views. People are telling you who they are through their words, and the themes they emphasize, and in this, you will be better able to guess their primary world view relative to the good society and the good life: the types of polices they would recommend, or the way they believe people should live their lives. 67 | Brem & Sweeney ~ 2018 ~ Government and Politics in the United States Of course it is important to note that everyone is psychologically a complex “mix” of all three world views in their personality and beliefs. These are also different depending upon context (e.g. as a person {private life}, as a worker {e.g. in the market place}, or as a citizen (e.g. in society with the rule of law}). Look at your own life and see where & when & how are you: more or less conservative, more or less liberal, or more or less radical at doing whatever it is you are doing as a person, a worker, or a citizen. So when you analyze a person’s “politics;” you must take into account how conservative, how liberal, and how radical a person is about what, how, when where, and why. Until you do this, you will never understand politics! Classical World Views and Ideologies The distinction about what were the “Classical Ideologies” first emerged during the Enlightenment Era (from the 1500s to the 1700s) to describe sets of ideas rooted in foundational cultural and philosophical stories from the shared past in each civilization (they’re all different!) about the role of culture, government, and values in guiding life in society. Every civilization has commensurable functional structures for these classical world views (that is “social structures” {e.g. family, religion, love…} which “function” in day to day life in a way which is commensurable {or roughly equivalent upon key points of comparison}). In Western Civilization, whose stories have profoundly shaped the 21st Century Modern World System, the three classical world views and ideologies derived from these are classical conservatism, classical liberalism, and classical radicalism.  Classical Conservatism is a world view framed around a belief in the importance of privileging the status quo and traditions in preserving the social order. It is the idea that the role of government is to provide order in society as essential in the functioning of any society (boundaries, limits, and rules allowing us to peacefully live together) and as part of the conservative notion of the purpose of the state (“The Purposive State” ideograph) to provide what is known as “The Rule of Law” to provide for “domestic tranquility” (secure the peace and provide defense). This is reflected in the ideas of Thomas Hobbes & Edmund Burke who also noted that to be effective, society must have a profound reverence for traditions and the past in giving the people a sense of identity (“a story of us”) in guiding our daily lives as persons, workers, and as citizens. To the conservative, true “freedom” is only found through living life according to some immutable unchanging truths. o However, if “order” is taken too far, this can lead to an authoritarian society, wherein human beings do not have robust or guaranteed civil rights and civil liberties so much as they simply have obligations to the ruling ideology and/or (in cases of theocracy) religion and are subjugated by the people in power. As such, people must merely know their “proper” place in the social order. In an extreme conservative or “reactionary” (reacting against change) authoritarian social order, individuals are not to question or challenge his/her place in society or voice dissent.  Classical liberalism is a world view framed around a belief in the importance of embracing the evolved beliefs & values of the present and the needs of today over the beliefs or solutions of the past. In this it seeks to offer pragmatic means by which a social order may function better 68 | Brem & Sweeney ~ 2018 ~ Government and Politics in the United States and become better (i.e. “a more perfect union”) in the context of today. “Liberalism” emphasizes liberty in thought and action and is the core ideas of what is known as the Age of Enlightenment (life guided by the “Light of Reason”). This is reflected in the ideas of John Locke & John Stuart Mill who held that the point of government (“The Purposive State” Ideograph) is to protect rights to property, self-defined notions of happiness, and life chances; and in so doing provide people with “liberty.” To the liberal, real freedom is only present when one may live their lives as they choose (provided they do not harm one another). Classical liberalism emphasizes personal freedom and limited government (similar to modern day Libertarians). Thomas Jefferson espoused this ideology in the Declaration of Independence with the statement: “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, and that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” o However, if freedom is taken too far, this privileges individual rights over any notion community bonds & responsibilities and can lead to a chaotic or anarchic social order (i.e. “The Wilding Ideograph” – tearing down government and setting society wild to see where freedom of individuals alone will take us. As such; human beings are subject to the whims of the strong over the weak due to the absence of rules constrain uncivil behavior. In such social chaos; people cannot have robust or guaranteed civil rights and civil liberties, because we have no rights we cannot and will and will not protect as a society through the rule of law. So individuals only are responsible to themselves and their own self-interest and community has no hold on them to which they do not agree which over time leads to ever increasing tendencies among humans towards selfishness in all things. This extreme liberal or “Nihilistic” (rejection of the necessity of fundamental social and political structures, such as government, family, and law) social order is then paradoxically de facto an “authoritarian” social order, in that individuals are not protected, and live lives of uncertainty and insecurity if, for whatever reasons, they as individuals have no means by which they can access the requisites of survival.  Classical Radicalism is a world view framed around a belief that the social structures and foundational cultural beliefs of the social order must be challenged at the “roots” (in Latin: “radix”), to liberate humans from structural injustices which oppress people who have little or no power or who merely seek to be different than the cultural norms. Radicals seek to construct “truths” which liberate the minds and bodies of citizens, This is reflected in the ideas of Jean Jacques Rousseau & Karl Marx who held that the point of government (“The Purposive State” Ideograph) is to protect and expand human rights (options in pursuing a happy life and access to basic survival needs) over the ligatures imposed by the rich and powerful society (who benefit most from the current order and thus resist change). In this classical radicals seek to offer liberating means by which a social order may function better in becoming a socially just society which serves the life “survival” needs of the people whom the social contract must serve. This is a belief that the purpose of a social contract is to bring about a just and equitable society found in a just balance (an equality of access over time) between order and liberty, by challenging society at its roots (challenging the status quo) to build a better future. According to the radical world view, only in such a world may people find real freedom; which can only exist when we people are liberated from socially constructed socio-economic oppressive ligatures. In this liberation then, people, may find a range of hitherto inaccessible options opened to them in expanding personal liberty; and thereby they experience increased odds at human “life chances” as persons (as individuals, as workers, and as citizens) and this can only be done together. 69 | Brem & Sweeney ~ 2018 ~ Government and Politics in the United States o However, if the pursuit of equity is taken too far it can tend towards imposing equality which can never exist as anything but a balance over time between liberty and order. No two things or being can ever be “equal” – they can only seek equal opportunity. Thus, imposed abstractions of equality standards can lead to the emergence of a an authoritarian society, wherein human beings do not have robust or guaranteed civil rights and civil liberties to be different and also seek differing reward for differing degrees of value contribution to society. People are left with simply having obligations to community and the ethic of quantitative equality wherein their individual creativity is not rewarded. People want to differentiate and be different and in a sense qualitatively unequal in wanting to self-express and be unique. In an extreme radical or “extremist” or “Zealot” (fanatical and uncompromising in pursuit of ideals) authoritarian social order, individuals are not to question or challenge the ideals of the social order taken to illogical extremes. It is crucial to note, regardless of world views in play, authoritarianism comes via a “populist” appeal to emotional sentiments & ideological (or religious) rigidity or dogma over reason & appeals to knowledge in crafting public policy. Democracy requires policy debates be rooted in appeals to knowledge in crafting public policy arrived at through civil discourse and compromise between people attributing good faith to their ideological opponents. How these various world views interrelate systemically is shown here - Figure 2.2: 3D Classical & Modern Ideologies Interacting 70 | Brem & Sweeney ~ 2018 ~ Government and Politics in the United States So Now What? So, in the end, what is this essay asking you to understand and do? Remember: we noted there are three kinds of future: possible future, probable futures, and preferable futures. You are asked to engage in self-reflection and ask: what kind of future world do you believe it is in which you prefer to live as a person, as a worker, and as a citizen? Then, you are asked here to seek to:  Understand your own world view, understand your own processes of thinking about the thing you think you think about, and in which social order you really truly believe?  Ask yourself then, how can you get better at these as a person, a worker, and as a citizen?  Then, when you engage in looking at society and political actors in society (people who would make political claims upon other people and groups in society {about how they should live their lives as persons, workers, and citizens}); apply this model presented here in this essay to your understanding of what is going on in the world in which you live. Do all of this and then apply this model presented here in this essay to making some decisions as a global citizen; as to how you want to live your life and for what positions will you take a stand in your world, to use your life to make it a better place tomorrow in the future. What do you need to do in and with your life to make your preferred vision of your story of your future self, in your preferred future world, more probable then merely possible? Because after all, the future is where we’re all going to spend the rest of our lives! So: “What Shall Be Done?” Foundations of American Political Ideology American political ideology uses the terms conservative, liberal, and radical, differently in a “modern’ variation. Thus, these terms have come to take on a different set of meanings than their original (classical) usage. The American political system is founded on classical liberal ideas. In the late 1700s; liberalism was in vogue in Western European “enlightenment” thought. To be a classical liberal in the late 1700s, then, meant championing freedom for individuals and limited representative government and as such it was a radical position to hold in that it challenged the roots of “the ancien regime” (ancient order) of society wherein people were to be ruled by older conservative traditions and single truth religions, the social structures of a “divine right of kings” and the privileging of aristocracy over normal or “common’ people. For most of history, political systems have been based on classical conservative ideas - that a small number of people ruled and that the majority of the people were subjects with no rights. The real American Revolution was not the war (that was a war for independence only). The real revolution was the idea of liberty and classical liberal social contract to test the popular liberal ideas espoused by Locke and others. This was only possible because in the “Americas” there was no entrenched form of government and the traditional ruling powers were geographically far away from the Americas. The central ideas of classical liberal American political philosophy were: 1. Focus on personal freedoms (the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness) 2. Limited government to maintain some order so that people can enjoy their freedoms 71 | Brem & Sweeney ~ 2018 ~ Government and Politics in the United States There was broad consensus among early Americans in favor of this liberal ideology but disagreement did exist. The disagreement centered upon the size of government needed to protect individual and property rights. One side – led by Alexander Hamilton and James Madison and “The Federalists” - argued that a strong central government was needed to ensure order (“the rule of law”). Another side – led by Thomas Jefferson and Patrick Henry and “The Anti-Federalists” or so called defenders of “States’ Rights” - argued the states should have more sovereignty over a central government; to protect individual rights and primarily the property of the people. One result of this debate was that the Federal Bill of Rights (where we find most of the civil rights and civil liberties government is supposed to protect) did not protect citizens from State Governments; it only protected citizens from the Federal Government. This was a problem. This debate was primarily a debate between The North and The South and the worry of Southern Aristocrats that the Federal government would someday end the institution of slavery. Rich plantation owners were concerned with their “property” - enslaved people made property. They were not concerned with the “property rights” of poor people of any race. In fact, they used the institutions of government and culture and religion to create an ideograph of “racism” (there is no concept of race in biology) to make sure poor whites and poor non-whites and slaves would never come together to oppose the rich landed property owning aristocracy. Ultimately, the “States’ Rights” argument led to the creation of The Confederate States of America secession from The Union and the American Civil War. This resulted in the formal end of slavery and the extension of the Bill of Rights to all Americans - Federal and States - through the 13th to 15th amendments to the U.S. Constitution. The country transformed from being these “united states” into being “The United States.” Modern Political Ideology The ever emerging split and the ever evolving shifts in meaning between more classical world views and the modern variants we know of today in American political ideology were driven by profound debates between “conservatives” and “liberals” over the “radical” questions of justice in the face of the expanding degrees of inequality and injustice related to the industrial revolution. Throughout history, there has always been a struggle between the rich and the poor, the haves and the have nots, and between the more powerful and the more powerless. A complex of systems dynamics and historical forces converged to drive this ideological transformation. These forces were the:  Industrial Revolution and  transformation from the “agricultural capitalism” of the Slave owning society into an overall industrial society with “industrial capitalism” and  emergence of global capitalism and a global capitalist class of powerful people in a “capitalist world system” (as America and Europe came to dominate the world system through war and colonialism) and  Finally, the transformation of a global banking and finance system. Together these changed the dynamics of poverty and dynamics of social structural oppression and transformed American society. The movement from farms to factories uprooted lives. Classical Conservative thinker George Will noted that capitalism is like a solvent poured over 72 | Brem & Sweeney ~ 2018 ~ Government and Politics in the United States traditions and notions of a society aimed at crafting better souls among citizens devoted to family and community and using things and loving people. As these values dissolved; the purpose of society becomes merely making money and owning things and loving things and sing people. In this world, people started to get angry at their life conditions (as written about by Upton Sinclair in his book The Jungle). Americans suddenly found themselves in situations in which they could not meet their basic needs (water, shelter, food, and clothing) because:  Where once people were “dirt poor” (they only had dirt but at least they could grow their own food, make clothes, and build their own home with neighbors in community helping one another).  Now! People were “just poor” - they no longer lived on the land and had to live in rental flats or apartments and had to work at low paying jobs (low paid because owners make more money by lowering wages) - and they now had to buy all their basic needs – which often they could barely afford if at all. McKinleyism: These dynamics all culminated in the “Age of the Robber Barons” and the ideology personified by William McKinley that the sole purpose of government is to serve corporate interests and business is the only business of America and serving the rich elite serve America. This era was characterized by extraordinary gaps between rich and poor, violent suppression of requests for fair working conditions & wages, no social services (except as available from charity), no tenant rights, continued extreme racism & sexism, and overall an ethos of property rights being more important than human rights. Upon this basis America sought to define its “greatness” as becoming a global economic, military, and imperialist power. People everywhere, including Americans, began to question and debate what role government had in helping people in need who through no fault of their won could not eat. This movement was occurring around the industrialized world. Karl Marx wrote his Communist Manifesto in 1848 calling “workers of the world to unite” as a rallying cry for the oppressed and wretched of the Earth. Classical radicals around the world were demanding social structural change and justice. Since radical ideas never quite took hold in America because of our deeply ingrained classical liberal and conservative religious values; this global debate divided Americans into two camps:  Classical liberals who continued to believe that government should only exist to protect individual life, rights, and property. o They believe we should “conserve” the classical liberal values - upon which we were founded – o that government should be limited to these essential functions only and o That the needs of the poor should only be served by family and religion. o The assumption behind this belief is that individuals should take care of themselves (personal responsibility); and o If a person fails in life it is strictly their own fault and maybe even a “god’s will” for sin.  Social welfare liberals – still believing in classical liberal values overall – argue that as social reality changes so too should our social responses to new problems with new solutions that better fit the times than solutions that once worked in simpler times. 73 | Brem & Sweeney ~ 2018 ~ Government and Politics in the United States o These people began to argue that government should take an expanded role in dealing with issues of justice –  meeting basic survival needs which people cannot meet on their own, and  which some families and religious organizations can never meet because the problems are systemic (and not a matter of personal responsibility) and  Are simply too great for private people with and charities to address because there is never enough resources there to meet the needs and they become easily overwhelmed. o In the face of large impersonal and uncaring corporations and a global economy in which people as individuals are mostly powerless; “progressives” argued we can only make progress towards justice if and only if we use “big government” with its large resources for things like  feeding the poor & ensuring safe food supplies, ensuring sanitary & just working conditions, and  using the rule of law to render the social-economic playing field equitable so every person is assured at minimum a “fair deal” (Theodore & Franklin Roosevelt) under the social contract;  so at least one can start with  being free of unfair systemic ligatures (right to life)  access to real meaningful options in life (right to liberty)  To result in one having increased odds and “life chances” (right to pursue happiness). It is important to note that Americans were still committed to the idea of limited government with an emphasis on individual liberty, but more and more Americans also began to believe that it is appropriate for government to regulate industry, correct for the structural instabilities of capitalism (e.g. booms & busts) that hurt everyone but the rich, the economy, and provide basic services & and ensure access to basic needs to people who were not the winners in the game that is the American social order. Thus:  Classical liberals seeking to conserve the original intentions and a strict construction understanding of what the founding fathers and their Constitution as it was written in 1787, became modern conservatives; standing up for traditional American values and “effective” government (defined as extremely limited and strictly efficient, seeking to free individuals from regulations letting them stand alone in their own conscience).  Social welfare liberals became “liberals” seeking to allow the words of the Constitution to live and evolve to meet the needs of the people alive today facing the problems they face today with solutions and flexible interpretations of the law that enable us to have effective government (defined as sufficient in meeting the challenges of seeking equitable ends in the social contract for citizens standing together in the supportive shelter of one another). Social/Moral Issues and “The Culture War” Today we are experiencing the consequences of further ideological shifts & splitting occurring between liberals and conservatives. Through the 1980s, “liberals” and “conservatives” both believed in “The Purposive State Ideograph” and worked towards compromise between their respective world views on governance in crafting legislation. 74 | Brem & Sweeney ~ 2018 ~ Government and Politics in the United States Contemporary Modern neo-“Conservatives”: However, in response to the “more liberal” era of the 1960s and 1970s; starting with the 1980s Reagan revolution (attacking the idea that government is ever a force for good in society), and coming to a head in the 1990s under a new conservative style of leadership with Newt Gingrich (“Contract with America” - promising rigid adherence to conservative values); conservatives became more reactionary and started to refuse to comprise on any issue in the defense of “singular truths” relative to a so called culture war. This meant an end to governance by compromise through civil discourse and procedural democracy between people of good will who differ on opinions of ideology. The Evangelical Christian Right defined its theology in terms of literal biblical interpretations and the necessity of making American law support their moral singular truths. This is called “Dominionism.” These theocrats (seeking to make society & law adhere to a single theology) also aligned themselves with “right libertarian” billionaires and adopted a “prosperity gospel” (that Jesus wants people to be rich).  On social and moral issues (e.g. abortion and marriage), conservatives began to see a role for government intervention and regulation to integrate church and state and make us more a “Christian Nation.”  On economic issues, right libertarians following the philosophy of Ayn Rand, conservatives believe the American heroic spirt of greatness is found in the “captains of industry” whose wealth makes American great. Their goal is to set society free & wild (The Wilding Ideograph) by removing all regulations and privatizing all government services with corporations delivering all serves for a profit. This stance seeks an end to “The Purposive State Ideograph” or as neo-reactionary (people who believe even “The Enlightenment” itself was a grave error) Steve Bannon put it: “deconstructing the administrative state.” This reactionary (or extreme conservative) shift has been called by some (c.f. William Greider) a “New McKinleyism” and a return to the values of the 1890s when America was last Great…. before the Progressive era. In the late 2020s, this ideological shift is often referred to as “Trumpism” or sometimes called “TrumPencism” referencing the coalition – “marriage” between right libertarian billionaires and the evangelical prosperity gospel Christian right. It is a “populist” appeal to emotional sentiments & religious dogma over reason & appeals to knowledge in crafting public policy. Contemporary Modern neo”Liberals”: As the reactionary right was rising, so called “liberals” became persuaded the old “New Deal” and “Great Society” progressivism were no longer viable strategies with the American Electorate. In the name of merely winning elections, “liberals” became “neo-liberals” and while abandoning “progressive” values became ensnared with the corporate oligarchy for donations to win elections. De facto, (not holding right libertarian views), “liberals” now adopted “left libertarian views that government should allow individuals to make social and moral decisions (e.g. abortion and marriage) for themselves.  On social and moral issues “liberals” became champions of identity politics (e.g. politics of embodiment such as LGBTQ rights & women’s rights as is consistent with “democratic” values) which are crucial and essential in terms of democratic human rights; however, these are deemed as addressing exclusive groups and not the diverse & intersectional “identity” 75 | Brem & Sweeney ~ 2018 ~ Government and Politics in the United States issues of all people. “Liberals” failed to emphasize this crucial note: Issues of “freedom to self-identify” are about everyone’s unique right to self-identify! o At the same time “liberals” de-emphasized issues of class politics (e.g. economic & political issues of access to: health care, education, fair housing, labor rights, etc.) which are seen as addressing the needs of all people. Therefore, by serving corporate (donor) interests and abandoning class politics, “liberal” appeared to abandon the poor and favor only exclusionary groups. o Overall, “liberals” remain champions of diversity in religious consciousness and keeping theology out of politics.  On economic issues, they are left libertarians – neoliberal, with a goal to encourage and support economic growth with sufficient regulation & government intervention to address the structural inequities of a so called “free market” system. They seek to do this with income redistribution to fund supplemental support for education and health care and social services to meet basic needs; and to protect the environment. These stances are consistent with a “Purposive State Ideograph.” In all things modern American liberals they seek to use reason and appeals to science based facts in crafting public policy. Contemporary Modern “Radicals”: for the most part, modern radical in America today are represented by the Green Party and other “left” parties. The ideology of the American left – or mainstream (not extremist) radicals - can be seen as aiming to create an ecologically sustainable society rooted in environmentalism, nonviolence, social justice, and grassroots democracy. They seek to change the political-economic calculus of the American Social contract to moderate or even eliminate capitalism in favor of social democracy (Bernie Sanders) or actual socialism. The Green social contract stances– as a stand in for modern radical discourse in contemporary America - follow the ideals of: ecological wisdom in policy making and regulatory legislation, restructuring the social-political-economic contract to achieve higher degrees of for social justice, grassroots democracy (all inclusive), and nonviolence to expand equal opportunity to the blessings of liberty in America and the world. Some extremist radicals on the hard left would adopt “The Wilding Ideograph;” not as the extreme Right would (by purposely destroying the administrative state), but rather, the extreme left would advocate for letting the corporate oligarchy and its agent “administrative neoliberal state” collapse of its own weight and contradictions and then people in diversity honoring consensual communities of concern can create local mutually supporting economies and driven by democratic values and ideals. These relationships between classical and modern liberals and conservatives are shown in figures 2.3, 2.4, & 2.5 below. Let us start with the Patchwork nation model. 76 | Brem & Sweeney ~ 2018 ~ Government and Politics in the United States Describing the political-cultural geography of Groups of People And shared attitudes towards voting from right to left8 The Patchwork Nation project was a 2009 partnership between The Christian Science Monitor and PBS -- “The News-Hour with Jim Lehrer.” Working with a continually evolving database analyzing American attitudes regarding voting (political psychology – the study of the political implications of what we believe and why we believe it), it is the case that we live in a “Patchwork Nation.” This means we are a nation that is a patchwork quilt of nuanced clusters of shared attitudes shifting shades of “purple” between “a red shift” or mostly conservative right and “a blue shift” or mostly liberal left with every shade in multiple dimensions in between. This patchwork of nuanced concentrations of voters with similar attitudes is spread across over 3,000 counties with over 300 million people in the United States (US Census Bureau). Media coverage and the rhetoric of elections and electoral political debates characterize only two categories: red states that vote Republican (“modern conservative” right wing) and blue states that vote Democratic (“modern liberal” and left wing). However, this red/blue breakdown of political opinion doesn’t explain what underpins the voters’ decisions. There are more dimensions involved (e.g. rational, simple emotional, complex emotional/physical -- “survival perceptions” [i.e. primal fear], etc.) in how and why a person decides to be the kind of voter they end up being when they choose who they support. Therefore, looking at the country county by county -- it’s important to note counties are complicated places. However, sorting done by attitudinal and voting patterns allows typing with a high degree of accuracy for each county taking into account all the people and towns that fall within the county borders. As a result, twelve distinct types of voter communities have been identified across the United States then (see next page). Different issues matter in each of these communities and candidates tailor their messages to a particular audience. That is to say, the things that interest people (i.e. the interests around which they form voting groups) living in these areas the most as to what they care about and who they support also changes as the times change and as their personal involvement changes (the realm of political economics - the study of the political implications of “value” and how and by what means it is authoritative assigned in the social order). It is one thing to think about an issue abstractly (as a theory) as opposed to concretely (i.e. as it actually involves you [e.g. economic well-being, family members at war, stem cells and Alzheimer’s, etc.]). People’s voting patterns (what is studied in “election studies” – a subfield of the discipline of political science) are at least partly informed by where they live. People of the same or similar ethnic, racial, or religious backgrounds, ages, family situations, and/or socioeconomic class may vote differently depending on whom they connect with and what they see on their streets and in their local news. In some areas, people live for NASCAR; in others, residents like opera. Some towns open for business early and some stay up late. Some cities see Sunday mornings as “church time,” others Chinni, D. (06.15.2009). A new Patchwork Nation, http://patchworknation.csmonitor.com/csmstaff/2009/0615/a-new-patchwork-nation/, Christian Science Monitor (Accessed: June 30, 2009). This section is substantially from the Patchwork Nation Project edited and enhanced by Robert J. Brem following wiki conventions. 8 77 | Brem & Sweeney ~ 2018 ~ Government and Politics in the United States see it as $30 brunch time or more work time. And Starbucks and Wal-Marts aren’t everywhere… These dynamics shape ideology and how people may vote based upon place. What patterns emerge are the basis for what we call political geography. Census and consumer data – including race, employment, religion, and household spending, etc. – lead to identifying eleven nuanced profiles (different community types) across America mapped county by county. There could have been more categories as three hundred million people is enough to generate hundreds of groupings. However, the authors (including James Gimpel -- University of Maryland ) of this project settled on 12 that represent enough nuanced variances. This project covered perspectives upon issues from the voters’ point of view (or “world view”) to provide a fuller picture of voters’ decision making nuances in shades between blue left and red right. Figure 2.3 Community Types -- The Patchwork Nation This consists of over 3000 counties, divided into 12 community types on the basis of certain demographic characteristics, such as income level or racial composition. These are as follows:  Boom Towns: Midsize cities and smaller towns with well-balanced economies of affluence, education, and professional employment; growing ethnic diversity, some retired elderly with high incomes.  Military Bastions: High levels of employment in military or related government employment; often adjacent to major military installations, private military contractors, or have a history of military-dependent economies; middle income, transient, younger populations, with some trade and service workers in the local economy.  Campus and Careers: High percentage of the population between 18-34, few retirees or elderly; includes university/college towns and locations with high employment in education and educational services; high levels of formal education; religious diversity, secularism.  Minority Central: Lower-income counties with large proportions of African-Americans and Native Americans on Indian reservations; low population growth or steady population losses, high unemployment and poverty; low-end housing stock; African-American locales are concentrated within the Deep South.  Emptying Nests: Middle-income, retirement age; and baby-boom populations; presence of evangelical and mainline Protestants, fewer Catholics, stable but not booming economies.  Monied 'Burbs: High-income counties, with high professional employment and formal education; high expenditures by consumers on new vehicles, luxury goods, property taxes, and charitable giving; midsize in terms of population and population density, primarily within metro areas; family age populations, low density housing; predominantly white, but with some Asian-American presence.  Evangelical Epicenters: Briskly growing small and midsize towns with family age populations; middle income with some affluent and poor; low incidence of mainline Protestant and Catholic churchgoers, higher incidence of evangelical adherents, particularly in the South and border states; Mormons in the West; some minority presence, chiefly blacks (in the South) and Latinos (in the West).  Mormon Outposts: Home to a large share of members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints; located within or near fast-growing counties primarily in Utah, Idaho and nearby states; counties with average household incomes slightly higher than the national county median; these are reliably Republican voting counties. These are differentiated from evangelical epicenters due to their following different cultural and economic patterns unique to the LDS religion.  Service Worker Centers: Midsize cities and smaller towns with very high percentages employed in trade and service businesses but not manufacturing or agriculture; many new residents, growing Latino populations; more Catholics and fewer Evangelicals or mainline Protestants.  Immigration Nation: High percentages of Latinos and Asians; immigrants living in midsize to larger cities; moderately high levels of unemployment; Roman Catholic with sprinkling of religious diversity; lower income with moderate to high percentage in poverty.  Tractor Country: Predominantly white, smaller towns and more remote counties outside of metropolitan areas; low level of manufacturing employment, high levels of self-employment, employment in agriculture, as well as small-town retail and wholesale trade; Lutheran, Reformed, and mainline Protestant adherents predominate in the upper Midwest.  Industrial Metropolis: Older Northeastern and Midwestern cities once dependent on manufacturing; diverse populations, including significant Jewish populations; some high-end residents in established historically wealthy neighborhoods, mixed with lower income populations. 78 | Brem & Sweeney ~ 2018 ~ Government and Politics in the United States Figure 2.4 World views, modern and right/left evolution 79 | Brem & Sweeney ~ 2018 ~ Government and Politics in the United States Figure 2.5 80 | Brem & Sweeney ~ 2018 ~ Government and Politics in the United States The Idea of America and The American Promise The cause of America is in a great measure the cause of all humankind. Many circumstances hath, and will arise, which are not local, but universal, and through which the principles of all lovers of humankind are affected… The sun never shined on a cause of greater worth. Tis not the affair of a city, a country, a province, or a kingdom… Tis not the concern of a day, a year, or an age; Posterity are virtually involved in the contest, and will be more or less affected, even to the end of time… Tom Paine – Common Sense America represents something universal in the human spirit.... You can go to Japan to live, but you cannot become Japanese. You can go to France to live and not become a Frenchman. You can go to live in Germany or Turkey, and you won't become a German or a Turk. (However,) Anybody from any corner of the world can come to America to live and become an American. Ronald Wilson Reagan America is a terribly difficult idea filled with promise and impossible to live up to. Promise is inchoate and promise is what binds us. …Some of us (are) fortunate, more than others. But failed promise only truly fails when it leads to lowered expectation. C.J. Cregg – Arron Sorkin (“The West Wing”) The American Idea of “Liberty lies in the hearts of men and women; when it dies there, no constitution, no law, no court can save it; no constitution, no law, no court can even do much to help it.” Justice Learned Hand New Colossus: Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame, With conquering limbs astride from land to land; Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name Mother of Exiles. From her beacon-hand Glows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame. “Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp!” cries she With silent lips. “Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, The wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door!” Emma Lazarus The Promise of the American Idea of Liberty is that here! All people are free and equal in determining the course of each their own life, in each their own unique pursuit of happiness as each defines that to be! …and that none of us is free until all of us are free! The American Promise is a Promise Each One of us must keep! Robert J. Brem 81 | Brem & Sweeney ~ 2018 ~ Government and Politics in the United States Constitutional Foundations The best place to start with inquiry into American government is to examine the Constitutional foundations of American Government, including the road to the US Constitution, the key components of our Constitutional design, federalism and civil liberties. Introduction to the Constitution In the United States, the Constitution is seen as the ultimate set of rules that determines who gets what, why, when, where and how. It is the Constitution that establishes the rules that determines who wins and who loses; who benefits and who pays. Notably, this document has only been altered 27 times since it was adopted in 1789. This means that the compromises and decisions reached in 1787 by a small elite group largely still structures and impacts our lives to this day. One question to ponder as we study the Constitution is whether this document (based on compromises reached 200 years ago) is still applicable today. The task addressed by the Constitution is how to find a way to structure people living together as citizens and governing as leaders to be enabled to manage their passions such that 82 | Brem & Sweeney ~ 2018 ~ Government and Politics in the United States their passions do not manage us. That is the basis for the American system of checks and balances on power to enable us to disagree and yet still find a way forward together in a “purposive state.” What empowers us in moving forward is to find a way to stay in integrity with the vision of the Constitution as the rule of law over society rather than by the whims of any given person or group, or even temporary majorities all of whom would be tyrants if not for the tempering of their passions and prejudices by the rule of public law. In this sense, Thurgood Marshall described the constitution being a “Living Document” whose ideas are alive and evolve along with the times in which we live to fit the times and address the problems we face today. In this, Thomas Jefferson (in 1816) argued that: “I am certainly not an advocate for frequent and untried changes in laws and constitutions. I think moderate imperfections had better be borne with; because, when once known, we accommodate ourselves to them, and find practical means of correcting their ill effects. But I know also, that laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths disclosed, and manners and opinions change with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also, and keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy, as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of the prejudices of their past.” The Road to the Constitution The road to the Constitution of 1787 was a long one. A series of key historical events and trends structured the context of the Constitutional Convention and the document that was produced at this convention. The Quest for Opportunities In the late 1700s, the vast majority of people living on the eastern seaboard identified themselves as “English” and these people united under the notion of the “Rights of ‘Englishmen’” in a similar quest for opportunities. Colonists left England first and foremost, to find new opportunities in America. Life in England had limited opportunities for freedom, economic gain and political power. The colonist sought:  To escape feudalism (where they were de facto “serfs” who were tied to land they did not own) and have an opportunity to own land (property rights).  For economic opportunities to better their material conditions to meet their basic needs for survival (a human right)  To practice religion freely (a human right) o It’s important that we understand that many of these people in the 1700s wanted to only practice their religion but would not tolerate others practicing a different religion.  As a result, many colonies were founded as homes for people with different religions. o Only over time did this urge towards ‘religious freedom” to practice “my religion” evolve to become an actual right for everyone to practice “their” or “different religions” in the same community. 83 | Brem & Sweeney ~ 2018 ~ Government and Politics in the United States Overall, the opportunities people sought in North America were not open to all people! “We the people” had been defined many ways in the 17th and 18th centuries, but had never meant anything like everybody or even every white male. For example, in England, only 3% of men could vote. People were excluded from access to the “blessings of liberty” by religious differences, having property qualifications for voting, and the exclusion of women, blacks, & Native Americans from political life. In the American colonies; property qualifications were less restrictive than in England, but religious qualifications were more restrictive. Again, only slowly over time ‘religious freedom” evolve to become an actual right for everyone to practice “their different religions” in the same community as a human right to a freedom of conscience. We need to be clear: the early colonial leaders did not believe that simply living in a particular place, following the laws, or even paying taxes carried with it the right to participate in government. They actually believed some people were better than others! And this was expressed in terms of racism, sexism, and religious bigotry. In the 1700s, the vast majority of people would not see it that way; they believed “god” created people different and preferred some over others (e.g. “saved”). Only slowly over time – even into the current day – did Americans come to evolve their attitudes to see all people as having equal rights under the law and deserving of equal dignity as human beings with civil rights. Remember, freedom or “liberty” is always the right to be different! Or it is not freedom (period). In the 1700s however, following the rigid English social hierarchy, people often wanted ONLY the “right kind of people” to participate. People who could be depended upon to make the rules that would ensure their status and maintain the social order (from which they benefited). Then as now, people, who benefited from the power structure as it was/is, saw a danger of expanding participation and the vote. Privileged people tend to believe and fear that expanding opportunities for equal participation would allow new majorities of “other (different) people” to have power (e.g. through voting and equal opportunity) to express things they want which are something different from what the old (privileged) majority wanted. The desire for self-determination For much of the history of colonial America, the British had left the colonies alone and the colonies had learned to live with the colonial governance that the British did exercise. Most colonists accepted British rule and were loyal to the British crown. The colonists received:    Protection from British army and navy A secure market for their exports Funding by British corporations. Colonists did not demand self-determination until a political conflict developed over the issue of taxation. It was not that they were opposed to taxes (which is a propaganda myth articulated by anti-government activists today). The colonists understood, as Oliver Wendell 84 | Brem & Sweeney ~ 2018 ~ Government and Politics in the United States Holmes noted: “taxes are the price we pay for civilization.” What they objected to was not having a say in the taxes: “taxation without representation” as the saying went. Conflict between England and the Colonies The British were deeply in debt due to the French and Indian War. They succeeded in forcing the French out of North America and the Spanish to vacate Florida and retreat west of the Mississippi. This war, which was found to defend the colonists, left Britain in debt. The British turned to the colonist to help pay for their defense by levying more taxes directly on the colonies and by more strictly enforcing trade laws that would increase British profits from American resources (enforcing the laws on the books). The colonies were obliged to make England their main trading partner. Even goods that were exported to other European countries had to pass through England where they were taxed. In trying to recoup money, Britain passed a series of Acts that the colonists found repressive.      Sugar Act of 1764 – imposed custom taxes on sugar Stamp Act of 1765 – imposed a tax on every piece of printed paper in the colonies (including newspapers, legal documents and even playing cards). This act incited protests and demonstrations which led Britain to repeal this act in 1766. Townshend Act of 1767 – imposed a tax on goods imported from England, such as paper, glass and tea Tea Act of 1773 – imposed a tax on tea that led colonist to toss 342 chests of team into the Boston Harbor in protest Coercive Acts of 1774 – designed to punish the citizens of Massachusetts America's First Social Movement A key component of the organization against the British was the call for a Continental Congress in Philadelphia in September 1774. This was a strategic move and a major step forward in organizing across the colonies against the British. The First Continental Congress succeeded in declaring 1. The coercive acts void 2. Announced a plan to stop trade with Britain 3. Called a second congress the following year Before they could meet again, shots were fired between the British and colonist at Lexington and Concord and the War for Independence began. The Declaration of Independence The main outcome of the Second Continental Congress was the issuing of the Declaration of Independence from Britain. In 1776, as part of a Continental Congress committee, Thomas Jefferson (then 34 years old), using (then) “cutting edge” ideas of 18th century liberal thinkers to write a declaration of independence from England. 85 | Brem & Sweeney ~ 2018 ~ Government and Politics in the United States The Declaration of Independence is a political document defending the decision community & political leaders arrived at to break with England. They needed to convince themselves, their fellow colonist, and the rest of the world that it was the right thing to do. Remember, in 1776, any colony breaking away from a Monarch and another country was a liberal idea and a radical thing to do. As a “radical” argument of moral right to be independent then; the Declaration of Independence was a persuasive document. Jefferson looked to John Locke’s (in the “Treatises on Government”) and Tom Paine’s (in “Common Sense”) ideas and arguments that government is based on a social contract between the rulers and the ruled. In this light, the ruled (citizens) agree to obey the laws as long as the rulers protect their basic rights to life, liberty, and property. If the rulers fail to do that, they break the contract and the ruled are free to set up another government. Jefferson makes this same argument, switching “property” to “pursuit of happiness” (perhaps to appeal to those who did not own property). The rest of the document focuses on documenting how the colonists’ arguments as to why they believed that England, and particularly King George III, had violated their rights (as “Englishmen”) and broken the social contract. The Americans had to declare themselves free and independent from British rule and then successfully fought a “war of national liberation” to defend it. This gave them the political space to create a new set of rules and form of government to govern the territory as an independent new sovereign state and nation. Remember, Benjamin Rush argued “the war” was not the revolution! It was a war for independence that ended successfully. But the real revolution was just beginning and would never end. That revolution was a new classical liberal constitution as a set of laws creating a democratic republic. As a new phenomenon, creating a democratic republic driven by “the rule of law” was a “revolution” (and that makes it a radical act). "Drafting of the Declaration of Independence.” The Committee: Franklin, Jefferson, Adams, Livingston, and Sherman." 1776. (National Archives and Records Administration) …The Revolution was affected before the war commenced. The Revolution was in the minds and hearts of the people; a change in their religious sentiments, of their duties and obligations...This radical change in the principles, opinions, sentiments, and affections of the people was the real American Revolution. ~ John Adams [Letter to H. Niles (February 13, 1818) Thoughts on Government (April, 1776)] 86 | Brem & Sweeney ~ 2018 ~ Government and Politics in the United States However, precisely because this was a new thing to do in human affairs, the first attempt at creating this was very imperfect and as such was a dismal failure… The Articles of Confederation After independence; the colonies were by no means unified in being a nation, and as such were incapable of transacting international affairs as a country effectively. To address this problem; in 1777, the Continental Congress met to try to come up with a new Constitution (a framework that established the rules or a “set of laws” defining the role for the new government). This first attempt was the Articles of Confederation. That same year, the Articles were adopted by the states and were in effect as the first constitution of this country until 1789. The Article’s created a system of rules in which each state held its own sovereignty – as if a nation unto itself – only in voluntary association with one another as a “confederacy” with the states having each their own sovereign rights. These rules illustrate the jealousy, of holding their own power, the leadership elites in the states held relative to any association with other states or any notion of a central government. Having just won independence from one large national power (England), the last thing they many of these elites wanted to do was to create another central national power. The states then were extremely wary of one another “intruding” upon their internal affairs as unique states. There was a great deal of concern about larger states dominating smaller states and of Northern states using any central authority of a government to intrude upon the culture of the Southern states (especially on the issue of “their peculiar institution” of slavery!). Much of the debate around the Articles was that the rules not give any state preferential treatment. To this day it is known as the “States’ Rights Debate.” The Articles created a league of friendship in voluntary association in which the states had power and the federal government had very limited standing power and limited ability to carry out that power. The Provisions of the Articles of Confederation were:      A national government with a Congress empowered to make peace, coin money, appoint officers for an army, control the post office, and negotiate with Indian tribes One vote in the Continental Congress for each state regardless of size The vote of nine (of 13) states to pass any measure; amendments to the articles had to be unanimous Delegates selected to the Congress by their respective state legislatures Because of the fear of a tyrannical ruler, no executive was created and the national government was quite weak Strengths and Weaknesses of the Articles of Confederation Some of the articles accomplishments (strengths) include:     Handled territorial conflicts between states (the articles resolved boundary disputes and the political organization of new territories) Settled some land claims among states Passed Northwest Ordinance to deal with new states Provided public goods: army, navy, post office Other than that, national government was weak and states remained centers of political activity. Weaknesses included:  States, not people, were represented by delegates to a national congress (a confederation gives power to the states and says nothing about the rights or obligations of the individual; that is left to the state) 87 | Brem & Sweeney ~ 2018 ~ Government and Politics in the United States       The national government could make no demands on the states (States were the center of political gravity) There was only one branch - Continental Congress (and no chief executive) – no real leader; Congress could pass laws but there was little power to execute or enforce them No Taxing power – difficulty to establish anything without the ability to raise money No exclusive foreign policy power No control over commerce (each state issued its own currency & imposed tariffs on each other & foreign goods), (trade between states became chaotic because states were using their own money; continental dollars were worth nothing) Any changes to the Articles required unanimous approval of all state delegations (thus no change) Shay's Rebellion a Catalyst for Change Though this system worked for a fashion, it came to be viewed generally as ineffectual and unstable as early as 1784. Economic conditions following the war were poor. Many people owed money and could not pay off their debts. State taxes were high and the economy was depressed. Americans experienced a radical form of poverty which they felt was particularly unjust in light of the rhetoric of the Revolution about equality for all. Some states were using the state legislature to address this issue of poverty and economic depression. Some used the legislature to redistribute property to the have-nots (a departure of the liberal philosophy of John Locke protecting private property). Years of complaints and conventions culminated with Shays’ Rebellion in Massachusetts in 1786-87. In 1785, the Virginia legislature issued a call for a general economic conference of all states to meet in Annapolis but only 5 states sent representatives. These delegates saw an opportunity to use the meeting to achieve greater political successes. The group wrote a report documenting the failures of the Articles and called on states to send delegates to a new convention in May 1787 in Philadelphia to remedy them. In the meantime, in the summer of 1786, Shays Rebellion served as a catalyst for the movement to revise the broken Articles. Massachusetts was a state whose legislature, dominated by wealthy and secure citizens, had not taken measures to help the debt-ridden population. Mobs of farmers began marching on Massachusetts courts and preventing trials of debtors in an attempt to prevent their land from being foreclosed. The farmers demanded action by the state legislators who they saw as biased toward the interests of the rich. These incidents culminated in January 1787 with Daniel Shays, a former captain in the continental army, leading an attack against a federal armory. The rebellion had to be put down by private forces as there was no national army to use. This highlighted the need for a stronger national government. Many business elites began to advocate for a strong national government to protect them against such social upheavals by the large debtor class and to make international trade easier with effective national unity on business affairs abroad. Therefore; on Feb 21, 1787 The Continental Congress authorized a new constitutional convention for the sole purpose of revising the Articles for the purposes of efficiency of business and national affairs; because without a stronger central government there was no meaningful national capacity to provide the economic and political stability desired by most Americans. However, no one anticipated the Articles being eventually replaced! 88 | Brem & Sweeney ~ 2018 ~ Government and Politics in the United States The Constitutional Convention of 1787 Delegates were appointed by the legislatures of every state except Rhode Island, where the debtor class had gained political control of the legislature. The delegates chose George Washington to preside over the assembly. Washington was the most prestigious man in America at the time. State delegates were assigned the task of trying to fix the Articles after the concern over Shay’s Rebellion that states could not secure political stability. In James Madison’s words, there was a need to contain and limit the will of the people in a government that was based on the will of the people. Such a check did not exist under the Articles in which all power rested in the states. It was up to the states to devise a way to check the people’s will. From May through September of 1787, delegates of each state met in Philadelphia to fix the Article of Confederation. This meeting occurred in part due to the advocacy of James Madison and the state of Virginia, which was arguing for a stronger national government. The Convention held all of its sessions behind closed doors and kept all of its proceedings a carefully guarded secret in order to promote free discussion and debate without the appearance of elite division or conflict. The founders believed that men are most effective at negotiation, compromise and decision making if they are operating in secret It was clear from the outset that many of the delegates who gathered in May 1787 were not interested in saving the existing framework at all. They were well versed in all the classical texts of political philosophy rooted in Western Civilization (from Plato and Aristotle to Cicero, Epictetus, and Lucretius to Machiavelli and Montesquieu to conservative Hobbes, liberal Locke, and radical Rousseau). They were also familiar with experiments in democratic & republican governance from Ancient Greece and Rome to the Renaissance Italian City States to the Iroquois Confederation. From this grounding; they set out discussing all of these threads of thought and leant experience in crafting a new set of laws for new republic. In this Constitutional Convention of 1787, the result of their philosophical deliberations and arguments was a series of compromises that emerged as the delegates engaged, deliberated, and resolved conflicting interests and arguments from different world views. These resolutions and compromises resulted in the final document: The Constitution of the United States as a democratic republic. The Framers of the Constitution The 55 delegates to the Constitutional Convention (and they were all elite white men) who met in 1787 have often been called an assembly of demigods (certainly by Jefferson) – as their collective intellectual resources rendered them as being of almost as if partially divinely inspired as compared to most common persons of the era. Certainly, the American founding myths are built upon this idealistic perception. Many of the delegates represented the educated, powerful, and wealthy elites of American society (i.e. they were wealthy lawyers, speculators, merchants, planters, and investors). They were among those whose capacity to be more effective in their pursuits was being undermined by the ineffectiveness of the Articles of Confederation design and they wanted a better social system of social structures to act as framework from within which to create a social order that would better 89 | Brem & Sweeney ~ 2018 ~ Government and Politics in the United States benefit them and their enterprises. Some also thought of higher purposes such as benefitting the general citizenry (although to these 18th century minds that would mostly apply to white males). These men (or “founding fathers”) were simply not typical of the nation’s population. At the time, there were 4 million individuals living in colonies. American society was largely agrarian (emerging agrarian capitalism), with 80% of the people living and working on farms. A small middle class existed and consisted of successful farmers, shopkeepers and artisans. Of the 55 men at the Constitutional Convention:    42 had already served in Congress 3 had been governors 40 held high offices in state governments  11 had signed the Declaration of Independence In sum, the drafters of the Constitution had extensive experience in governing. For the late 18th century era, they were unsurpassed in political skill and experience. The men who wrote the constitution had made all of the key decisions from the stamp act to the revolutionary war to the experiment of the Articles of Confederation. In an age when only a handful of men in America went to college, the founding fathers were conspicuous for their educational experience. They established a strong precedent for legal training. Three dozen had legal training and half had served as lawyers or judges. The education of the founders helps to explain the ideas and principles that they brought to the Constitution. Again, as we discussed above, these thinkers were deeply trained in Greek & Latin, in classical philosophy, and well versed in the lessons of history; all of which informed the drafters of the Constitution in the makings of the classical approaches to government and governance. So in some more detail then, the Key influences on the thoughts of the framers on governance were:  Greek influence o From Aristotle (and Plato) came the emphasis on the form of government called polity (or republic),  And an understanding of the differences between forms of polity between virtuous and tyrannical forms. : Aristotle outlined the Fundamental Forms of Government as Rule by The One The Few The Many Monarchy to Tyranny Virtuous Self-Interested Monarch Dictator Aristocracy to Oligarchy Talented & SelfVirtuous Interested Elite Elite Polity or to Constitutional Republic Large middle Class rule for common good Democracy Mob rule in the interest of lower class (bread & Circuses)  o o This idea of polity mixed elements of aristocracy and democracy for the best interests of the nation as a whole. From Athens came the notion of democratic values (Pericles): respect for diversity and necessity for civility in discourse as well as… From Sparta & Athens came the idea of citizen duty to the polis  The Greeks referred to anyone NOT involved in governance in public life as “idiotes” as it is seen selfish and foolish to not be involved in public life (showing public spirit in the public sphere which was seen as essential to a healthy society)! 90 | Brem & Sweeney ~ 2018 ~ Government and Politics in the United States  Roman influence o o From the Roman experience (and Montesquieu), the founders learned the importance of checks and balances to limit corruption in government. The Romans also emphasized the idea of civic virtues and “republican virtue” or the duties of citizenship in crafting a republic (Cicero, Epictetus, Lucretius, and Machiavelli):  Through participation in governance we become better people; what George Will calls politics as soul-craft. To have legitimate grounds for a Warrant for Discourse – earned right of citizens to engage in a democratic polis - requires honor among “we the people.” The Romans defined this kind of thinking as republican virtue: the duties and responsibilities of citizens of the republic. Republican Virtue is the foundations of Civilization and Civil Society and is found in the hearts & mind – the soul - of each citizen as they live their lives in accordance with these values; According to: Horace courage honesty steadfastness simplicity of living honor reverence respect Lucretius truth over superstition; earnestness reason (over passion, e.g. the rule of law over the whims of men) Virgil perseverance devotion to duty inspiration from the heroic Epictetus (Stoicism) “Justice” (relative to violation of law: restorative and rehabilitative; and in life: rewarding meritorious service) “Right” (Civic virtue, public spirit, and regard for the good and the needs of the many over that of the few)  Republic is the Latin word for polity. o A republic was understood to be a political system in which  the many (“the people” who meet certain qualifications for competence) participated  but this majority was to be constrained by rule of law from being tyrannical as a majority over the rights of the few.  British influence o The founders also studied the history of Britain and learned from the idea of due process of law and limits upon power by constitutional traditions. o British statesman Edmund Burke said “they are therefore not only devoted to liberty, but to liberty according to English ideas and English principles.”  Burke is speaking to the heavy influence that English ideas had on the founders (i.e. Locke and Hobbes and “Rights of Englishmen” as these evolved out of Magna Carta)  More so than the average colonist, the founding elite were concerned about issues concerning the entire nation. o They saw the United States more as a single nation than as separate countries (the perspective of most colonists and a challenge during ratification). o Unlike the masses, members of the elite extended their loyalty beyond their particular states. 91 | Brem & Sweeney ~ 2018 ~ Government and Politics in the United States Model 3.1 Hamiltonian order - Jeffersonian liberty American Democratic Republican Philosophy of Government Balance “Checks and Balances” is a form of “constrained chaos:” order sets outside limits on liberty (behavior) within the system. This is “the rule of law.” However, “inside” those limits, any behavior is allowable (liberty – the right to be different: so long or it causes none harm). Paradoxically, this balance between order and liberty is what makes liberty “substance” rather than merely “shadow.” "If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: You must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself." ~ James Madison [The Federalist Papers, No. 51.] 92 | Brem & Sweeney ~ 2018 ~ Government and Politics in the United States Constitutional Compromises The Constitution is a product of compromises that were reached at the Constitutional Convention of 1787. Three key compromises were reached at the Convention:  How Large a Central Government? (Confederation vs. Federation)  Large States vs. Small States Debate (issue of representation in the legislature)  North vs. South Debate (the issue of slavery and representation in the House) While the delegates at the Constitutional Convention were comprised of the exceptional elite and shared many values and concerns (i.e. elite consensus), they were also 55 individual human beings, each with their own particular interests and specific demands; as well as those of the people and states from which they came as representatives with regional interests and demands. Thus at the convention there were three primary issues that resulted in three grand compromises. Compromise #1 - How Strong a Central Government? The first compromise that was reached was over the role of a central government. Under the Articles, the states retained ultimate power over the whole. As this structure had led to economic depression and conflict, many delegates now favored a federal structure in which a central government has its own source of power. The economic elite were the clear winners of this compromise as a federal structure would improve economic conditions. Those who supported the idea of a strong central government were called Federalist. Those who continued to hold onto the strong state, weak central government option were called the Anti-Federalist. Notably, this was a relatively easy compromise to make at the convention because the individuals who attended were basically in favor of a stronger national government as they stood to benefit from this structure. Lockean arguments were used to convince states of the necessity of the union of the states. The argument was made that “just as individuals entering society must give up a share of liberty to preserve the rest, so too each state must give up some of its sovereignty to enter the union.” The difficult task was deciding which rights and how much sovereignty each state had to surrender. Unlike a unitary system, a federal system gives independent power to the states as well as the national government. It was a delicate task deciding which powers to assign to the states and which powers to assign to the national government. Compromise #2 – Large State/ Small State Debate The second big debate at the Constitutional Convention had to do with representation in the legislative body. Large states wanted representation to be based on population and small states wanted to maintain their equal power status with large states. Two plans developed: one protecting the interests of the small states and the other protecting the interests of the large states. There were there proposed plans and we can look at the and compare the key differences in these plans with the final compromise agreed to in the Constitution (chart 2.1). 93 | Brem & Sweeney ~ 2018 ~ Government and Politics in the United States Chart 3.1 Virginia Plan - Virginia, a large state, showed up at the Convention with a plan to fix the Articles. Their plan became known as the Virginia Plan, which was also called the Large State Plan. The Virginia Plan proposed a powerful bicameral national legislature that would be determined proportionately. Large states saw this as “fairer” as they contributed more in taxes. The lower house would be elected by the people and the upper house would be elected by the lower house. The Virginia Plan proposed a weak executive whose function would be to make sure the legislature’s laws were fulfilled. They proposed that the executive would be appointed by the legislature. The Virginia Plan also created a Judiciary that gave it (along with the executive) some power to veto. New Jersey Plan - Small states did not like the Virginia Plan because it gave more power to large states. Under the Articles, each state was completely equal. Why would small states agree to an arrangement in which their power is weakened? So delegates from New Jersey, a small state proportionately, created a new plan which was called the New Jersey Plan or ‘Small State Plan.’ The New Jersey Plan proposed a single legislative chamber in which the states were represented equally, a multi-person executive elected by the legislature, and a judiciary in which judges serve for life. Their plan preserved the status quo of equality among states. Small states feared domination by the national government, which itself would be dominated by large states under the Virginia Plan. Connecticut Compromise - The question was would representation be based on political units (i.e. equal representation for each state) or on population? Large states wanted a system that favored large states and small states wanted a system that favored small states. The small states wanted equal representation in the legislature while the large states wanted proportional representation. Delegates from the states worked in a committee to hammer out a compromise. What they agreed to had elements of both the Virginia Plan and the New Jersey 94 | Brem & Sweeney ~ 2018 ~ Government and Politics in the United States Plan. There would be two houses of Congress. One house, the House of Representatives, would be elected by the people proportionately, while the second house, the Senate, would represent the states equally with 2 senators from each state. Senators originally were chosen by state legislatures, to represent interests of state governments but, also to represent elite interests (not elected, less subject to popular influence). This was later changed through a constitutional amendment. In the late 1700s the scale of government was much smaller – there were originally only 56 members of the House of Representatives that each represented roughly 30,000 people. Now each representative represents 750,000 people. Compromise #3 – North and South Debate Slavery presented another contentious issue for the delegates. The delegates from Northern and Southern states were at odds over how population was to be determined for the purpose of representation in the lower house. The Southern states wanted slaves counted as part of their population, even though they had no intention of letting them vote. Including slaves would give Southern states more representation, thus more power in the House. Northern states argued that if slaves cannot vote, they should not be counted. The question was who would be considered “population?” A compromise was reached that determined House representation and taxes based upon “the whole number of Free persons” plus “three fifths of all other persons.” While they did not say slavery, this clearly referred to slaves. The issue of slavery was so divisive that it was explicitly not mentioned. Slavery was a contentious issue at the time and many have argued that the Constitution would not have been possible without this compromise. At the same time, there was a movement to end the practice of slavery by states in the North. By 1787, the same year that the Constitution was signed, Connecticut, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island and Vermont had abolished slavery. This initial shift set the country up on the path to a civil war. The Final Document The Preamble to the Constitution: highlights the national goals addressed by the new Constitution. It says what government can do according to the structure of the Constitution. That is, government can do anything which a conservative, liberal, or radical interpretation of the goals found in the preamble can be said to address, The preamble to the Constitution states that the purpose of the Constitution is: “To form a more perfect union, to establish justice, ensure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty for ourselves and our posterity.” The preamble emphasizes the importance of the values of conservative order, liberal liberty, and radical (equality) justice for the new republic. The founders sought to balance these values in the new system of government. Anything we interpret these words to means is legitimate course of action for government. Notably, the original version of the preamble started off with the following statement: 95 | Brem & Sweeney ~ 2018 ~ Government and Politics in the United States “We the people of the States of New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia…” This original version highlights the fact that at the time of the Constitution's founding there were still petty divisions among states. The sentiment at the time was that the states were all sovereign nations agreeing to unite for a limited purpose. Gouverneur Morris, assigned to the style committee to simplify and beautify the agreed upon Constitution once all the compromises had been made, is responsible for the lead wording we are so familiar with today. The reworked preamble simply states “We the people of the United States do ordain and establish a government to…” The Final Provisions: The final product of the Constitution was a contract which laid out the key elements of the new government (purpose, structure, powers and limits). It was a skeletal framework, not a detailed blueprint. The Constitution is vague, “inspired ambiguity” which has provided flexibility and stability. The Constitution is the set of rules by which we talk and reach decisions. It has served to channel conflict into “political” channels. Legislative Branch: The make-up of the legislative branch was a result of the product of the Great Compromise between the large states and the small states. The Constitution sets up a bicameral legislature, meaning that there are two chambers – the House of Representatives and the Senate. Article 1 sets out the framework of the legislative branch. This is the lengthiest article of the Constitution, as the founders believed that Congress would be the most important branch of government. They spent most of their time specifying its composition, the qualifications of its membership, its powers and its limitations. The House of Representatives would be based on proportional representation. This would be the chamber of Congress that would represent the people’s voice. Members run for reelection every two years, so it was intended to be easy to be ousted according to public whim. The intention was for the House to be easily influenced by citizens and to reflect the frequent changes in public opinion. The Senate was intended to be the wise and stable chamber of Congress. When Thomas Jefferson questioned the role of the Senate in the 1790s, George Washington allegedly asked, “Why do you pour coffee into your saucer?” “To cool it” replied Jefferson. “ Even so” replied Washington “we pour legislation into the Senatorial saucer to cool it.”. Candidates had to be 30 years old, rather than the 25 years of age in the House. Senators run for reelection every 6 years, so they in theory are not as easily swayed by changes in public opinion. Originally, Senators were elected by members of state legislatures not directly by the people (this changed in 1913 as a result of a constitutional amendment). The intention with election by state legislators was that this top tier of the population would ensure that Senators were a higher caliber of citizens – older, wiser and perhaps more In tune with the interests of the elite (moneyed and otherwise). The Senate was intended to be the more aristocratic body. Executive Branch: The delegates agreed on having one person as the executive who could serve an unlimited number of four year terms (this was changed in 1951 by constitutional 96 | Brem & Sweeney ~ 2018 ~ Government and Politics in the United States amendment to limit length to two terms). The president would be chosen neither by Congress or the people but by an electoral college. Citizens would vote for state electors who would in turn vote for the President. Judiciary Branch: The delegates agreed to an independent Judiciary appointed for life. The Constitution only set up the Supreme Court. Congress was given the power to create additional courts. Notable Components of the Constitution: Two components of the new Constitution were particularly noteworthy and significant. Separation of Powers: All governments do three things: Make Laws (liberal function of deliberation), Enforce Laws (conservative function of keeping order), and Interpret Laws (radical function of interpretation of meaning). For most of human history, only one or a few individuals in a society had the power to fulfill all three of these basic functions of government. This is called tyranny. Tyranny is the concentration of power in one place. The Founding Fathers sought to address this problem of tyranny. The key question was how do you devise a system of rules that prevented order from being too tyrannical? The founders' answer to this question was to break up these powers into three branches of government. This is called separation of powers. Separation of powers means that the executive, legislative and judicial powers are not exercised by the same person or group of persons. Baron de Montesquieu is credited with the concept of separation of powers. He wrote that “there would be an end of everything, were the same man or the same body whether of nobles or of the people, to exercise those three powers, that of enacting laws, that of executing public resolutions and of trying the causes of individuals.” The Constitution established a system of separation of powers among the three branches of government. Article 1 gives Congress the power to make the laws. Article 2 gives the President the power to enforce the laws. Article 3 gives the courts the power to interpret the laws. This revolutionary concept at the time was to ensure that no one branch of government dominated all decision making. It is important to note that separation of powers is a theory on the divisions of power. In theory, separation of powers should mean each branch is separate and only performs its assigned powers. In reality, the divisions of power are not so clear cut. Examples of this include:  The federal court system issued legal rulings requiring the desegregation of schools. Was the court interpreting law or making law in this instance?  When a presidential administration does not enforce federal drug laws (e.g. marijuana), is the executive branch making law or enforcing law? In effect, instead of creating a system of government in which powers are separated between the branches of government, perhaps the system created by the founders more aptly resembles “a 97 | Brem & Sweeney ~ 2018 ~ Government and Politics in the United States government of separate institutions sharing powers.” This is an idea proposed by political scientist Richard Neustadt. Checks and Balances: Checks and balances were built into the Constitution so as to assure that no one branch of government nor any one sector or faction of society would garner too much power. The founders set up checks and balances in which each of the branches is allowed to police the others, checking for any abuses and balancing the powers of government. The framers of the Constitution designed the system such that the executive, legislative, and judicial branches would hold check and power over each other through specifically assigned powers and overlapping powers and inter-branch review and approval functions. We can see this in the example of government spending:      The popularly elected House of Representatives must initiate spending The Senate must then agree The President must approve or veto Laws passed by Congress must be approved by the president And the Supreme Court can review and reject initiatives of the other two branches, etc. As a result of separation of powers and checks and balances, our government is often in a state of gridlock. This inefficiency that we so often experience is in fact the case by design. The founders thought that government is too dangerous to be allowed to be efficient. Figure 3.1 Separation of Powers & Checks & Balances http://frenchrevolutionbales.weebly.com/separation-of-powers-checks-and-balances.html Let us now examine a visual overview of the model of constitutional democratic republican government as drafted in the U.S. Constitution is presented (In figures 3.2, 3.3, and 3.4). 98 | Brem & Sweeney ~ 2018 ~ Government and Politics in the United States Figure 3.2 The Constitution as THE Revolution 99 | Brem & Sweeney ~ 2018 ~ Government and Politics in the United States Figure 3.3 Broader conception of Checks & Balances 100 | Brem & Sweeney ~ 2018 ~ Government and Politics in the United States Figure 3.4 Who/What the Branches Represent The Delegates signed the document on September 17, 1787, the new Constitution was signed. The framers of this document were elite, powerful and wealthy Americans. Few among them were rebels calling for any significant change in the basic makeup and organization of society. Rather, what they sought was a strong and stable central government – but not too strong. Benjamin Franklin: Reflections on the Constitution Ben Franklin believed that the government would in fact be administered well for many years, unlike most other delegates who had little faith in their fellow men. Other delegates worried about corrupt office holders spoiling the new Constitution. Franklin disagreed. He believed that despotism, when it came, would be the result of the innate corruption of the people. Franklin argued that the character of government mirrored the character of the people. Franklin did not believe the Constitution was perfect. He noted that these men were burdened by their prejudices, passions, errors of opinion, local interests, and selfish views. “From such an assembly can a perfect production be expected?” However, Franklin believed that the political elite at the convention produced the best document that they could at the moment. 101 | Brem & Sweeney ~ 2018 ~ Government and Politics in the United States On the last day, the only remaining obstacle was whether the bitter holdouts would sink the Constitution's chances to be ratified by the states. FOCUS ESSAY: Benjamin Franklin on accepting the Constitution and doubting our certainties On September 17, 1787; worn out by his pain and his incessant labors for compromise, Ben Franklin had to ask James Wilson to deliver the following speech: "Mr. President, I confess, that I do not entirely approve of this Constitution at present; but, Sir, I am not sure I shall never approve it; for, having lived long, I have experienced many instances of being obliged, by better information or fuller consideration to change my opinions even on important subjects, which I once thought right, but found to be otherwise.... "In these sentiments, Sir, I agree to this Constitution, with all its faults—if they are such; because I think a general Government necessary for us, and there is no form of government but what may be a blessing to the people, if well administered; and I believe, farther, that this is likely to be well administered for a course of years, and can only end in despotism, as other forms have done before it, when the people shall become so corrupted as to need despotic government, being incapable of any other. I doubt, too, whether any other Convention we can obtain, may be able to make a better constitution; for, when you assemble a number of men, to have the advantage of their joint wisdom, you inevitably assemble with those men all their prejudices, their passions, their errors of opinion, their local interests, and their selfish views. From such an assembly can a perfect production be expected? "It therefore astonishes me, Sir, to find this system approaching so near to perfection as it does; and I think it will astonish our enemies, who are waiting with confidence to hear, that our councils are confounded like those of the builders of Babel, and that our States are on the point of separation, only to meet hereafter for the purpose of cutting one another's throats. Thus I consent, Sir, to this Constitution, because I expect no better, and because I am not sure that it is not the best. The opinions I have had of its errors I sacrifice to the public good. I have never whispered a syllable of them abroad. Within these walls they were born, and here they shall die.... "Much of the strength and efficiency of any government, in procuring and securing happiness to the people, depends on opinion, on the general opinion of the goodness of that government, as well as of the wisdom and integrity of its governors. I hope, therefore, for our own sakes, as a part of the people, and for the sake of our posterity, that we shall act heartily and unanimously in recommending this Constitution, wherever our Influence may extend, and turn our future thoughts and endeavours to the means of having it well administered. 102 | Brem & Sweeney ~ 2018 ~ Government and Politics in the United States "On the whole, Sir, I cannot help expressing a wish, that every member of the Convention who may still have objections to it, would with me on this occasion doubt a little of his own infallibility, and, to make manifest our unanimity, put his name to this Instrument." In the 20th century; Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes said of the Constitution: “It is an experiment, as all life is an experiment.” Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall said of the document: “For a sense of the evolving nature of the Constitution, we need look no further than the first three words of the document’s preamble: ‘We the people.’ When the founding fathers used this phrase in 1787, they did not have in mind the majority of America’s citizens… The men who gathered in Philadelphia in 1787 could not…have imagined, nor would they have accepted, that the document they were drafting would one day be construed by a Supreme Court to which had been appointed a women and the descendant of an African slave.” Federalism A quintessential American question is who can and should solve the problem. When a problem arises and citizens demand that government respond to the problem, the first question that must be asked is who (which level of government) has the power to act and who should act? Americans understanding of the power and authority of the different levels of government in the United States is not always accurate. The US Constitution distributes power between the national and state governments. Some power is delegated to the states on certain issues and some power is delegated to the national government pertaining to other issues. Also, state and national governments hold some concurrent or shared power and some power is denied to any government. A Visual Guide to Federalism One way to think about American federalism is by looking at the map of the United States. American federalism at the minimum consists of 51 political units (50 state governments and one national government). With federalism, the Constitution takes 50 different societies and melds and grafts them together. While there is a body politic, each part of it is unique and distinct. What holds them together is the constitutional system. 103 | Brem & Sweeney ~ 2018 ~ Government and Politics in the United States It is interesting to note that all states have similar structures as the federal government: an executive branch, legislative branch and judicial branch. One state, Nebraska, does not have two houses in its legislature. Every other state has a bicameral legislature. Every state but one (Louisiana) has a judicial system based on English common law. Louisiana’s judicial system is based on French, German and Spanish legal codes (ultimately rooted in Roman legal tradition). What is federalism? Federalism is a political system in which authority is divided between different levels of government. Each level has some power independent of the other levels so that no level is entirely dependent on one another for its existence. Sovereignty is shared [between two or more levels of government] so that on some matters the national government is supreme and on others the states, regions, or provincial governments are supreme. Power flows both ways from the central government to units and vice versa. There are three essential features that characterize a federal system of governance:  There must be a provision for more than one level of government to act simultaneously on the same territory and on the same citizens. The American federal system is composed of a national government and the 50 states, both recognized by the Constitution. Local governments, creations of states, while not mentioned in the Constitution, are nevertheless key players in American federalism. Their power to regulate and legislate is derived from state Constitutions  Each government must have its own authority and sphere of power, though they may overlap. When state and federal authority conflict, federal law is supreme under the Constitution.  Neither level of government (federal or state governments) can abolish the other. The Civil War was fought not only on the question of slavery but also central to the conflict were questions of states' sovereignty including the power to nullify federal laws or dissolve the Union. Why Federalism? In the United States, federalism was a result of a compromise between those who wanted stronger state governments and those who preferred a stronger national government. Federalism was also a practical solution to the problem of distinct societies in a large republic. We have the British to thank for our federal system. The British chartered 13 colonies which established the practice of smaller government units. Each colony had its own administrative unit, governor, and council. When the colonies overthrew the British and declared independence, each state had an identity like a nation. The original framework that linked the states together was a ‘league of friendship’ called a confederation. In a confederation, there is no center. “United States” of America can act together only if all 13 agree. The Articles lasted for a decade but proved to be ineffective, so a federation was formed. It is important to note Confederacies are also weak. When the south seceded from the Union, they also created a confederation. One of the reasons that the Confederacy fell apart 104 | Brem & Sweeney ~ 2018 ~ Government and Politics in the United States during the Civil War was that they did not have a strong central government. There were cases where the army of Tennessee did not come to the rescue of the confederacy, because each state fended for itself. The Union army was always stronger because there was a strong central government. Jefferson Davis never had the power that President Lincoln had because there was no strong central government. The founders then created the US Constitution, which created a federation with a strong national government that existed parallel to the states. Once the Constitution was in place, there was still a battle between the states and national government over which should be stronger. We fought this battle for 70 years up to the Civil War. The Civil War was not just about slavery, it was also about states’ rights. Historian Shelby Foote noted “before the Civil War, it was said ‘The United States are’…After the war, it was always the ‘United States is’…And that sums up what the war accomplished. It made us an ‘is.’" Alternatives to Federalism Federalism was not the only option available to the founders in organizing the relationship between the central government and the states. The founders first tried a confederal system but found it to be ineffective in addressing the needs of the country. Another option is a unitary system. Unitary System: In a unitary system, the central government ultimately has all the power. Local units (state or counties) may have some power at times, but they are dependent on the central unit. In unitary systems, most decisions are made in the national capital. One downside of unitary systems tend to exacerbate ethnic, religious and regional differences, because people do not have local autonomy to decide local matters. Examples of unitary systems include Britain, France, Japan, Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Hungary and the Philippines. Figure 3.5 Confederal System: In a confederal system, local units hold all of the power and the central government is dependent upon them for its existence. The local units remain sovereign 105 | Brem & Sweeney ~ 2018 ~ Government and Politics in the United States (as if their own nation) and the central government has only as much power as they allow it to have. Examples of confederal systems include the United States under the Articles of Confederation, the United Nations and European Union. Advantages to Federalism The American federal system has advantages, including:  Flexibility to experiment with public policy – federalism gives both the national government and the states flexibility to experiment with public policy. States become the testing grounds for policy initiatives. If all policies and laws need not be uniform across the country, different states may try different solutions to common problems and share the results of the experiments. Examples: California was one of the first states to experiment with clean air initiatives and many states later adopted their smog control policies; SF and MA have experimented with health care reform  Real power is close to citizens - Federalism provides a practical solution to the issue of governing a large area. Expansive geography and a large population make it impractical to locate all political authority in one place. Federalism solves this problem by bringing government closer to the people. This means that there is real power at levels of government that are close to citizens (their local towns and cities). This power would not exist if there was just one distant central unit of power. Imagine if all the power was in DC!  Federalism allows government to preserve local standards and to respond to local needs. Local communities can create their own local traffic laws, community school policies, and zoning codes.  Leadership development - State governments become a place in which future national leaders are cultivated.  Federalism allows for many political subcultures - Federalism provides regionally concentrated groups a degree of autonomy. Countries that have ethnic conflicts often use a federal structure to help reduce the complaints about one group having more power than another. The federal structure provides multiple groups to obtain power at different levels of government. The South is different from the West which is different from the Northeast, etc. Disadvantages to Federalism Federalism also has its disadvantages and its critics:  Policy incoherence - Federalism can create a potential lack of coherence. For instance, 50 states experimenting with 50 different insurance practices.  Federalism can be inefficient - Economy of scale is lost in federalism. Many functions are repeated across the country as states administer national programs locally.  States can block national plans - With Obama’s health care reform, states sought to block it by passing amendments to their State Constitutions.  Prejudice - Federalism allows local prejudices to find their way into law. Federalism allowed Southern states to practice segregation.  Inequality - There may be inequalities across states in terms of education, crime control, building safety, etc. 106 | Brem & Sweeney ~ 2018 ~ Government and Politics in the United States Distribution of Power No single section of the Constitution deals with federalism. The provisions dividing power between the federal government and the states appear throughout the Constitution. However, these divisions are not entirely clear (issue of the necessary and proper clause). Figure 3.6 National Powers:  Expressed powers are those enumerated in the Constitution (Article I, Section 8). Examples: lay and collect taxes, borrow, regulate commerce, coin money, set standards of weights and measures, declare war.  Implied powers are those reasonably (inferred but not expressly stated) necessary to carry out the powers expressly delegated. Based in Article I, Section 8, Clause 18: “Necessary and Proper Clause,” a.k.a. “Elastic Clause.”  Inherent Powers are held by the national government by virtue of it being a sovereign state recognized by the community of nations; grounded in international law. Right to survival, defense, national interest, trade, make treaties, territorial integrity, selfdetermination, freedom from external intervention, just war, acquire territory  Concurrent powers are powers that both levels of government may exercise. 107 | Brem & Sweeney ~ 2018 ~ Government and Politics in the United States State Powers:  Reserved powers outlined in the Tenth Amendment: “The powers not delegated to the U.S. by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” Regulation of intrastate commerce; state militia; police power (crime, contracts, marriage/divorce; education, traffic, land use, etc.); levy taxes. Police power = authority to make laws for the protection of the health, morals, safety, and welfare of the people.  Denied powers (Article I, Section 10, 376): treaties and coinage; duties and imposts; war Theories of Federalism There are different ways in which to view federalism. For many years, the prevailing theory was known as dual federalism. This theory began to be criticized for not providing an accurate picture of federalism. As a response, a second theory of federalism was developed known as cooperative federalism. The dual federalism theory argues that the relationship between the two levels of government is like a layer cake. Each level of government is a self-containing layer, separate from the other and carrying out its functions independently. Under dual federalism theory, each level was viewed as supreme in its own area of power. Dual federalism theory reflects the formal distribution of powers in the US Constitution. The cooperative federalism theory argues that the relationship between the levels of government is like a marble cake. The powers of the national and state levels of government to be interdependent, with each level requiring the cooperation of the other in order to get things done. This theory can be best visualized as a marble cake, with the different flavors (levels of government) swirling together. An example of cooperative federalism would be education. Schools receive a significant portion of their funding through local property taxes. States enforce statewide policies and standards. The national government imposes policies on local schools (no child left behind/race to the top). When you cut into the cake of education, you find multiple levels of government working together. Political scientist today understand federalism to be closer to the cooperative theory (marble cake analogy) in which there is a partnership between the national and state governments, but the predominant partner is often the national government. 108 | Brem & Sweeney ~ 2018 ~ Government and Politics in the United States The Expanding Federal Government American federalism has changed over time and has been a central debate in American politics: What is the proper distribution of powers between the national and state governments? This debate has been a battle over the role and size of government, which is currently being played out in the health care debate. At the Constitution’s founding, the states held more power and the national government less. This balance of power has shifted over the last 200 years as a result of:  The Supreme Court’s interpretation of the Constitution. The history of this country reveals continuous movement to a stronger national government at the expense of the states. There were several landmark Supreme Court cases that increased the power of the national government relative to the states. Some examples include: McCulloch v. Maryland (1819), a case that enhanced the implied powers of the national government through an expansive interpretation of the necessary and proper clause (Article I, Section 8, Clause 18). This is also called the elastic clause. The clause provides power to Congress to pass laws not specifically delegated. For instance, Congress has the power to coin money, but does Congress have the power to create a national bank? The court argued that the elastic clause allows this. The power to coin and spend money implies the power to charter a bank. Another early examples was Gibbons v. Ogden (1824) in which the Court had to answer whether the law regulated "commerce" that was "among the several states." The court found that Congress had the power to regulate interstate commerce based upon a broad interpretation of the commerce clause (Article I, Section 8, Clause 3). This ruling expanded the regulatory powers of the federal government and granted regulation of interstate commerce as an exclusive national power.  Public opinion - The federal power and government power at all level changes at the request of the people, putting pressure on those in government. In times of crisis (examples: Great Depression & 9/11), the American public has put pressure on the federal government to address the crisis. This often involved the expansion of the scope of the federal government (provider of aid, increase in domestic surveillance).  Federal funding - the degree to which the federal government has used aid to influence state behavior and policy has increased profoundly since the nation’s founding. We will discuss this in further detail on the next page. Federal Funding Federal funding is one key way in which the federal government has grown in power at the expense of the states. The federal government can and does use aid to influence state policy and behavior. A Historical example: One of the first attempts at federal funding policy in action was the Land Grant Colleges of the 1880s. In each state, federal government always holds land – in some states it is even the largest landholder (for example, over 80% of Nevada). The National government wanted to promote education so it passed The Morrell Act . The Morrell Act 109 | Brem & Sweeney ~ 2018 ~ Government and Politics in the United States provided for the granting of land to states for the purpose of promoting education of men as workers, women as homemakers and more qualified government civil servants in general. Land was given as an endowment – in one lump so to speak. When an endowment is given, control by the grantor, the federal government, is diminished.  As land became a more limited commodity, money became the primary thing that the national government would distribute. Endowments became less prevalent and ongoing grants the norm.  As transportation improved and trade expanded, national government began to regulate national economy and construct infrastructure. One method of achieving this (shaping state behavior) was federal grants with “strings.” There are three kinds of grants which the government uses to influence state behavior and policy:  Categorical grants  Block grants  Revenue sharing Categorical Grants: Categorical grants are grants given to people who fill the requirements to fit certain categories. Categorical grants provide very detailed instructions, regulations and compliance requirements for states in specific policy areas (Medicaid, highway construction, unemployment, housing, welfare, etc.). With federal money, comes federal regulation (“strings attached”). If a state complies with the requirement, federal aid is released. If a state does not comply, it does not get the money. Often times, if the state accepts the program, a prerequisite to the program being executed in a state, it also agrees to match funds. Thus, the federal program is half state program as well.  Formula categorical grants: those grants which are given by a calculus of how many people in a district fit into a category (funds being granted to that area specifically. States become controlled by such money flow, in that it is very difficult to turn down funds, and once accepted much harder to do without.  Project grants: Another type of categorical grant is a project grant. These are the funds which are issues to a fund a specific project such as a school or road project. Categorical grants enable Congress to effect policy change in states. These grants are attractive to states as they can always use the money. States have become so dependent on these grants that these subsidies now make up 25% of all state and local spending. A major critique of this is that due to the match nature of many grants, richer states usually get more funds over poorer states which might be in more need. Example of the power dynamic: It is the federal government’s policy to recruit young people to join the military. San Francisco’s Board of Supervisors voted to remove ROTC from schools. The federal government said that if you do that we will take federal tax dollars away from you. ROTC is back in the SF schools. This is the federal government influencing local behavior with federal funds. 110 | Brem & Sweeney ~ 2018 ~ Government and Politics in the United States Block Grants: Problems arose with the complexity of the categorical approach in that each program is applied for separately with its own paperwork and related activities. In seeking simplification, block grants were proposed – the second kind of federal grant. Block grants are federal grants provided for general functional areas (criminal justice, mental health). Primarily to deal with health and education programs, block grants are many projects funded under one overarching grant. Block grants are preferred by states because it gives them greater flexibility in spending. State politicians want the maximum freedom possible. Thus they argue for the same amount of funding with fewer regulations. Example – President Clinton reformed welfare by changing the subsidy from a categorical grant program (Aid to Families with Dependent Children – AFDC) to a welfare block grant (Temporary Assistance to Needy Families - TANF). Under this block grant program, states have greater flexibility to define the rules of their assistance programs – such as qualifications and work requirements. The federal government still imposes rules – there are spending requirements and other federal regulations (such as how long a person can stay on welfare). Congress has resisted block grant approach for policy and political reasons.  Many members of Congress fear states will do what they want instead of what Congress intends (equivalent to pouring money down the drain)  Congress members are unable to claim credit for goods, policies and programs so they lose their electoral appeal. It doesn’t make sense for a congress person to take the heat for taxing a person’s income, only to turn those funds around in block grants to governors and mayors, who get the credit for how the money is spent.  Interest groups donate to congressional campaigns to influence policy. If Congress members no longer had influence over those issues, the money would go elsewhere As a result, 80% of federal funding remains distributed by categorical grants. Revenue Sharing: Given the complexity and unwieldiness of block grant approaches (though simpler than categorical grants), a third grant approach was developed - revenue sharing. Revenue sharing came into its own under the Nixon administration of the 1970s. Originally used in 1837 and dropped soon thereafter, revenue sharing was once again dropped by the Reagan administration. It was proposed again by Congress after 1996 as part of ‘The Reinvention of Government Movement.’ It is still in limbo. The Bush administration considered using this approach to funds its communities of faith initiatives. Revenue sharing gives money in large lumps to the states to spend at their discretion. However, this also means that federal control is lost, thus the main reason for doing away with this system. Key Points The federal government uses money to shape behavior. So long as the need for control is there, the process is complex. In terms of “control” the government uses funding and tax policy to attempt to shape behavior of people, organizations and states toward or away from desired policy goals or outcomes. What is desired is rewarded or funded and what is not desired is not funded or taxed. 111 | Brem & Sweeney ~ 2018 ~ Government and Politics in the United States A major criticism of revenue sharing and taxation in general is that some argue that it is not the federal government’s money to begin with. Being originally from the state it is considered absurd that the government turns around to “share” it with the states again. Also, revenue sharing does not give money based on need, rather, it distributes money evenly given the same amount to rich areas as well as to poor.  One counter to that criticism is that “we” are one nation and that the centralization of money in federal hands for redistribution allows for the country as a whole to channel the “country’s” resources to help those in need (example – better off states helping less welloff states and in the future when roles are reversed, the dynamics work in reverse).  A second counter is that the states have traditionally not been very careful regarding constitutional issues and it is the job of the federal government to monitor this (example – segregation). Unfunded Mandates The realm of legal protection constitutionally has become more standardized under the national constitution by the record of court decisions since the Civil War. Everyone today is considered to have the same rights everywhere in the country (due to the 14thamendment). The 14th Amendment extended the bill of rights on the states. This did not guarantee that states would not violate individuals civil rights. People had to fight (lawsuits, etc.) for states to protect their rights. This has required the federal government to impose laws and regulations on the states so as to see to it that such rights are available to all. This federal attempt to compel state enforcement of civil rights often irritates state governors in that through required by the national government to implement projects and the requirement comes with no extra federal funds (thus the term, unfunded mandates). Unfunded mandates impose specific policy requirements on the states but does not provide a way to pay for those activities. Congress enforces unfunded mandates either through the threat of criminal or civil penalties or threats to cut off some or all of the federal dollars a state receives – something states can ill afford. Example - making handicapped accessibility changes in all building, facilities and equipment, such as buses is an unfunded mandate on the states. A decision by the courts enforced by the executive branch mandates the states to make public facilities accessible to handicap persons. The federal government did not fund this mandate, so states and localities had to come up with the money to equip buses, buildings and sidewalks with handicap accessible infrastructure. If states do not comply, the federal government can take away federal dollars. Congress likes the unfunded mandates in the era of deficits, but states politicians are infuriated by these mandates that come with no funding. 112 | Brem & Sweeney ~ 2018 ~ Government and Politics in the United States Iron Triangles, Interest Articulation, Picket Fence Federalism Figure 3.7 Iron Triangles and Interest Articulation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_triangle accessed: 11-24-08 Picket Fence Federalism:    Every issue is as if "a picket" (i.e. a plank or picket in a picket fence) and all the pickets form a “picket fence around society” defining the outward systemic limits of behavior (i.e. how far people may go in their behaviors which have public consequences) and these limits and rules are the logic of the system which defines “the good society“ Each picket has an iron triangle wherein Shared attitude groups (interest groups) make "political claims" -o liberal [seeking tolerance of diversity], o radical [seeking aid for those in need], or o conservative [seeking conformity to a standard] -- on other groups in society These efforts utilize the due process of law relative to procedural democracy in accordance with democratic rights guaranteed in the Constitution and articulate their interests (i.e. their unique positions upon given issues) Via their right to petition government to achieve their political agenda on particular issues or sets of issues (e.g. all of the pickets become planks which make up a platform of a party of group upon which candidates or members stand [i.e. take action] in 113 | Brem & Sweeney ~ 2018 ~ Government and Politics in the United States favor of their vision of a good society). Such "petitioning" is their chosen form of political action to bring about societal change to manifest their vision of "the good society." Figure 3.8 Picket Fence Federalism 114 | Brem & Sweeney ~ 2018 ~ Government and Politics in the United States Figure 3.9 Iron Triangles and Demands 115 | Brem & Sweeney ~ 2018 ~ Government and Politics in the United States Figure 3.10 Picket Fence Federalism, Demands, and Federal Funding 116 | Brem & Sweeney ~ 2018 ~ Government and Politics in the United States Civil Liberties and the Bill of Rights The Bill of Rights is a listing of the protections against government infringement of individual rights guaranteed to citizens by the government. Many of the founders thought that a Bill of Rights was unnecessary as they believed the limited government they had set up did not have the power to infringe on individual rights. They also argued that the Constitution did have protections on individual’s rights such as habeas corpus (right to trial by judge), no bill of attainders (laws that target one individual) and ex post facto laws (laws that make something a crime after the fact). Furthermore, many thought the Bill of Rights was redundant in that many states already had a Bill of Rights. Nevertheless, the AntiFederalist secured the adoption of the Bill of Rights in exchange for ratifying the Constitution. Because individuals have rights and liberties in a democratic society, one of the principle tensions that exists is between  the power of the individual and  the power of the government. Rights limit government in one breathe and empower citizens in the next. Citizens have special protections and powers that allow them to stand up to government and plead their cases when they believe an injustice is being done. A citizen is a person that can successfully claim that he or she has rights that must be respected by a government. Citizens clash over rights and liberties in two principle ways:  Individual’s rights conflict with each other. For example, one person’s right to share a prayer with a classmate conflicts with another person’s right not to be subjected to religious practice against his or her will  Individual’s rights can conflict with society’s needs and the demands of collective living. For example, an individual’s right to decide to enjoy privacy in communicating online versus society’s need to protect its citizens from terrorist threats and the need to have access to confidential information. The conflict between individuals and societal concerns has increased since 9/11. Government has claimed to do things such as intercept email, conduct roving wiretaps, gain access to library records and bookstore purchases all at the expense of individual freedom. Civil Liberties vs Civil Rights The Bill of Rights protects your civil rights and civil liberties. What is the difference between the two? Civil rights and civil liberties as terms are often used interchangeably. They are both freedoms or privileges to which one has a claim. Yet, specifically: 117 | Brem & Sweeney ~ 2018 ~ Government and Politics in the United States  “Civil Rights” have to do with the extension of government action to secure rights for all citizens in a society. Civil rights are rights that you have, period, just by virtue of being a citizen – whether you want them or not. For instance, the government must treat all citizens equally, apply the law fairly, and not discriminate unjustly against certain groups of people. This is due process of law – no person shall be denied life, liberty and property without due process of law – 5th and 14th amendment. The government must protect civil rights and cannot violate them.  “Civil Liberties” have to do with constitutional freedoms which are guaranteed. They are individual freedoms that place limitations on the power of government. They have to do with restrictions on government. Liberties protect our right to think and act how we want without government interference (1st amendment freedoms). Liberties are things that you are free to do, but you do not have to do. It is important to note that the claim of individuals possessing rights and liberties are relatively new ideas. Before the Enlightenment, these claims were rarely made. Government was assumed to have all the power and the people were merely subjects. Locke and other Enlightened philosophers argued that rights were conferred on individuals by nature and that one of the primary purposes of government is to preserve the natural rights of its citizens. This conception of natural rights first articulated by John Locke shines through in the Declaration of Independence: “men are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness; that, to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men.” Limits to Civil Liberties There are limits to your civil liberties. Living collectively under a government means that we are not free to do whatever we want. There are limits on our freedoms that allow us to live peacefully together. If we were allowed to do whatever we please, conflict would abound. John Locke noted that liberty does not equal license! Freedom to do some things does not mean freedom to do everything! Deciding what rights we give up to join civilized society (social contract theory) and what rights we retain is one of the greatest challenges of democratic governance. The Harm Principle Civil liberties are limited by what we call the harm principle. The harm principle is the idea that you have freedom (civil liberties) to do what you want as long as you do not harm anybody. Every sane adult should be free to do whatever he or she wants as long as his or her actions do not harm, or threaten to harm, others. The question is then raised: what is harm? Is physical harm the basis for limits on freedom? What about emotional or psychological harm? And how do we prove that? The courts play the referee in deciding how much freedom we have and when it is permissible to put limits on our freedoms. 118 | Brem & Sweeney ~ 2018 ~ Government and Politics in the United States The First Amendment The First Amendment list five freedoms that Americans hold most dear: freedom of religion, speech, press, assembly and petition. These freedoms allow citizens to participate in the process of self-government. Together, these rights are often referred to a freedom of expression. Without the freedoms in the First Amendment, it would be impossible for Americans to assert any other rights they have, thus making the first amendment the most important amendment in the Bill of Rights. Let us turn to examine several of these liberties (plus the 9th amendment) and the limits on these freedoms. Freedom of Speech and its Limits The first amendment protects the freedom of speech. Freedom of speech is not just talking. Freedom of speech is also really freedom of expression. I express myself by the way I dress and the way that I live and by the things that I do (artwork, writing, speaking, dancing, being myself – is all expression). Freedom of expression is an invaluable part of a democracy. Without the free exchange of opinions and ideas, people do not have the information they need for effective selfgovernance. Freedom of expression is essential for:  Citizens to become informed so that they can participate in the democratic process  Limiting government corruption. It is important for citizens to be able to criticize government and to hold it accountable.  Preventing a precedent of censorship. Censorship in a democracy usually allows the majority voice to prevail. Free speech is essential for protecting the voice of minorities (we never know when we may be in this minority)  Knowing truth. John Stuart Mills argued that only through the free flow of ideas can we ensure the vigorous protection of truth. Through this process we discover new truths that we previously believed to be false (earth is not flat) and we develop a strong defense against known falsehoods , racist or sexist ideas. In sum, without the free flow of information, democracy is not possible. What is very important to remember in a democratic system, is that the guarantee of free speech is there to ensure that everyone will hear opinions and information that they may not like or want to hear. The idea is for people’s sets of beliefs and opinions to be shaken and challenged! A free flow of information is essential for people to make informed choices expected of them in a democratic society. Absolute agreement is not possible, therefore, for society to be and remain free, free expression is essential. Free speech is essential for democracy and one of our most cherished rights; however, it is not an absolute right. Congress can and does make laws abridging freedom of expression. Some scholars argue that only political speech is protected speech, while others argue that the right of self-expression, through art, literature, advertising and even bad taste makes a society truly free. 119 | Brem & Sweeney ~ 2018 ~ Government and Politics in the United States The court has held that some types of speech may be regulated. Drawing the line between what is and is not protected has been extremely difficult for the court. Types of Speech: Sedition Speech One type of speech that has often times been limited through legislation is seditious speech. Seditious speech is speech that criticizes government. The state is a geographical unit having a monopoly on the use of force. Seditious speech is speech that advocates the use of violence or force to bring about political change. Thus, states outlaw this type of speech as they want to preserve their monopoly on the use of force. This type of speech has been limited repeatedly in the US. Some examples:  Alien and Sedition Act of 1798 outlawed any “false, scandalous writing against the government of the United States.” John Adams and his federalist allies enacted this law during a period of intense political rivalry. The law was enforced primarily on Adam’s political opponents, including Thomas Jefferson. This act was unpopular and negative sentiment toward the federalist helped get Jefferson elected president. The act expired in 1801 and was not renewed.  Espionage Act of 1917 prohibited interference with the draft. More than 2,000 Americans were convicted under this act. Many appealed to the Supreme Court, which ruled on the free speech issues for the first time in Scheck vs. US in 1919. the court held that the Espionage Act did not violate the First Amendment.  Smith Act of 1940 – made it illegal to advocate for the violent overthrow of the government or belong to a group that did  McCarran Act of 1950 required members of the Communist Party to register with the US attorney general. In the McCarthy Era, speaking about socialism could lead to arrest and persecution. Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes developed the ‘clear and present danger test’ in response to cases of seditious speech. This test argued that the only expression that might be restrained is speech that represents a ‘clear and present danger.’ The court found that freedom of speech may be restricted when public order is threatened. However, this is a difficult thing to identify. What danger? To whom? How? In Gitlow v. NY (1925), the Supreme Court upheld the prosecution of individuals calling for the establishment of socialism. Is this a threat to public order? By 1969, the Court allowed for a broader latitude for the expression of political ideas by declaring that the US Constitution protects threatening speech. The Court ruled that speech, except when linked with action, should be immune from prosecution. This is the imminent lawless action test. This means that seditious speech is currently protected speech as long as it is not linked with action or the threat of violence. Types of Speech - Symbolic Speech Symbolic speech is non-verbal behavior. Symbolic expression has been upheld by the Court, although it is generally less protected than free speech. The Court is willing to allow for more regulation of symbolic speech. 120 | Brem & Sweeney ~ 2018 ~ Government and Politics in the United States In Tinker (1969), the Court overturned the suspension of high school students wearing black arm bands to protest the Vietnam war. In US v. Eichman (1990) the Court reaffirmed First Amendment protections for expression of political ideas, including flag burning. The court originally declared flag burning constitutional in 1969 and reaffirmed this ruling in 1989 in a similar case. In reaction, a conservative Congress passed the federal flag protection act of 1989 making it a crime to desecrate an American flag. In the Eichman case, the court ruled that the federal law was unconstitutional as it was specifically aimed at suppressing expression. In 2003, the Court ruled that cross burning was not protected speech as it was intended to be a threat of violence (however it depends on the context in which it was burned – in front of a home versus a political rally). Types of Speech - Fighting Words/ Hate Speech Fighting words is a form of speech whose express purpose is to incite a disturbance and violence in the person who hears the speech. The Court has ruled that fighting words are not protected speech. The court using the clear and present danger test to discern the whether the language will incite violence. Fighting words are not protected if they will produce a clear and present danger of serious substantive evil that rises far above public inconvenience, annoyance and unrest. Types of Speech - Offensive Speech Offensive speech is speech that may offend, annoy or bother you. The Court has ruled that offensive speech is protected speech. You do not have the right to not be offended in a democracy. As long as someone else’s right to exercise their liberties is not harming you, then their speech is protected. This is one of the most challenging types of speech as it is often the offensive speech that society does not wish to tolerate and seeks to constrain, yet the court protects this speech. Types of Speech - Obscene Material Obscene material is entirely excluded from constitutional protection. We associate obscene material with “dirty” words, books, magazines , films, etc. Books once banned as obscene in the US include Ulysses by James Joyce, From Here to Eternity by James Jones, Tropic of Cancer by Henry Miller. The court maintained in 1957 that at the time of the Constitution’s adoption, obscene materials were not regarded as speech within the meaning of the First Amendment. Hence, government can constrain and punish the dissemination of obscene material because it is not protected speech. Difficulties arise in determining what is obscene and what is not. This brings up the issue of pornography. Is pornography protected speech? The Supreme Court tried to tackle this question and Justice Potter Stewart famously said it court: “I do not know what pornography is, but I know it when I see it.” The court eventually developed the Miller test to help determine what is and is not obscene. Part of the rationale behind the court’s decision was to return a measure of control to 121 | Brem & Sweeney ~ 2018 ~ Government and Politics in the United States local communities over obscene material. The court did not want to keep having to rule on what is obscene! According to the Miller test, something is obscene if:  It solely appeals to the prurient interest – the sole purpose is to turn you on sexually  It lacks in educational or artistic content  It must violate local standards of decency. Freedom of Religion - the Establishment Clause The Freedom of Religion has two parts. One component of religious freedom is the Establishment Clause. This clause forbids Congress to make laws that would establish an official religion. Background context In colonial America, established churches were the norm. Although many early colonists came to America to escape religious persecution, they did not hesitate to establish their own government backed churches. The Puritan or Congregational Church became the official religion in the New England colonies while the Church of England became the official religion in the Southern colonies. The government compelled citizens of all faiths to support the established church through taxes. In addition, the established church punished sins as crimes. Colonist were forced to go to church on Sundays and could be whipped for failing to know religious doctrines. 122 | Brem & Sweeney ~ 2018 ~ Government and Politics in the United States After the Revolutionary War, more Americans began to clamor for freedom of religion. The state of Virginia was the first to pass a comprehensive law protected religious liberty (it was drafted by Thomas Jefferson). The founders cherished the notion of universal freedom of conscience (the rights for individuals to believe as they please) and included the freedom of religion in the first amendment. Establishment Clause Interpretation While the establishment clause may seem straightforward, Americans continue to disagree over what constitutes establishing a religion. For example, does displaying a statue of the 10 commandments in a public space violate the establishment clause? This case arose in Alabama and the argument was made that you cannot centrally locate one Judeo-Christian marble block in a courthouse as it is establishing a religion. Should the 10 commandment be among the things that you honor in a courthouse? Maybe. But should it be the central thing? The court ruled that displaying the 10 Commandments was unconstitutional because when you take a Judeo-Christian symbol and place it in the center, you actually have taken one religion and established it at the center. However, the court ruled that if you recognize multiple symbols of law and religion then that is constitutional. How the establishment clause should be interpreted is continuously fought over. There are two different ways of understanding this clause.  Separationists believe that a ‘wall’ should exist between church and state. 1. Thomas Jefferson first articulated the idea of the establishment clause, stating that the First Amendment prohibited the US Congress from taking action on religion, “thus building a wall of separation between church and state.” 2. Their image of society is one in which the rights of all citizens, including minorities, receive equal protection under the law. 3. In this society, religions abound but they remain private, not matters for public action or support  Accomodationists believe that the state should not be separate from religion but accommodate it, without showing a preference for one religion or another. 1. Accomodationists view society as emphasizing the sharing of community values, determined by the majority and built into the fabric of society and political life. 2. Accomodationists tend to be Republicans who are supported by powerful religious interest groups such as the Christian Coalition. 3. Accomodationists argue that a wall between church and state translates into “unjustified hostility to religion.” 4. Accomodationists see a role for government to provide aid to religious groups, believe there should be prayer in schools or public ceremonies, believe it is constitutional to post religious documents, such as the 10 commandments, in public spaces and believe in teaching the bible’s story of creation along with evolution in the public schools 123 | Brem & Sweeney ~ 2018 ~ Government and Politics in the United States The Lemon Test and Beyond The court’s position on this clause has shifted over the last 40 years, but the Supreme Court has accepted only incidental support of religion. During the 1960s the Court clearly ruled along the lines of Separationists, creating a ‘secular intent’ test for legislation and policy. In the 1970s with appointments of conservative judges on by Republicans, the Court has leaned more in the direction of Accomodationists.  In Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971), the Supreme Court using a 3 prong test rejected a state program authorizing purchases of secular services for church schools. They argued that: o The statue must have a secular purpose o The primary effect of the statue must not be to advance or inhibit religion o The statue must not excessively entangle government and religion  In 1997, in Agostini v. Felton the court loosened the Lemon test. The court ruled that NYC teachers could teach remedial education to disadvantaged students in NY parochial schools at taxpayers expense  In recent years the court has moved more toward neutrality in deciding establishment clause cases. In 2002, the court ruled in Zelman v. Simmons-Harris that an Ohio law allowing poor students to use vouchers at their school of choice was constitutional since it was neutral toward public, private or religious schools. Government must maintain religious neutrality, but does not bar all assistance to religious institutions. Freedom of Religion - the Free Exercise Clause The free exercise clause of the First Amendment guarantees the Congress shall make no law prohibiting the free exercise of religion. Like the establishment clause, the meaning of the free exercise clause is contested among Americans. One example of conflict that arises with the free exercise is prayer in school. Do we have a right to pray in school? The court has ruled that as long as prayer is not led by the school, it is constitutional. If we can have a club in school for chess, then we can have one for the bible as long as we can also have one for the Koran. The court has ruled that as long as you can have any religious club, you can have a religious club. Limits to the Free Exercise Clause The Court has found that the Free Exercise Clause is not an absolute right. There may be instances when the state may regulate an individual’s ability to exercise his or her religion in order to protect citizens and provide security. At times, conflict arises over the tension between an individual’s religious freedom and the need to protect the social order. In these circumstances, the state has sought to regulate religious practice. The court has struggled to define what actions the government may legitimately seek to regulate. The Court has ruled that any incidental burden placed on religious 124 | Brem & Sweeney ~ 2018 ~ Government and Politics in the United States freedom must be justified by a compelling state interest. The state must show that it is absolutely necessary for some fundamental state purpose that religious freedom be limited. The court upheld this ruling in the Sherbert case The question becomes what is a compelling state interest Since the Sherbert case, the court has backed away its absolutely necessary standard in regards to when it is constitution to limit freedom of religion. For instance, in 1990 in Employment Division, Department of Human Resources vs. Smith, the Supreme Court refused to grant membership of the Native American religion an exemption from an Oregon law that made possession of peyote, a hallucinogenic drug used for centuries by some Native Americans religious ceremonies, illegal. The Court held that if infringement on religion is a byproduct of a general law prohibiting socially harmful conduct, applied equally to all religions, then it is not unconstitutional to limit religious practice in that instance. This is a move away from the strict standard in the Sherbert case. Congress responded by passing the Religious Freedom Restoration Act in 1993 that restored the compelling state interest test for states limiting religious practice. In 1997 in City of Boerne vs. Flores, the Court ruled that RFRA was unconstitutional exercise of Congressional power. This means that the more lenient test stands today. It is interesting to note that the Free Exercise Clause of the 1st Amendment protects religious beliefs but not actions based on those beliefs. The 9th Amendment (aka the 'Lost' Amendment) One important amendment is the 9th amendment, which is often called the ‘lost amendment.’ The 9th amendment says that the “enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." What is this amendment saying? The 9th amendment states that you may have other rights that are not specifically stated in the Constitution. Robert Bork, a nominee for the Supreme Court in the 1980s, famously argued in his confirmation hearing that the 9th amendment was so vague that you cannot interpret it. He argued it is like ink spilled on the document and it must be ignored. Why is “strict construction” so important to Bork? Because of privacy. The word privacy does not exist in the constitution. If you have a right to privacy, that means that you can do things in private. The issue that Bork and other conservatives really care about is abortion. The case that ruled that abortion was constitutional, Roe v. Wade, relied on the 125 | Brem & Sweeney ~ 2018 ~ Government and Politics in the United States concept that you have a right to privacy – giving a woman the right to decide what happens to her own body. Bork and conservatives tend to interpret the words in the Constitution with “original intention” (claiming to interpret words as they were meant by the “men” who wrote them in 1787) and “strict construction” (only using the words that are in the document and no others words. Thus they do not see a right to privacy… However, they conveniently ignore the very words in the document in the 9th amendment that tell them their interpretation method is wrong. Relative to a woman’s or a man’s right to sovereignty over her own body; the first case that the Supreme Court heard on this issue was about birth control. In Griswold v. Connecticut the Court argued that while the right to privacy is not explicit in the Constitution, a number of other rights, notably amendments 1, 3,4,5 and 9 create a ‘zone of privacy’ in which marriage and the choice to use contraception exists. The Court found that the “right to privacy” exists within the penumbra of liberties and the 9 amendment. You have a right to liberty because the constitution explicitly says you do. The Constitution is about securing the blessings of liberty. The constitution says that no person shall be denied the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness without due process. Therefore the word liberty is in the Constitution. Here’s the essential test: Do you need privacy to be free? Here is how you find out: You can be free without privacy only if you feel comfortable doing what you do in private, in public. Think about the things you think about… th What it means is that liberty emanates a penumbra – a shadow – and inside that shadow is the right to privacy. In order for you to have liberty, liberty itself includes other things like privacy. Liberty includes the right to be different. If you do not have the right to be different, then you are not free. So in the penumbra of liberty is diversity. By the way, in the penumbra of liberty is also order. You cannot have freedom unless there are laws that protect freedom. In Griswold, the Court found that contraceptives are constitutional because individuals have a right to privacy. Based on the court’s ruling, abortion rights activists saw an opportunity to use the Griswold ruling to strike down laws prohibiting or limiting abortion. In 1973, the Court took up the case Roe v Wade. In Roe, the court ruled that the right to privacy did encompass the right to have an abortion. The court found that abortion is constitutional using the right to privacy, but they also acknowledge a second equally fundamental right as well. The right to life. No person shall be denied life, liberty and property without due process of law. 126 | Brem & Sweeney ~ 2018 ~ Government and Politics in the United States On the issue of abortion, the court was faced with having to balance competing rights:  A women’s right to privacy in reproductive matter’s  The fetus’ right to life and  The states’ interest in protecting human life. The conflict between these rights focused narrowly on when does life become viable. The court ruled that up until viability a woman's right to privacy supersedes the fetus' right to life. As a result, the court treated the three trimesters of pregnancy differently in Roe. The court held that:  In the first 3 months, the court held that the state has no compelling interest that offsets a women’s right to privacy  In the second three months, the state can regulate access to abortions if it does so reasonably  In the last three months, the state’s interest becomes far more compelling and a state can limit or prohibit abortions as long as the mother’s life is not in danger. From the Musical “Hamilton” – with message: “We the people” is now more diverse than it was in 1787… As the country and its image of itself and its people and its needs changes; the Constitution must also grow and evolve. Alexander Hamilton argued: “Constitutions should consist only of general provisions; the reason is that they must necessarily be permanent, and that they cannot calculate for the possible change of things” (Elliot's Debates, volume 2, p. 364; 28 July 1788). 127 | Brem & Sweeney ~ 2018 ~ Government and Politics in the United States Civil Rights, Participation, and Voting Now, we discuss how individual's acquire and form ideas about politics and the individual rights we possess, including the fundamental right to vote in elections. We will examine the critical role that the 14th amendment played in extending the Bill of Rights to the states. We will also look at the civil rights movement and the legacy of inequality in the United States. While the US has come far in addressing de jure (legal) discrimination, the country still has deep seated de facto (based on habit) discrimination. We will explore how the geography of housing patterns has played a role in perpetuating inequality. We will also look at the many ways in which individuals can become active in politics, including voting and running for elected office. Lastly, in the discussion forum for this week, we will focus on how candidates finance campaigns and the role that money has come to play in the electoral process. The Struggle for Civil Rights The struggle for equal rights has been a struggle that has existed from our nation’s founding. The Constitution speaks of securing the blessings of liberty for all; however, this promise has not always been kept. The history of the Constitution is a story of struggle between people, factions, sectors and branches. It is a struggle that still goes on to this day. African Americans, Asian Americans, Hispanic Americans, Native Americans, women, the disabled and the LGBTQ community have all faced unequal treatment in the legal system, the job market and in schools (to name a few places) and have had to fight to secure and win equal treatment under the law. Women suffragists picketing in front of the White house. 1917 (Library of Congress) 128 | Brem & Sweeney ~ 2018 ~ Government and Politics in the United States Different Kinds of Equality There are different meanings to the word equality. In the United States, the foremost political value has always been freedom. The concept of equality can be threatening to Americans because equality (interpreted as being the same) can take away our freedom to be different - which we cherish. Americans tend to favor a procedural view of equality. We believe that government should guarantee fair treatment and equality of opportunity. This is in contrast to a substantive view of equality where government creates fair and equal outcomes. The Civil War Amendments In the early years of our republic, rights were denied on the basis of race. Rooted in the practice of slavery, individuals were treated differently under the law based on the color of their skin. The Civil War Amendments were passed in the years following the Civil War to secure rights for former slaves. 13th Amendment – abolished the practice of slavery 14th Amendment – had three primary clauses:  the Due Process Clause,  Equal Protection Clause and  Citizenship Clause.  This amendment was intended to give equal rights and citizenship to former slaves and  It extended the Bill of Rights protections to all citizens from all levels of government (whereas before they were only protected from the Federal Government).  15th Amendment – extended the right to vote for African American males   While the civil war amendments gave African Americans rights, they did not actually have these rights for many years. It wasn’t until 1970, after years of struggling, activism and challenges in court, that African Americans had civil rights de facto (in reality). Up to that point, blacks had civil rights de jure (by law). Why is that? Laws only have meaning if they are enforced. The minute the civil rights amendments were passed, they were law. However, you could ignore it. A law only means something if you actually pay attention to it. As a result, people had to demand their rights and struggle for their right. For 90 years people struggled to secure the rights bestowed to them in the Constitution and in the 13th, 14th and 15th amendments. Some examples of how rights were disregarded include:  Voting - In terms of voting, Jim Crow laws obeyed the letter of the law in the 15th Amendment by never explicitly saying that they were denying blacks the right to vote due to race, color or previous servitude. Rather, they used tactics like poll taxes, literacy tests, and grandfather clauses to deny the right to vote. 129 | Brem & Sweeney ~ 2018 ~ Government and Politics in the United States  Segregation - Jim Crow laws also legislated segregation and the Supreme Court upheld these laws. In 1896, the Court ruled in Plessy vs. Ferguson that enforced segregation of the races was constitutional. The court ruled that as long as the facilities provided were equal, states were within their rights to require separate. The 14th Amendment: the Second Bill of Rights In the early years of the country, the Constitution was interpreted strictly to deal only with the transactions and dealings between the federal government and individuals and/or states. The original constitution only protected you from the federal government. State transactions and dealings with its own citizens were strictly under state constitutions – federal protection did not extend. The original Constitution, with the original 10 amendments, did not protect you from the local sheriff who was violating your civil rights. Not until after the civil war and the passing of the 14th amendment in 1868 did the Constitution make it possible for the Court to require that states protect their citizens’ basic liberties. The 14th amendment guaranteed due process and equal protection under the law for all citizens regardless of state law. The intention of the 14th Amendment was to force southern states to extend citizenship rights to African Americans. The passing of the 13th Amendment, which banned slavery, did not resolve the issue of the legal status of former slaves under federal and state law. Many southern states tried to conserve their social order through passing legislation that effectively maintained the social and economic inequalities between races in the South. This legislation, called black codes, was intended to keep blacks subservient. The 14th amendment states: “no state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty or property without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” The important part of this statement is the word ‘states.’ The Constitution already guaranteed that the federal government would protect these privileges. The 14th amendment requires states to as well. Because the 14th amendment specifically addressed states, it dramatically expanded the reach of the constitution. In subsequent years, the Supreme Court used the 14th Amendment to apply most provisions of the Bill of Rights to the state governments. As a result, the 14th amendment is cited more often in litigation than any other amendment. Many constitutional scholars call the 14th Amendment the Second Bill of Rights because they believe that through its wide scope and promise of equality, the 14th Amendment had massive implications to our rights as citizens and fundamentally altered the Constitution (perhaps basically creating a new one). 130 | Brem & Sweeney ~ 2018 ~ Government and Politics in the United States Incorporating the Bill of Rights Beginning in 1897, the court began incorporating (or nationalizing) most of our rights in the Bill of Rights through claiming the states’ obligations based in the 14th amendment to guarantee their citizens due process of law. The court has used the due process clause to incorporate the Bill of Rights to the states. The due process in the 14th amendment is identical to that in the 5th amendment, except that in the former it applies directly to the states. The court began nationalizing, one by one, most of the provisions in the Bill of Rights. The court used selective incorporation - rather than applying the entire Bill of Rights to the states at once, the court used a process of selective incorporation. Under a test developed by Justice Cardozo in Polk v. Connecticut in 1937, the Supreme Court would determine whether a right was fundamental and necessary to a “scheme of ordered liberty.” if so, that right was incorporated into the Due Process Clause. Advocates of selective incorporation argued that states should be free to develop new criminal and civil procedures and not be limited by the Bill of Rights. Justice Hugo Black, among others, argued for the total incorporation of the Bill of Rights to the states all at once. They argued that selective incorporation allowed judges too much discretion to choose among rights. Black argued that the inclusion of the Bill of Rights by definition meant that it was fundamental enough to apply to the states. Black maintained that total incorporation was far less intrusive on the states than the subjective process of selective incorporation. Until most of the Bill of Rights was incorporated, a double standard existed between the criminal justice system at the federal and state level. Federal prosecutors were required to use search warrants, the exclusionary rule and trial by jury while the states were not. One reason why the Supreme Court eventually extended most criminal procedural rights to the states was to avoid having a double standard that gave state law enforcement officials an incentive to violate the US Constitution. The Supreme Court has not incorporated all of the provisions in the Bill of Rights, including: the restriction on quartering troops (3rd amendment); the right to a grand jury indictment (5th amendment); trial by jury in civil cases (7th amendment); ban on excessive bail and fines (8th amendment) While the 14th amendment and the process of incorporation ultimately gave you rights in all aspects of your life, this process was slow and it took a lot of struggling for these rights to be secured. The Civil Rights Movement The Brown vs. Board of Education case was a catalyst for the Civil Rights Movement. The case was heard before the Supreme Court in 1954, a momentous year for civil and human rights. The case was a catalyst for what later became known as the rights revolution. 131 | Brem & Sweeney ~ 2018 ~ Government and Politics in the United States In 1954, the NAACP with Thurgood Marshall as the lead lawyer challenged racial discrimination in schools. Under the new leadership of Chief Justice Earl Warren, who would go on to become one of the most progressive justices in the history of the court, the court asked Marshall to address the constitutionality of Plessy v. Ferguson's separate but equal decision. Marshall and his team argued before the court that segregation itself causes damage. The mere fact that I say to you that you must be separate is the country telling you that you are not as good and that causes psychological damage. Brown vs. Education was one of the first times in which a psychological argument was used to overturn a legal precedent. In a study by psychologist Kenneth Clark, which the court cited in its opinion, black children had chosen white dolls as being superior. The court held that segregation created “a feeling of inferiority as to their status in the community that may affect their hearts and minds in a way unlikely ever to be undone.” The court ruled unanimously against segregation in the schools in the Brown case. It is important to note that the ruling only applied narrowly to the particular schools involved in the case. School segregation protest. (National Archives and Records Administration) In the years following Brown, the Court ruled more broadly that school districts begin desegregation “with all deliberate speed.” The Warren Court was on the cutting edge of social change. The Court extended:  Freedom of political association even for communists  The right to privacy (and thus abortion)  Greater rights for the press  The right to a lawyer in court and in interrogation  The right to be read your rights  The right that evidence must be obtained legally De Jure vs. De Facto Discrimination: There are two types of discrimination which the civil rights movement sought to address: De Jure vs. De Facto Discrimination De jure (legal) discrimination: De jure discrimination is laws that treat people differently based on some characteristic like race or gender. Addressing de jure discrimination had to do with challenging and changing the laws. Through the use of the court, African Americans were able to change the laws that made segregation legal. The Court ruled that 132 | Brem & Sweeney ~ 2018 ~ Government and Politics in the United States segregation based on race was unconstitutional because it made one group inferior to another. Changing the laws led to integration which addressed this legal type of discrimination. De facto discrimination: Discrimination based on fact or habit. The absence of legal discrimination does not mean that equality exists. De facto discrimination is discrimination that exists due to other circumstances (most often past legal discrimination). As it is not legislated, it is much harder to eliminate. For instance, segregation in communities or schools occurs often not due to laws but due to other reasons, such as past de jure discrimination, tradition, custom, economic status, and residential patterns. This type of discrimination is so hard to change because it is woven into the fabric of society (the social order). The initial stage of the civil rights movement sought to change de jure discrimination by changing the laws that were treating people with different characteristics differently. The civil rights movement was able to improve political rights for minorities and to make advancements in education. De facto discrimination has proved more difficult to eradicate as it is embedded in the social fabric of society. Public Opinion & Why It Matters Why public opinion SHOULD matter We talk a lot about the people in American politics. Do the people’s opinions matter? Why? You probably recognize some of the quotes below that highlight the importance of the people's opinions:  "Government must get its powers from the 'consent of the governed'." (Thomas Jefferson)  "We the people" (US Constitution)  “Government of the people, by the people and for the people” (Abraham Lincoln)  “Unless mass views have some place in the shaping of policy, all talk about democracy is non-sense” (V.O. Keys) Democratic theories and public opinion There are different theories of democracy that describe different roles for the people and their opinions in part because these theories disagree on how competent the citizens of the country are to govern themselves.  Elitist think that citizens are too ignorant or ill-informed to be trusted with major political decisions. 133 | Brem & Sweeney ~ 2018 ~ Government and Politics in the United States  Pluralist trust groups of citizens to be competent on those issues in which they have a stake,  but they think that individuals might be too busy to gather all the information they need to make informed decisions  Participatory / Majoritarians have faith that the people are both smart enough and able to gather enough information to be effective decision makers All of these theories recognize a role for opinion in a democracy but disagree regarding whose opinion should be most influencing decision makers. Why public opinion DOES matter While there is disagreement as to how much the people’s opinion matters, one reason why it DOES matter is because elected officials and the media believe and act like it matters. Elected officials overwhelming believe in keeping tabs on public opinion. When voting on bills, members of Congress worry a lot about the public opinion in their district. Although the public does not act like it pays attention or cares much about politics, when provocation is sufficient it does tune in and change sometimes dramatically. For example, in 2006 midterm elections, voters showed their frustration with Republican support for the war in Iraq. Also, leaders in the media focus on public opinion, investing in polls and devoting huge amounts of time to covering what the public is thinking. How Do We Measure Public Opinion? We can accurately and scientifically discern what the American public believe through asking a sample of the public questions and doing so in a disciplined manner. Political scientists and pollsters conduct polls according to the highest standards of scientific accuracy. Their results are for the most part reliable. Polls face two challenges: getting a good sample and asking unbiased questions that yield valid results. http://www.cartoonistgroup.com/store/add.php?iid=117771 Getting a Good Sample: The sample is the portion of the population surveyed by a pollster. If a sample is scientifically chosen to be representative of the whole population, sampling works well. We do not need to ask everyone in order to know what Americans think about an issue.  Pollster develop a random sample. A random sample does not over-represent any portion of the population. Thus, responses from the random sample can be safely generalized to the whole. Random sampling means that everyone has an equal chance of being 134 | Brem & Sweeney ~ 2018 ~ Government and Politics in the United States  chosen. When a sample is not chosen scientifically and has too many people in it from one portion of the population, there is a problem of sample bias. Statisticians have concluded that a sample of 1,000 to 2,000 people can be very representative of the entire 300 million residents of the United States if it is randomly drawn from that population. Asking Unbiased Questions: Asking the right questions is a tricky business. Questions developed need to eliminate bias. For example, a question that is ambiguous because it uses a double negative would be “Does it seem possible or does it seem impossible to you that the Nazi extermination of Jews never happened?” A better question would be “Does it seem possible to you that the Nazi extermination of the Jews never happened, or do you feel certain that it happened? With a good sample and unbiased questions, we can ask 1,000 to 2,000 Americans a set of questions, and we can conclude what the American public thinks on a given issue. However, we must consider the margin of error of the poll. Sampling Error: Polls will report with their results the sampling error (margin of error). A sampling error is a number that indicates how reliable a poll is. Based upon the sample size, the sampling error tells within what range the actual opinion of the whole population would fall. Figure 4.1 https://www.pakistantoday.com.pk/2018/02/27/govt-suspendscensus-verification-process/ Distribution of professional opinion on anthropogenic climate change. This graphic shows that media tend to report only some kinds of opinions and why it is important to measure opinions competently and to know who holds which opinions and which a “disciplined informed” and which are not (From Research Gate). Policy should always be driven by “disciplined informed” opinion, and not by “un-disciplined un-informed” ignorance. https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Distribution-of-professional-opinion-on-anthropogenic-climate-change-Figure-shows-that_fig1_308761591 135 | Brem & Sweeney ~ 2018 ~ Government and Politics in the United States Political Socialization Political scientists use the term political socialization to describe the process by which individuals acquire:  Core beliefs about human nature, the country, the government, and the economy  Attitudes about government officials, alternative public policies, the parties, candidates for elected office, and other political matters of the day Some aspects of political socialization lead Americans to closely resemble one another. This alikeness is particularly evident in terms of the core beliefs of Americans (political culture), such as individualism, the sanctity of private property, populism, distrust of government, emphasis on individual liberty. Other aspects of political socialization lead Americans to differ from one another in attitudes and opinions in fairly significant ways. Agents of Socialization Agents of socializations are the instruments by which beliefs and attitudes are conveyed to individuals in society. These agents include family, schools, churches, the mass media and social groups which individuals are most closely associated. Popular culture and major political and social events can also act as agents of socialization. School children wearing coats against the cold and saying the Pledge of Allegiance. Jan 01, 1953. (Photo: Mark Kauffman./Time & Life Pictures/Getty Images) How People Differ To a great extent, the socialization of core beliefs in the United States is common to most Americans. A broad range of socialization agents, from the news media and popular entertainment to government leaders and the schools reinforce one another about what it means to be an American and to live in the United States. However, at the same time, Americans grow up and live in a variety of distinctive environments that shape attitudes in distinctive ways. There are several significant circumstances that define and divide us in our political views. Differences in policy preferences stem in part from one’s:     Interests/Ideology Race and Ethnicity Religion Region     Social Class Education Gender Age The graphs below illustrate how some of these differences manifest themselves in the beliefs that we hold about Gender: 136 | Brem & Sweeney ~ 2018 ~ Government and Politics in the United States A partisan gender gap first appeared in the 1980s and continues to this day – women identify more with Democrats (7% more) than men. Race/Ethnicity Race/ethnicity effect the political views of different demographic groups. For example, most African Americans are democrats and have been so since the New Deal politics of the 1930s. African Americans are the most solidly democratic of any group in the population (64% are Democrats while only 9% are Republicans). African Americans tend to be more liberal than whites on economic issues (involving government programs providing assistance to those who need help); On social issues, African Americans tend to hold strong religious values and be rather conservative (More are opposed to abortion than whites). Hispanics identify more with the Democrats than with the Republicans. Hispanics have been one of the least politically active groups in the United States, however this is changing. Asian Americans tend to be successful educationally and economically and tend to be conservative and Republican. Asian Americans are fairly active in politics 137 | Brem & Sweeney ~ 2018 ~ Government and Politics in the United States Region Region - The Pacific Coast and Northeast strongly resemble one another while the South tends to be strongly conservative; mountain states tend to be strongly conservative. Why are people living in urban areas more liberal than folks in rural areas? Age The chief difference between the young and old has to do with the particular era in which they were raised – those who were young in the 1960s were quick to favor civil rights for blacks – the young today are especially concerned with environmental issues. 138 | Brem & Sweeney ~ 2018 ~ Government and Politics in the United States Major Events This graph illustrating the decline in trust in government amongst Americans. How did 9/11 shape or alter your political attitudes? Has there been a major event recently that has led to a major change in your beliefs? Political Attitudes Change 139 | Brem & Sweeney ~ 2018 ~ Government and Politics in the United States It is important to remember that opinion survey are a snapshot of a moment of time regarding what a group of people think about a question, but this can change. People’s beliefs and attitudes change. The survey above illustrates this. Competing Views of Citizenship What does such an ideal engaged citizen look like? To what extent are Americans 'good' citizens. A look at the graph below shows that the US ranks very low in terms of voter turnout compared with other industrialized countries. Pollsters take readings of what the public knows and their conclusion is always the same: Americans are not very informed about their political system.   99% of Americans can name their president, but only 25% can name both Senators of their state Before 2000, only 19% could name the Supreme Court Justices (31% after Bush v Gore) Surveys show that Americans have general knowledge about prominent aspects of the governmental system but are ignorant about other central actors and key principles in political life. This raises the question as to how a democracy can function with low rates participation and little knowledge of key actors in politics. While most Americans are not *ideal* citizens (attentive, informed, high levels of participation), democracy still seems to carry on and work. One theory as to why that might be the case is that there are mechanisms in American politics that buffer the apolitical, selfinterested behavior so that government by public opinion does not have disastrous effects on American society. Americans as a group often behave as ideal citizens but individually they do not. Something to consider is that it may not be rational for all citizens to be ideal citizens – deeply involved in the details of day to day politics. Jobs, families, hobbies and other interests leave little time for in depth study of political issues. Unless we get tremendous satisfaction from keeping up with politics (which some people do) it might be rational for us to leave political information to others – this is called rationale ignorance. 140 | Brem & Sweeney ~ 2018 ~ Government and Politics in the United States This does not mean that we are doomed to make bad decisions in a democracy. Citizens are smart. Surveys show that voters behave much more intelligently that we could guess from their answers to individual surveys. A great many use shortcuts to get political information and make decisions. In the sense that these shortcuts help us make decisions, it is as if we had invested considerable amount of time and energy in collecting the information ourselves.  Online processing – many evaluations that we make are made on the fly – we assemble impressions and reactions while we live our lives. While we may not be able to explain why we like or dislike something when asked (we might seem ignorant) we do have reasons for our beliefs (even if we cannot identify them)  Two-step floe to information - a second mental shortcut – rely on opinion experts to shape our opinions – just like when we buy a car – we ask the people we know and trust – we compile their advice, consult and decide. The two step flow of information allows one to behave as if one is really well informed without requiring one to do the legwork By taking shortcuts and cues from others, the entire electorate behaves rationally and intelligently. From a politicians view, the electorate appears to be responsive to issues and quite rational in evaluating and incumbents performance in office. Because many citizens take cues from opinion leaders, it does give these individuals and groups more power. Changing American Attitudes towards same Sex Marriage 141 | Brem & Sweeney ~ 2018 ~ Government and Politics in the United States Political Parties, Interest Groups, and Social Movements This section examines different forms of political pressure groups, including political parties, interest groups and social movements. Political parties are the most formal of these three groups and seek to control government through the nomination of candidates for office. Interests groups are often perceived in more favorable light by Americans as interest groups always remain true to their cause and do not have to compromise (unlike parties). Both interest groups and social movements work to shape policy from outside the formal institutions of power. They differ in that interest groups are more formalized organizations with access to money and personnel; whereas, social movements rely on unconventional participation (boycotts, protests, etc.) because they lack the resources to play the access game. Introduction to Political Parties Political parties are informal institutions in our democratic system. There is no mention of parties in the Constitution. In fact, the framers intentionally excluded parties from the Constitutional design. John Adams, George Washington and many of the founding fathers believed that political parties are something that we should not have. Why? The founding fathers feared and opposed “factions.” Factions are groups that form in society. These are groups in society that break up over ideas. The factions break up the whole. Are we just one group (Americans) or are we many factions? This goes under the 142 | Brem & Sweeney ~ 2018 ~ Government and Politics in the United States heading of ‘E Pluribus Unum’ which means “out of many, one.” This was the ideal. Political reality is that people form groups with those like themselves. The political leaders of the time feared that factions would lead to mob rule and that a majority would be able to impose its will on a minority and threaten the liberty and rights of individuals. They were afraid of one group acquiring the totality of power. This is the issue that Madison addressed in the Federalist Number 10. The framers tried to thwart the power of factions this through the Constitutional design (the rules and institutions) of federalism, bicameralism and separation of powers. The political thought of the time was that the Union created by the Constitution would block the power drive of a political party. Now, we today have political parties. Parties formed a decade after the adoption of the Constitution to address political problems through organizing diverse interests to compete for power. These first parties were formed to compete in government over legislation; however, within a decade they had expanded beyond this legislative purpose to include recruiting candidates to run under the party label. Nevertheless, the focus of the early political parties was on the party in government not the voters. While Jefferson, like Madison, was opposed to factions and parties, he in the end took action grudgingly to establish a political party. In fact, Jefferson became the first partisan president (or president belonging to a party) in 1800 in our country’s history under the Republican Democratic Party. Hamilton and his followers organized under the Federalist Party. Parties initially developed as loose leadership associations in response to real conflict and political problems. These structures began to articulate their differences from the national to the local level. What is a political party? A political party is:    Is a group of citizens who agree on major issues facing the nation. The group works to create public policies that reflect their views. The group promotes their ideas and policies by gaining control of government through the nomination and election of candidates for office. What makes a party different from any other group (like an interest group)? The key distinguisher of a political party from any other group, such as an interest group, is its role in nominating candidates for political office. These candidates campaign to get elected. The nomination function is what sets political parties apart from any other group. Interest groups support, but never sponsor, candidates. If they did, they would become a political party. Political parties allow us a little bit of control over government in controlling the nomination and election process. 143 | Brem & Sweeney ~ 2018 ~ Government and Politics in the United States Political Parties as Linkage Structures Parties link together the public (you), interest groups and public officials. For most of us, parties are the means by which we interact and participate in the political process. Parties serve as linkage structures Parties provide the basis for interaction between officials in government.  Within Congress, people are organized along party lines (they vote and interact often along these lines). Committees are divided up by party leadership.  Between Congress and the executive branch - the party system provides a basis for the President and Congressional members to work together to pass legislation. The president will appeal to his party in Congress (on the basis of common ideology and similar attitudes) to pass legislation.  Parties provide the basis for cooperation in the federal system – parties link public officials in the national, state and local levels of government and provide a basis for these officials to work together (platform and ideology). Elected officials at different levels of government will work together by endorsing each other, raising money for each other, working together to raise support for policies. Parties provide a space for interest groups and the public to share their views and interests with public officials and to reach compromise  Parties provide a forum for interest groups to present their views (but not all do) on issues and candidates. Parties aggregate and represent the interests. The party provides a forum and channel for these groups to convey their viewpoint on this issue.  Parties provide an arena for the development of compromises by interest groups and party members. So within the framework of the party, these groups can come together and reach a compromise on an issue. They may compromise that new drilling should be banned but existing sites can continue to operate. Parties provide a channel for communication between the public (you) and public officials.  Parties provide a link between the public and elected officials, primarily by providing a channel of communication between the two groups.  Elected officials use the party to communicate with their constituency. The public use the party to access elected officials and government. Many citizens interact with government through political parties; Parties provide a structure for political participation Figure 5.1 Relationship between Government and parties, interest groups, people 144 | Brem & Sweeney ~ 2018 ~ Government and Politics in the United States Parties have informally developed to provide a key service to the American democratic system, of linking public officials, interests groups and the public together. For many of us, parties are the means by which we engage and interact (are linked) with govt. The American Two Party System One reason why the American system is exceptional is because of our two party system. Many countries have copied much of our democratic system, but not our electoral and party system. The dominance of our two major parties is unique among democracies. One striking feature of American history is that although we have not had a revolution since 1776, we have changed our political course several times and in rather dramatic ways. Over the course of two centuries, the U.S. has been marked by 25-40 year periods of relative stability, with on party tending to maintain a majority of the congressional seats and controlling the presidency. These periods of stability are called party eras. Critical elections are when there is a shift in political allegiances from one party to another, marking the end of one era and the beginning of another. There have been 5 major party eras in US history: 1. Federalist vs. Democratic Republicans (1800 – 1828): Federalists – championed greater government involvement in the lives of Americans. Democratic Republicans - opposed a powerful central government. The Federalist party ceased to effectively exist by 1820. 2. Democrat vs. Whigs (1828 – 1852): Democrats –Jackson broke with the Democratic Republicans and formed the Democratic Party in 1828. Jackson stood for the common citizen, but looked out particularly for southern & western interests. Whigs - those remaining in the Democratic Republican party adopted the name Whigs. The name was chosen from an English political faction formed to oppose the absolute monarchy of the 17th century – the Whigs accused Jackson of acting like a king. 145 | Brem & Sweeney ~ 2018 ~ Government and Politics in the United States 3. Democrats vs. Republicans (1856 – 1892): Republicans – Whigs, former Free Soil Party members, and ex-Democrats formed the Republican Party to oppose the spread of slavery. 1860 was a critical election in which Lincoln won the presidency under the antislavery Republican ticket. It produced sharp and enduring changes in party loyalties across the country, with northerners voting for the Republicans. Democrats – Southerners blamed Republicans for the civil war and a punitive reconstruction. After the civil war, due to a punitive reconstruction, Southerners largely voted Democratic. 4. Era of Republican Dominance (1892 – 1932): Republicans - In response to an economic depression, the Republicans favored high tariffs on foreign goods and sound money tied to gold. Republicans at this point became the party of business. Democrats – advocated for cheap money based on gold and silver & favored populists policies. 5. Era of Democratic Dominance (1932 – present): Democrats – the stock market crash and great depression led to a third critical election in 1932. Democrats became the party of the middle class and poor. The Democrats also became the advocate for government intervention to alleviate socio-economic issues plaguing society. Republicans – lost power to Democrats because they were unwilling to combat the effects of the depression through direct government intervention in the economy. Are We in a 6th Party Era? There is debate as to when the 6th party era began. We find two trends emerge in the last 60 years that may be the defining characteristic of the 6th (or 7th) party era(s).  Dealignment - Americans are increasingly deciding not to identify with a political party. See the graph below.  Divided government - since the 1950s, Americans more frequently produce divided government. This means that one political party does not capture all three institutions necessary for legislating (House of Representatives, Senate and Presidency). 146 | Brem & Sweeney ~ 2018 ~ Government and Politics in the United States Key Party Function: Developing a Platform Choosing the party’s platform is the second most important function of a political party. A party platform is:  A statement that puts forth the party's positions on issues  A list of policy positions that the party endorses and pledges its elected officials to enact  The national party’s campaign promises (usually made only in a presidential year) The national party determines the party platform. The platform is created at the national convention. Behind the scenes at the conventions, committees devise positions on issues. On any given issue, a party will have a position. If the parties are to make a difference politically, their platforms have to reflect substantial differences that are consistent with their ideologies. Each plank represents an issue on which the party has a position (such as gay marriage, universal health care, Iraq, the financial crisis, job creation, etc.). On any given issue, wings of the party will fight over the national party’s official position. For example, on the issue of abortion, the Democratic Party will have various wings fighting at the national convention (and often before) over the position that will be taken in the party’s platform. The party will take the position that it is a women’s right to choose, but the wings or factions in the party will fight over whether this right is absolute (radical wing) or there should be conditions (conservative wing). The party wings will fight over how the plank is framed. This is where the power brokering occurs. Delegates then vote on each issue. Thus, the position that the party takes is the result of the ideological struggle that has occurred behind the scenes with party activists. Figure 5.2 The Party Platform When all of the planks are lined up, these planks (positions on issues) become the “platform” upon which the party and candidate stands. For example, on the Republican party platform; to be a Republican means that we support these issues! 147 | Brem & Sweeney ~ 2018 ~ Government and Politics in the United States The loyalty of party members to the platform varies. Everyone who runs for the party in the nation is supposed to support the platform, but this does not always occur. Political parties have become weaker due to campaign finance rules and partisan realignment. As a result, candidates are less compelled to stand by the party's platform. It is important to note that one way in which minor parties can be powerful is by influencing the national . debate. Minor parties help planks get on the platform. Many minor parties organize because parties are not addressing an issue that is important to many Americans. A minor party will adopt that position and gain supporters. If the issue has enough traction and support, the two major parties will co-opt that issue and take a position on it. Chart 5.1 The 2012 Democrat & Republican Party Platforms Compared Key Party Function: Nomination of Candidates for Office Nomination of candidates is the major function of political parties. The nomination of the party’s presidential candidate has been a political question in American politics throughout the 148 | Brem & Sweeney ~ 2018 ~ Government and Politics in the United States country’s history. Each of the major parties needs to come up with a single viable candidate from the long list of party members with ambitions to serve in the White House. Party Caucus (1800 – 1828): The original method was the party caucus. Leaders and persons in government chose candidates through bargaining and discussion. The public was left out of the process. As a result, this process came to be seen as non-representative of the people. National Convention (1828 – 1890s): The Jacksonian Democrats led to an era of Party in the Electorate; the Democrats were effective at mobilizing the party base (with party bosses and patronage systems) for rest of the century. Participation in elections ran around 80%. The first national convention was held in 1831 by the Anti-Masonic Party. They opposed secret decision making of caucuses and preferred a convention format that was more open and democratic. This was such an appealing process that it was adopted by the major parties at the time, the Whigs and Democrats. Initially conventions were very loose operations and up till the early twentieth century, the “smoke filled room” behind the scenes dominated the nomination process. Power brokering determined the presidential nominee. Non-Binding Primaries with Brokered Convention (1890s – 1972): During the progressive movement, reform oriented politicians wanted to make the nomination process more democratic, so primaries were developed. In 1912, Teddy Roosevelt won 9 primaries to Taft’s 1 and captured 40% of the delegates, but party bosses nominated Taft. In response to this, more states began to adopt primaries. However, these primaries were non-binding, so power brokering at the national convention continued to be key. The primaries were considered “beauty contests” and a popularity indicator. The real decision making occurred at the brokered convention. The Current Presidential Nomination Process (1972 – present): The current process to nominate presidential candidates includes the use of binding primaries, caucuses and a national convention. The Democratic Convention of 1968 was a catalyst for party reform. The Democrats nominated Humphreys even though 80% of the party were for anti-war candidates and Humphrey had not won a primary contest. It was perceived that strings were pulled and deals made behind the scenes to nominate a candidate not in line with popular opinion. In response, the Democrats created the McGovern-Fraser commission to reform process. The McGovern-Fraser Commission sought to create greater transparency, broaden participation and enable more representation for minorities and others who are underrepresented. To meet these new requirements, many states found it simplest to hold binding primaries. This made delegate selection a function of popular vote. Republicans shortly followed suit with similar reforms and the adoption of binding primaries. Primaries intended to make the process more representative of the electorate, but there are many issues to be critical of, most importantly front loading. Front loading is the idea that front runners have held onto the lead to win the nomination by racking up primary victories. Front loading creates a dynamic in which:    Voters tend to dutifully follow and support the front-runner. “Momentum” becomes key word. There is a lack of excitement later on as the nominee is decided relatively early. 149 | Brem & Sweeney ~ 2018 ~ Government and Politics in the United States  The nomination race becomes a national campaign from the first day after the New Hampshire primary. Front loading affects primaries because of:     Bandwagon effect – people like to hold opinions that the majority shares so they will adopt the opinions of the majority. For example, after Gary Hart’s victory over Mondale in 1984 primary created a 27% boost in the polls. Media – winning early primaries brings positive news coverage, making candidate seem more attractive (and electable) to voters casting ballots later. Jimmy Carter was trailing but winning Iowa increased his airtime 5x. Campaign Finance Reforms – passed in 1972 and in 2002 limited individual donations ( $1000 and then $2000 per candidate). Fundraising became less dependent on big donors and more reliant on mass appeal. Poor showings in early primaries hurt a candidate's publicity, but also their ability to raise money. Proportional Primaries – winner take all primaries were banned in 1972 by the Democrats. This makes it harder for candidates lagging in the race to come from behind by winning a few large states later. Why Do We Have a Two Party System? The two major parties in the US have dominated more completely than any other two parties in any other democratic country. This is an element of our political system that is unique and exceptional compared with other democracies in the world. There are several explanations as to why this is the case. Original Cleavage Theory This theory asserts that the basic cleavage structures in the formative years of a new democratic society establish the setting within which party conflict develops and this original cleavage pattern leaves it imprint on a party system as it matures. In the US, this original cleavage from which the two party structure developed was over how the power of the new federal government was to be exercised (i.e. the size and role of government). The two opposing groups disagreed over national, economic and foreign policy and the political rights of citizen. It was a dualistic confrontation between the different sets up interests with distinctive ideologies. Thus the two groups (parties) were interest group oriented and ideological. Party Responsiveness The two major parties have been able to effectively extend their reach over new constituents, keeping alternate parties from gaining power. The original cleavage only partially explains why we have two parties. Another factor has been that the original ideologically based parties have been responsive enough to the electorate to incorporate them under their umbrella organization and prevent the formation of viable third and fourth parties. Parties must have the capacity to respond to the needs of society, particularly when crises occur which threaten their stability. The extent to which parties develop as continuously 150 | Brem & Sweeney ~ 2018 ~ Government and Politics in the United States responsive institutions will determine whether new parties appear and secure the support of the voting public. When elites and parties are rigid and exclusive and the status system is rigid, groups left out will form new parties to represent the demands of the new and dissatisfied claimants. The inability of special interests parties to take root is a credit to the responsiveness and capabilities of our two major parties. When people criticize parties for being middle of the road, it is because they consciously position themselves middle of the road so as to cast the largest net over the electorate (in order to win). The Republicans and Democrats since the civil war have been responsive enough to the new problems of American society so as to quash the threats of minor parties. Political Socialization Another reason why we only have two major parties is party socialization and identification. Long exposure to the same party system without any interruptions will tend to habituate the public to the acceptance of a party system and cultural expectations connected to it. Philip Converse argues that exposure for 2.5 generations is probably necessary for any party system to be firmly imbedded in society. Major party change is possible, but less likely in societies where party systems have survived long enough to evoke sentiments of identification and loyalty from the majority of the public. New parties find difficulty “breaking in.” Most Americans identify with one of the two parties, but the percentage has declined since the beginning of the 20th century. Around World War I, 90% identified with one of two major parties. Today, roughly 66% of Americans identify with one of the two major parties. Pollsters often find that many self-declared independents often 'lean' quite strongly to either the Democrat or Republican parties. “Leaners” do feel party affiliations, but choose not to self-identify with a party. Electoral System The most important reason why we have a two party system is due to our electoral system (single member plurality district based elections - SMPD). When you can elect only one person from a geographic area, a multiplicity of parties is discouraged. However, a federal system has a sheltering place for the loser. As the two major parties are at all levels of the system, one party may lose the presidential election but still hold office and power elsewhere. Also, the “winner takes all” or “first past the post” systems encourage only two parties and discourages third parties. French sociologist Maurice Duverger, developed a model in the 1950s that predicts that SMPD systems will become two party systems, given enough time. Duverger’s Law states that "a two party system develops from a single member district plurality voting system where legislative seats are awarded to the candidate with the most votes (plurality) within his or her constituency. This SMDP system discourages the development of third parties and rewards two major parties." 151 | Brem & Sweeney ~ 2018 ~ Government and Politics in the United States First-past-the-post tends to reduce the number of political parties to a greater extent than most other methods, thus making it more likely that a single party will hold a majority of legislative seats. FPTP system marginalizes many smaller political parties. This occurs because:      A statistically small third party cannot gain legislative power if it is based on a populous area. A statistically significant third party can be too geographically scattered to muster enough votes to win seats in a single member district system, although technically its numbers would be sufficient to overtake a major party in a urban zone. Major parties design of gerrymander the districts to favor themselves (i.e. they protect the electoral system) Major parties make success difficult for third parties by passing ballot access laws (pass state laws making access to the ballot difficult for third parties) Major parties co-opt third party issues Minor (Third) Parties: Any party other than the two major parties (Democratic and Republican parties) can be called a “Third party” or “minor party.” Why do minor parties appear?  Citizens feel constricted by only having two political choices at election time. They will feel unrepresented because the major parties often focus on the “median voter”  Usually special circumstances trigger the formation of a third party (war, economic depression, etc.).  The perception by a fairly large estranged sector of the public that the major parties cannot cope with the crisis  The emergence of able leadership as charismatic spokespersons for the third party  A major leadership fight within one of the major parties and the secession of one leadership group for the purpose of running a third party (ex – Teddy Roosevelt in 1912 split with the Republicans to form his Bull Moose Progressive Party)  Some parties formed by famous people - If they cannot gain support from one of the major parties, they form their own. H. Ross Perot’s Reform Party was a force in the 1992 and 1996 elections. This party also placed pro wrestler Jesse Ventura in the governor’s mansion in Minnesota. These parties usually fade after their candidate is defeated. What do third parties contribute to the political system? What do parties take away from the system? When these smaller groups challenge the two major parties, they can change the outcome of elections. Their most important role is to influence policy on one or more issues.    Channel protest - minor parties create an opportunity for certain types of citizens to be involved who would not otherwise be Influence direction of public policy – bring issues to the table that the major parties would not otherwise have adopted. Effect outcome of elections - can take away electoral votes from major parties and thus sway the election one way or the other (example – Perot in ’92 took away votes from Bush and thus helped elect Clinton). Interest groups Interest groups are groups that are interested in an issue (any issue). They form for a purpose. Interest groups do not have to govern so interest groups can stay more ideologically pure (conservative, liberal, or radical). Some of the groups that Americans join most often include: Parent Teacher Groups (PTA), Elks or Rotary type service clubs, and church groups. 152 | Brem & Sweeney ~ 2018 ~ Government and Politics in the United States Church groups are the largest interest groups in the United States; and, they can be social groups, service groups, or political groups. David Truman defined political interest groups as share attitude groups which seek to make” political claims” of other groups in society. In other words, people join interest groups with people who share attitude with them on a given issue: liberal, conservative, or radical on any given issue (e.g. more conservative “anti-abortion” vs more liberal “pro-choice for women’s reproductive rights”). People in interest groups work together to influence public policy relative to impacting governance in American on the particular issue of set of issues focused upon by that group. As central tendencies: Liberal groups tend to make the political claims of tolerance for diversity, conservative groups tend to make claims for conformity to a standard (e.g. morals), and radical groups tend to make claims for social justice. Interest Groups vs. Political Parties: The primary difference between an interest group and a political party is that political parties are concerned with governing and interest groups are concerned with influencing. As political parties are part of governance, they must compromise on issues. Interest groups, on the other hand, are not part of governance so their position on issues may remain pure. Interest groups are political, but not necessarily partisan: Interest groups are first and foremost interested in having their issues represented. Interest groups want to be heard and want to influence decision makers regardless of political party or ideology. As a result, many interest groups spread their resources (money) widely. For example, a major corporation like General Electric (below) will donate to both Republican and Democratic parties/ candidates. Not surprisingly, GE hedges its' bets and donates more to the 'team' that is more likely to win. General Electric’s campaign donations, Center for Responsive Politics (Opensecrets.org) Why people join interest groups: Not all individuals have an interest in politics; certainly not all the time. Many may become very interested in one particular issue outside of their normal non-political purposes and then leave it. In all groups, levels of participation vary among membership. There are three major reasons why individuals join groups: 153 | Brem & Sweeney ~ 2018 ~ Government and Politics in the United States 1. Material incentives (a liberal reason): some individuals are compelled to join groups for a material benefit, like free road side towing (AAA) or networking opportunities (professional or alumni organizations). 2. Solidarity incentives (a conservative reason): sometimes individuals join interest groups for solidarity and social gratification. One may join a youth group or church group for the fellowship. 3. Purposive incentives (a radical reason): many join interest groups to help improve their community and fight for a cause. People join groups like Amnesty International, Greenpeace and Save the Children to help make the world a better place. Because parties cater to the middle, interest groups have filled the gap in supplying strong and clear support for issues which parties might not be best equipped to supply anymore. How groups recruit members: One of the biggest challenges for public interest groups is attracting members. An important distinction between different types of interest groups is in whose interests do they work for? Private interest groups represent only small private (often corporate) interests at the expense of civic interests. A public interest group is fighting for the public’s interest - for all of us. Public interest group members are usually motivated by a view of the world that they think that everyone would be better off to adopt. They believe that the benefit that they seek is good for everyone, even if individuals outside their group disagree or even reject the benefit. Few people will dispute the value of clean air, but there is no such consensus on protecting the right to abortion. For example, when pro-life activists argue for the right to life, that is not a private interest but a public one. They would argue that when the right to life is a public issue. The same is true with homosexuals seeking the right to marry. They would argue it is a civil rights public issue. Free Rider problem: Public interest groups face a unique challenge in recruiting members to support their cause. A public interest group, like the ACLU, is going to continue to fight for civil liberties regardless of whether a particular individual joins the cause. Many citizens may support the ACLU but refrain from joining and donating because they will continue to benefit from this groups work even if they do not join. The free rider problem is the difficulty of obtaining members for a particular interest group when the benefits are already to be had without membership. A collective good refers to something of value that cannot be withheld from a nonmember of a group. Unions can face this problem when employees do not have to join the union to work but get the benefits without paying dues. Americans and their love of groups: Americans have historically joined groups in high numbers. Alexis de Tocqueville, a French scholar writing in the 1830s, toured the US to evaluate the American prison system. In seeing the country as a whole however, he was moved to write a book about his perceptions of Americans and their society. This book, Democracy in America, is a classic in American political history. In his work, de Tocqueville observed things about Americans still true today including:  A disdain for philosophy and most education other than what is perceived as practical training. We preferred action over talking. Innovation in getting things done (creative/ enterprising).  A certain gambling character to take risks. 154 | Brem & Sweeney ~ 2018 ~ Government and Politics in the United States  Most notably, he discovered a country where we tend to join groups a lot compared to Europeans who are much more private and individual. The major point made by Tocqueville in his classic text was that Americans love groups. He observed at the time that Americans join associations and groups far more than other people. This holds true in part today. Americans today still do join groups. Many groups abound in this country such as the PTA, Rotary, Elks, church groups, etc. About 60% of Americans are in groups, though participation and interest levels vary. The current state of social capital While Americans have historically stood apart from other countries on the metric of group membership, more recently membership in groups in the US has been on the decline. Symptoms of decline include:  Decrease in voter turnout  Decline in —church membership  1/3rd drop in attendance at  Decline in —union membership school/public meetings  Decline in volunteering  Immense drop in trust in government In the book “Bowling Alone”, political scientist Robert Putnam argued that one illustrative indicator of this trend in the decline in bowling league membership. He presents evidence that shows that Americans bowl more than ever, but we tend to join fewer leagues. More broadly, Putnam argues that we are a nation that does things in public alone; whereas we used to be a nation that did things in public together. Why this matters is that democracy is built upon something called social capital. —Social capital is social organizations (social networks, social norms and social trust) that facilitate cooperation and coordination for 155 | Brem & Sweeney ~ 2018 ~ Government and Politics in the United States mutual benefit. These social networks encourage broader identities and solidarity that help translate the ‘I’ into ‘we’ mentality In other words, social capital is your ability to connect with other people and to make things happen in community. If you want to change your world, you expend social capital to do so. You call upon your network of relationships and build a community dedicated to the cause. When you no longer have associations, we break down social capital and the ability to address the problems most pressing to our communities. On the flip side, your participation in groups strengthens civil society and public life and thus strengthens democracy. How interest groups influence: the 'Inside Game' The Inside Game - Direct Lobbying: Interest groups use both what is known as the inside game and the outside game to influence decision makers. The inside game is the use of direct lobbying to advocate for your interest. The term lobbying derived from 17th century England where representatives of special interests would meet members of the House of Commons in the lobby outside the house floor to plead their cases. Lobbying is when you go to someone behind the scenes and ask them to do something for you. This is different than when this is out in the open in public. Then it is just debate and political discussion. Direct lobbying: is the direct interaction with public officials for the purpose of influencing policy decisions. The success of a lobbyist depends on who they know and how well, what they know and to what level of expertise, and how well they can use all this. It is a high pressure job that is part skill and part art. Lobbyists are paid professionals who are adept at procuring political influence. Lobbyists do what you cannot do. This is a good thing. You have the right to petition congress but you do not have the time. You know that you want health insurance, but do you know how to argue effectively for the right kind of health insurance policy? That is the job of the professional lobbyist. So you pay dues and the interest groups pay the salaries. The lobbyist spends the time in the library, writing research papers and speaking with legislators. While anyone can lobby Congress, the most effective lobbyists are paid professionals who work full time at it. They are hired by many clients and often lobby for multiple and diverse causes. The best are paid in 6 digit figures and their value often comes from their connections to members of Congress and the access they thus have. What Lobbyist can DO:  Meet with legislators  Testify at hearings on bills  Write legislation  Befriend Congressmen  Inform constituents  Raise money Pennsylvania State Rep. Mark Mustio, left, talks with Linda Talmon and Michael Bernarding, of the ALS Association, in his Moon office. They're lobbying for ALS funding in the state budget. (Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, 6,11,2008). 156 | Brem & Sweeney ~ 2018 ~ Government and Politics in the United States What lobbyist may NOT do: Offer money/gifts in exchange for favors or votes! For example, Powerful Republican representative Tom Delay was just one of a number of Congressmen indicted for taking large sums of money from lobbyists - in this case the powerful and well connected Jack Abramhoff who was also indicted. Some Statistics on Lobbying      12,488 active lobbyists in 2010 Over 80,000 registered lobbyists in Washington D.C. GE = 120 lobbyists Drug lobby = 625 lobbyists (in 2001) Groups spent $3.46 Billion on lobbying in 2009, up from $1.44 billion in 1998 (Center for Responsive Politics) In addition to campaign contributions to elected officials and candidates, companies, labor unions, and other organizations spend billions of dollars each year to lobby Congress and federal agencies. Some special interests retain lobbying firms, many of them located along Washington's legendary K Street; others have lobbyists working in-house. We've got totals spent on lobbying, beginning in 1998, for everyone from AAI Corp. to Zurich Financial. The Revolving Door Another issue with lobbying is the practice of public officials using their connections once they have left office to 'lobby' for outside interests. This is called the revolving door. It is the tendency of public officials, journalists, and lobbyists to move between public and private sectors. The revolving door is very prevalent in national politics. For example, of the top 100 officials in the Clinton Administration, 51 now work as lobbyists. (Center for Public Integrity). Below is an example of what the revolving door looks like for one individual, Senator George Mitchell. After leaving public service, Senator Mitchell joined a lobbying firm and made several million dollars lobbying former colleagues over the next 10 years. In attempt to constrain this practice, Congress passed a law mandating that government officials must wait one year before lobbying their former agency. Do you think a year makes much of a difference? 157 | Brem & Sweeney ~ 2018 ~ Government and Politics in the United States How interest groups influence: the 'Outside Game' The Outside Game: Indirect Lobbying The outside game consists of indirect lobbying. —Indirect lobbying attempts to influence government policymakers by encouraging the general public to put pressure on them. For example, interest groups engaging in indirect lobbying will:      Publicize issues Inform Constituencies Raise and Donate Money Endorse Candidates Take “direct action” Groups use indirect lobbying to educate the public. Many groups are convinced that the public will rally to their side once they know the “truth” about the issue. These groups use issue advocacy ads to promote their message. Groups are increasingly turning to the internet (you tube, Facebook, etc.) to promote their ideas. Public Interest Media Group created the first national advertising campaign to encourage family communication in underserved communities (www.publicinterestmedia.com) The point of disseminating information, hiring public relation firms and running issue advocacy campaigns is to mobilize the public, motivating people to lobby politicians themselves. Groups with few resources may also try to make their issue newsworthy by engaging in high profile actions which the news might cover. For example, protests which block traffic, get people arrested, take over buildings, etc. These things are done because nothing else has worked. How 'democratic' are interest groups? The pluralist theory of democracy: —The pluralist theory of democracy argues that American politics is best understood by looking at the interaction, conflict and bargaining between groups and government entities. —Pluralist believe that interest groups are an important instrument in democracy and articulating the public’s interest. —Free elections do not adequately communicate the specific wants and interests of the people. —Interest groups are easy to create (people are free to join). Due to federalism, separation of powers, checks and balances, government power is widely dispersed and porous. Thus, there is open and easy access by groups to decision makers. This allows for all legitimate interests to have their views taken 158 | Brem & Sweeney ~ 2018 ~ Government and Politics in the United States into account by some public officials. Pluralist believe that interest groups are a great equalizing force in American politics. Figure 5.3 Pluralist model of interest groups One critique that is often raised regarding interests groups is the resource differential (money, staff, etc.) that exists between groups. Some groups have a substantial amount of resources while other groups have very little. The critique is that this dynamic skews power toward the wealthy. Social Movements Most citizens in the United States participate in the political system through accessing institutions. When citizens work within the rules of the political system, they are engaging in institutionalized processes of governance. Examples of institutionalized participation include involvement in political parties and interest groups.   Political parties – citizens use parties to influence governance and policy directly through electing individuals into office. These individuals are then expected to work toward the policy goals of their constituents. Interest groups – citizens join interest groups to pressure political actors on issues of concern. Interest groups seek to pressure and influence actors engaged in the political process (i.e. lobbyists influencing representative on climate change) What happens if you have an interest, such as combating AIDS or fighting racism and discrimination, and the above two methods of participation do not work? You have tried influencing policy through elections but leaders are not responding. You have tried to form interest groups to pressure elected officials but have seen no results. What do you do? A third avenue of participation is movement politics. You could form or join a social movement. Social movements most often emerge because the formal avenues of participation are closed to segments of the population or do not yield change. When political parties and interest groups are not addressing the concerns of a segment of society, a social movement has the potential of emerging. Social movements use contentious collective action to attempt to force the state to pay attention to and address their issues of concern. Collective action is 159 | Brem & Sweeney ~ 2018 ~ Government and Politics in the United States especially important for people who have little influence individually (yet can come together with like-minded people and have power). Throughout our history, groups have emerged to challenge the status quo (and opposition groups have emerged to fight to preserve the status quo). Over the past five or so decades, in the United States (and abroad), social movements emerged around many issues including:  Discrimination and equal rights:  Animal rights women, LGBTQ, People of Color,  Immigrant justice etc.  Civil rights  Protecting the environment  Economic injustice  Discrimination in the workplace  Anti-war / fascism Comparing political pressure groups: Movements, Interest Groups, and Political Parties Political parties, interest groups and social movements are all similar in that they are political pressure groups. They are all informal institutions that seek to influence the political process. However, parties, interest groups and movements are different in many different ways. Three main differences between the three types of pressure groups are found in their modes of operation, main resources, and structural features. Figure 5.4 Comparing parties, groups, movements Modes of Operation:  Political Parties – the primary mode of operation for the party is participating in governance. Parties focus their modes of operations on getting candidates elected to office and governing once in office.  Interest groups – the primary mode of operation for interest groups is influence peddling. Interest groups seek to influence other groups and the political system through direct and indirect lobbying  Movements – the primary mode of operation for movements is contentious actions. Movements often lack the connections to the right power holders to influence via an interest group nor do they have influence among office holders or many supporters in office. In order to capture the attention of the state, social movements often engage in highly contentious forms of political activity, such as demonstrations, strikes, disruptive behavior, and revolutionary violence. Main Resources:  Political Parties – the main resource of the party is voters. Parties focus on mobilizing voters to get their candidates into office  Interest Groups – the main resource of interest groups is expertise, money and access. Interest groups use these resources to effectively influence power holders 160 | Brem & Sweeney ~ 2018 ~ Government and Politics in the United States  Movements – the main resource of movements is committed adherents. Movements have power in that they can point to large numbers of often passionate supporters of their cause. Structural Features  Political Parties – the parties are structured as formal organizations  Interest groups – interest groups are structured as formal organizations (must adhere to tax laws, etc.)  Movements – movements are networks of groups and organizations that are much more informal Social movements: are sustained, collective, & public challenges by ordinary people to authorities and/or the established social order, including some extra-institutional tactics. ~ Charles Tilly Different Social Movements Types: Sustained Movements: Feminism is the radical notion that women are people. ~ Marie Shear 1986 Above, feminist suffrage parade in New York City, May 6, 1912. The women’s rights movement is said to have started in 1848 at the Seneca Falls Convention in upstate New York. The women’s rights movement has been ongoing and sustained ever since and is still in contention to this day. It continues to challenge the status quo and advance women’s rights. In the photo at left, Swansea Women’s Aid members demonstrate in support of refugees for battered women in 1976. 161 | Brem & Sweeney ~ 2018 ~ Government and Politics in the United States Collective Movements Millions of ordinary people participated in the Civil Rights Movement. The above photo is an image of the Civil Rights March on Washington, D.C., 08/28/1963 Public Movements The Anti-AIDS (ACT UP) movement fought to keep the AIDS issue in the public light. In the photo to the left, the AIDS Memorial Quilt is seen displayed for the first time on the National Mall in Washington, D.C., in October 1987 162 | Brem & Sweeney ~ 2018 ~ Government and Politics in the United States Challenge Movements Social movements challenge the pre-existing social, economic or political status quo, such as the use of nuclear weapons in a country’s weapons arsenal. In the picture to the right, Greenpeace activist protest against plans to replace Britain's nuclear weapons at the Atomic Weapons Establishment (AWE). Using extra-institutional tactics in Movements The pro-peace, anti-war movement has challenged the United States on its involvement in the Iraq War. In this photo, propeace activists chained themselves together on Market Street to protest the fifth anniversary of the war and occupation in Iraq. Their actions led to arrest. “I learned early that crying out in protest could accomplish things. My older brothers and sister had started to school when, sometimes, they would come in and ask for a buttered biscuit or something and my mother, impatiently, would tell them no. But I would cry out and make a fuss until I got what I wanted. I remember well how my mother asked me why I couldn't be a nice boy like Wilfred; but I would think to myself that Wilfred, for being so nice and quiet, often stayed hungry. So early in life, I had learned that if you want something, you had better make some noise.” ~ Malcolm X 163 | Brem & Sweeney ~ 2018 ~ Government and Politics in the United States Ordinary people Movements Pro-Democracy Movement in Iran – In the above photo, marchers shouted slogans and made victory signs in Tehran, where protests were called to commemorate 1999 clashes between students and the police. Occupy – “we are the 99%” was an ordinary people movement. The WUNC Test The WUNC model was developed by Charles Tilly, lets one measure, assess, and evaluate the relative strength & effectiveness of a social movement. It stands for Worthy, Unified, Numerous and Committed.  Worthiness - Social movements’ display of worthiness may include sober demeanor and the presence of clergy and mothers with children  Unity – social movements may express unity by matching banners, singing and chanting  Numerous – social movements broadcast numbers via signatures on petitions and filling streets  Commitment – social movements show commitment by braving bad weather, ostentatious sacrifice, and/or visible participation by the old and handicapped. WUNC matters because it conveys crucial political messages to a social movement’s targets and the relevant public. WUNC shows the public and the claimants that the group is numerous, committed, unified and worthy! Some thoughts on Social Movements and Protest “Darkness cannot put out darkness, only light can do to that. And I say to you, I have also decided to stick to love, for I know that love is ultimately the only answer to mankind’s problems, and I’m going to talk about it everywhere I go. I know it isn’t popular to talk about it in some circles today.... I’m not talking about emotional bosh when I talk about love. I’m talking about a strong, demanding love, and I have seen too much hate. I’ve seen too much hate on the faces of sheriffs in the South. I’ve seen hate on the faces of too many Klansmen and too many White Citizens' Councilors to want to hate, myself, because every time I see it, I know that it does something to their faces and their personalities, and I say to myself that hate is too great a burden to bear.” ~ Martin Luther King, Jr 164 | Brem & Sweeney ~ 2018 ~ Government and Politics in the United States “Don’t think of retiring from the world until the world will be sorry that you retire. I hate a fellow whom pride or cowardice or laziness drives into a corner, and who does nothing when he is there but sit and growl. Let him come out as I do, and bark.” ~ American Revolutionary Samuel Johnson “Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." ~ John F. Kennedy “I love America more than any other country in the world and, exactly for this reason, I insist on the right to criticize her perpetually.” ~ James Baldwin “We must always take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented.” ~ Elie Wiesel 165 | Brem & Sweeney ~ 2018 ~ Government and Politics in the United States FOCUS ESSAY: Frederick Douglass ~ 'What To The Slave Is The Fourth Of July?' The Frederick Douglass Statue in Emancipation Hall at the U.S. Capitol in 2013. On July 3, the National Archives hosted a reading of Douglass' essay about the Fourth of July. July 5th 1852; Frederick Douglass delivered this speech (refusing to celebrate the Fourth of July until all slaves were emancipated). Excerpts of Douglas’ speech: …Fellow-citizens; above your national, tumultuous joy, I hear the mournful wail of millions! whose chains, heavy and grievous yesterday, are, to-day, rendered more intolerable by the jubilee shouts that reach them. If I do forget, if I do not faithfully remember those bleeding children of sorrow this day, “may my right hand forget her cunning, and may my tongue cleave to the roof of my mouth!” To forget them, to pass lightly over their wrongs, and to chime in with the popular theme, would be treason most scandalous and shocking, and would make me a reproach before God and the world… … I do not hesitate to declare, with all my soul, that the character and conduct of this nation never looked blacker to me than on this 4th of July! Whether we turn to the declarations of the past, or to the professions of the present, the conduct of the nation seems equally hideous and revolting. America is false to the past, false to the present, and solemnly binds herself to be false to the future. Standing with God and the crushed and bleeding slave on this occasion, I will, in the name of humanity which is outraged, in the name of liberty which is fettered, in the name of the constitution and the Bible, which are disregarded and trampled upon, dare to call in question and to denounce, with all the emphasis I can command, everything that serves to perpetuate slavery—the great sin and shame of America! “I will not equivocate; I will not excuse”; I will use the severest language I can command; and yet not one word shall escape me that any man, whose judgment is not blinded by prejudice, or who is not at heart a slaveholder, shall not confess to be right and just… …What, to the American slave, is your 4th of July? I answer: a day that reveals to him, more than all other days in the year, the gross injustice and cruelty to which he is the constant victim. To him, your celebration is a sham; your boasted liberty, an unholy license; your national greatness, swelling vanity; your sounds of rejoicing are empty and heartless; your denunciations of tyrants, brass fronted impudence; your shouts of liberty and equality, hollow mockery; your prayers and hymns, your sermons and thanksgivings, with all your religious parade, and solemnity, are, to him, mere bombast, fraud, 166 | Brem & Sweeney ~ 2018 ~ Government and Politics in the United States deception, impiety, and hypocrisy—a thin veil to cover up crimes which would disgrace a nation of savages. There is not a nation on the earth guilty of practices, more shocking and bloody, than are the people of these United States, at this very hour. Go where you may, search where you will, roam through all the monarchies and despotisms of the old world, travel through South America, search out every abuse, and when you have found the last, lay your facts by the side of the everyday practices of this nation, and you will say with me, that, for revolting barbarity and shameless hypocrisy, America reigns without a rival… … Fellow-citizens! I will not enlarge further on your national inconsistencies. The existence of slavery in this country brands your republicanism as a sham, your humanity as a base pretence, and your Christianity as a lie. It destroys your moral power abroad; it corrupts your politicians at home. It saps the foundation of religion; it makes your name a hissing, and a by word to a mocking earth. It is the antagonistic force in your government, the only thing that seriously disturbs and endangers your Union. It fetters your progress; it is the enemy of improvement, the deadly foe of education; it fosters pride; it breeds insolence; it promotes vice; it shelters crime; it is a curse to the earth that supports it; and yet, you cling to it, as if it were the sheet anchor of all your hopes. Oh! be warned! be warned! a horrible reptile is coiled up in your nation’s bosom; the venomous creature is nursing at the tender breast of your youthful republic; for the love of God, tear away, and fling from you the hideous monster, and let the weight of twenty millions crush and destroy it forever!... …Allow me to say, in conclusion, notwithstanding the dark picture I have this day presented of the state of the nation, I do not despair of this country. There are forces in operation, which must inevitably work The downfall of slavery. “The arm of the Lord is not shortened,” and the doom of slavery is certain. I, therefore, leave off where I began, with hope. While drawing encouragement from the Declaration of Independence, the great principles it contains, and the genius of American Institutions, my spirit is also cheered by the obvious tendencies of the age. Nations do not now stand in the same relation to each other that they did ages ago. No nation can now shut itself up from the surrounding world, and trot round in the same old path of its fathers without interference. The time was when such could be done. Long established customs of hurtful character could formerly fence themselves in, and do their evil work with social impunity. Knowledge was then confined and enjoyed by the privileged few, and the multitude walked on in mental darkness. But a change has now come over the affairs of mankind. Walled cities and empires have become unfashionable. The arm of commerce has borne away the gates of the strong city. Intelligence is penetrating the darkest corners of the globe. It makes its pathway over and under the sea, as well as on the 167 | Brem & Sweeney ~ 2018 ~ Government and Politics in the United States earth. Wind, steam, and lightning are its chartered agents. Oceans no longer divide, but link nations together. From Boston to London is now a holiday excursion. Space is comparatively annihilated. Thoughts expressed on one side of the Atlantic are, distinctly heard on the other. The far off and almost fabulous Pacific rolls in grandeur at our feet. The Celestial Empire, the mystery of ages, is being solved. The fiat of the Almighty, “Let there be Light,” has not yet spent its force. No abuse, no outrage whether in taste, sport or avarice, can now hide itself from the all-pervading light… *** 168 | Brem & Sweeney ~ 2018 ~ Government and Politics in the United States Congress, the Presidency, Public Administration, and The Court The formal institutions of governing are the national legislature – Congress – which makes our laws, the executive branch headed by the chief executive – the president - and the bureaucracy or “public administration” which enforces our laws. Here we will examine the powers of each institution. The American presidency has arguably become the strongest branch of government, which was not the intention of the founding fathers. We will examine how this institution came to grow in power and prestige as compared to the branch the founders had intended to be strongest: Congress. I The Congress John Adams was one of the writers and signers of the Declaration of Independence, he was the first Vice President and second President of the United States and he is quoted as saying: “one useless man is a disgrace, two useless men are a law firm and three or more useless men are a Congress.” Along those lines, Mark Twain once commented that “it could probably be shown by facts and figures that there is no distinctive American criminal class except Congress.” 169 | Brem & Sweeney ~ 2018 ~ Government and Politics in the United States Here is a comic relief representation of how people often feel about Congress. The point is that Americans have abhorred Congress since the beginning of the republic. Congress has a bad reputation because of all the “politics” and arguing BUT that is its job! They never seem to get anything done. They are always arguing and playing games. That is how laws are made. They constantly have to make deals because you are not going to give up your interest without something in exchange. This is power politics. Making laws requires “politics” in every sense of the word. So, while Americans claim to hate Congress; at the same time, Americans love their Congressional representatives. These individuals enjoy high rates of incumbency and often serve in Congress for decades once elected. The reason for this conflicting public opinion regarding Congress has to do with its two primary functions: representation and legislating.  Representation is the efforts by elected officials to look out for the interests of those who elect them (their constituency). This may take the form of policy representation (congressional work to advance the issues and ideological preferences of constituents), allocative representation (congressional work to secure projects, services, and funds for the represented district), casework (legislative work on behalf of individual constituents to solve their problems with government agencies and programs) and symbolic representation (efforts of members of Congress to stand for American ideals or identify with common constituency values).  Lawmaking: the creation of policy to address the problems and needs of the entire nation. These two concurrent functions are in tension with one another and lead to conflict because local goods are different from national goods, and members favor representing their local constituencies. This makes it difficult for members to fulfill their collective responsibility of national lawmaking. 170 | Brem & Sweeney ~ 2018 ~ Government and Politics in the United States Congress people are burdened with the responsibility to make collective decisions (through law making) and yet their memberships mirror divisions in society that often seem impossible to resolve. We want legislators to respond to the preferences of citizens in each state or district, but we also want them to act on the basis of the common good and disciplined informed decision making processes. Because many congress people choose to serve their constituents over the common good (think health care reform), you end up with all the bickering, antics, horse trading and fighting that leads to Americans negative perception of Congress. This is one of the reasons explaining the paradox about Americans perceptions of Congress – we hate Congress but we like our own congress person. Some facts and figures on Congress Congress is the body of government that makes the laws. It is their job to represent you and the states. The House of Representatives represents the people. The Senate represents the states. Between the two of them, they make the law. Congress is the engine of American democracy. Some notable congress people include Davey Crocket, Joseph Pulitzer, and William Randolph Hearst. Over 10,000 men and women have served in Congress. 23 members of Congress have gone on to become President. It was the intention of the framers of the Constitution that Congress, though one of three equal branches, should be first among equals. This is because the function of Congress is most important – making the laws. The Executive branch merely enforces the laws made by Congress while the Judicial branch is interpreting Congress’ laws. They are supposed to be three separate but equal branches of government, but Congress’ law making function was deemed most important. Moreover, within Congress, the founding fathers always believed that the House of Representatives (the people’s house) should be the more important than the Senate because this is where the people’s voice gets heard. This is what the founders intended but it has never worked that way. The fact of the matter is that the executive branch has always been the more powerful branch. Image of the United States Capitol building which houses the Senate and House of Representatives chamber. 171 | Brem & Sweeney ~ 2018 ~ Government and Politics in the United States Despite increasing executive power, the American Congress is at least an equal to the other branches in power. Leadership Structure of Congress (refer to Figure 5.1 & 5.2 below for a model) The House of Representatives and Senate have different leadership structures. The leader of the House of Representatives is the Speaker of the House. This position is not a party position. The speaker is elected by the majority of the members of the House. Thus, the Speakership almost always goes to the most powerful member of the majority party. The Speak of the House runs the House and thus has real power. When the president and the Speaker are of different parties, the Speaker is also the leader of the opposition party. The Speaker is often considered the second most powerful person in Washington, especially if the Speaker and President are of different parties. The relationship between the Speaker and the President varies depending on whether they are in the same party or not. When the President and the Speaker are of the same party, they cooperate. When the Speaker and the President are of different parties, they often do not cooperate. The top position in the Senate is the President of the Senate. The President of the Senate is the Vice President of the United States. This is a basically a ceremonial role. The president of the Senate only has two functions – to gavel the session in and out and to vote when there is a 50-50 tie. When the Vice President is not present, the President Pro Tem presides over the Senate. The President Pro Tem is usually either a senior member of the majority party about to retire or a junior member of the majority party. Because this position is largely ceremonial, the Senate runs itself, whereas the House is run by the Speaker. Beyond the top post, each chamber has a similar leadership structure. Each chamber has a majority and minority leader, an assistant majority and minority leader, and a majority and minority whip. In the Senate, the real leadership that runs the chamber is the majority and minority leader. In the House, the majority and minority leadership works with the Speaker, but the Speaker runs the show. The aisle literally divides the two parties in the House and Senate chambers. Each party sits on different sides of the aisle. In the House of Representatives the seats are stationary, so the majority party always bleeds over the aisle to the other side. In the Senate, the desk move and an aisle is created dividing the two parties. There are a handful of independents in the House and the Senate. Independents chose which side of the aisle they are going to sit on. Joe Lieberman, a former Senator from Connecticut, was an independent (but leaned to the right). He used his independent status to gain more power in the Senate. When the Democrats controlled the chamber, he sat and often voted with them. When the Republicans controlled the Senate, he would sit and often vote with the Republican party. In exchange, he was able to negotiate choice committee assignments, among other things. 172 | Brem & Sweeney ~ 2018 ~ Government and Politics in the United States The issue of power is really an issue of who can discipline their party to vote along party lines and that is the job of the whip. The party leadership, especially the whip, is responsible for making sure that the party members are voting for the party line. The concept of the whip goes back to the days of fox hunting. When there was somebody whose job it was to whip the dogs chasing the fox in the right direction. The whip would get the dogs to run this way or that way. The job of the Whip in the House or the Senate is to whip the membership of the party in the right direction. If we really need your vote and you are holding out, the job of the whip is to say that if you want the support of the party in the next election, you better vote our way. Figure 61 Congressional leadership structure The Congressional Committee System All the work of Congress is done in committees and sub-committees. Committees in both houses of Congress are set up by subject or by policy area, such as banking, education, finance, veterans’ affairs, housing, transportation, ethics, budget, energy, judiciary, rules, small business, appropriations, science, ways and means, etc. Congress organizing itself into committees by necessity: 435 members of the House cannot have a substantive discussion. Bills are assigned to committee by appropriate area of responsibility. In these committees, there might be 20 members involved and a meaningful discussion is possible. 173 | Brem & Sweeney ~ 2018 ~ Government and Politics in the United States Figure 6.2 The structure of Congress Congress people sit on many committees. Each committee will have a chair that is from the majority party. Each committee will also have a vice chair who is a member of the minority party. In every committee, there are always more members of the majority party then the 174 | Brem & Sweeney ~ 2018 ~ Government and Politics in the United States minority party. Committees break off into sub-committees where there are typically 5-6 people. This is where the real work gets done. There are roughly 100 sub-committees in the House and in the Senate. There are five types of committees: 1. Standing committees - The Senate has 17 standing committees and the House has 20 standing committees. Standing committees are permanent committees responsible for legislation in particular policy areas. Standing committees draft legislation and provide oversight 2. Select committees - are created from time to time to deal with an issue or a problem not suited to a standing committee. These committees are usually temporary and are often used to gather information on specific issues. 3. Joint committees - combined House-Senate committee formed to coordinate activities and expedite legislation in a certain area 4. Conference committees - formed temporarily to reconcile differences in House and Senate versions of a bill. In the conference committee, legislators may alter or rewrite legislation. 5. Committee of the whole - is when the whole House or the whole Senate meets. Chart 5.1 Example list of standing committees: House of Representatives and Senate. New committees have been created and old ones have been dropped as the needs and realities of the nation change. There used to be a great many committees in Congress and few ever changed or were discarded. This has the effect of rendering much of what congress did unwieldy and reform became essential to the increasing demands made on congress. The Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946 cut down the number of committees to only a few main standing committees. The reason there were so many to begin with was essentially political. For members of Congress to achieve any notoriety, they must be a committee chair. This draws attention to them and allows them a shot at fame and certainly power – which means they can do 175 | Brem & Sweeney ~ 2018 ~ Government and Politics in the United States more for their constituents, which means they stand a better chance at reelection. Thus, all members of Congress want to be committee chairs. As a result, since 1946, the number of subcommittees, each with its specific area of concern, has significantly multiplies; each with its own chair. Though committees are not as powerful as they once were – Woodrow Wilson ranked them the key to Congressional politics in his time. They still represent a most potent power locus today; with enough power to fragment Congress. Committees are where the work of Congress gets done and to be a chairman of a committee is a powerful position. Differences between the House of Representatives and the Senate Chart 6.2 Major differences between the House of Representatives and the Senate: some of the distinctions between the two chambers. Source: Roger Davidson and Walter Oleszek, Congress and Its Members, 11th ed. (Washington, D.C.: CQ Press, 2008), 63, 209; Federal Election Commission data compiled by Center for Responsive Politics; calculations by authors. There are several points that should be highlighted regarding these distinctions.   The Senate has longer term lengths than representatives. According to James Madison, this would give senators more expertise in public policy. They wanted to create a professional class of legislators in the Senate. The number of representatives has been 435 since 1929. This figure is arbitrary and was set to deal with the growing size of the House membership – there are only 435 seats – and in order to keep effectiveness of individual members as undiluted as possible while still allowing for representation of the people (too many members would weaken the strength of any one member). The number of Representatives must be at least 1 per state 176 | Brem & Sweeney ~ 2018 ~ Government and Politics in the United States    – and any number above that is set by Congress so long as each representatives represents an equal number of citizens. Where the Representative come from shifts after each decennial census with the shifting populace of the nation. Thus, representatives have been shifting from older states to newer growing states. Representatives tend to be ‘specialists’ on policy areas. Senators tend to be generalists on policy issues Ten states hold over half of the Representatives in the House. These are the older, larger and more populated states such as New York, California, Pennsylvania, etc. Also they are the most important election States because they have many electors (which are equal to the number of members in Congress for that state). Six states have only one representative, such as Montana and Alaska. While representatives in the House sometimes used to be elected at large, today all state representatives represent a congressional district whose boundaries are determined after each census so as to assure continuing equal protection for each American – today it stands at about 700,000 persons per representative More Nuanced Differences Between the House and Senate People tend to think of the House and the Senate as similar bodies, but they are in fact quite different from each other.  House is the more Partisan Body - The House tends to be a more partisan place than the Senate. This in part stems from the boundaries of House districts which are created through one of the most political processes in American politics. State legislators create districts that guarantee the election of either Democrats or Republicans depending on which party dominates the state legislator at the time of re-districting. The citizens most likely to care enough to vote in these single party dominant districts tend to be drawn from the party’s base (very liberal Democrats and very conservative Republicans). Getting elected and reelected means that Congress people cannot alienate these highly partisan voters.  The Senate was intended to be the more aristocratic body - When Thomas Jefferson questioned the role of the Senate in the 1790s, George Washington allegedly asked, “Why do you pour coffee into your saucer?” “To cool it” replied Jefferson. “ Even so” replied Washington “we pour legislation into the Senatorial saucer to cool it.” The Senate was intended to be the wise and stable chamber of Congress. Candidates had to be 30 years old, rather than the 25 years of age in the House. Senators run for reelection every 6 years, so they in theory are not as easily swayed by changes in public opinion. Originally, Senators were elected by members of state legislatures not directly by the people (this changed in 1913 as a result of a constitutional amendment). The intention with election by state legislators was that this top tier of the population would ensure that Senators were a higher caliber of citizens – older, wiser and perhaps more In tune with the interests of the elite (moneyed and otherwise).  Senators represent broader constituencies than do House members. The Senate tends to retain a more national perspective due to the broader constituencies of individual Senators. House members on the other hand tend to be more accessible and responsive to the 700,000 members of 177 | Brem & Sweeney ~ 2018 ~ Government and Politics in the United States their district. House members often represent fewer interests and serve on fewer committees so they tend to more often represent single interest.  House members are also said to provide a more direct and therefore an important link between citizens and their government as House members tend to be more accessible A major difference between the House and the Senate is politics of size  The Rules that govern each house reflect the size of its body – underlying the rules of the Senate is the principle of equal representation for each state. Senate rules, such as the filibuster, give power to one Senator, magnifying the influence of one individual in that body. On the House side, only a few members hold comparable power to the power of one Senator due to the rules. Also the germane rule in the House produces differences. In the House, amendments introduced on the floor must be germane, or relevant and pertinent to the bill itself. Senators, on the other hand, can introduce floor amendments that have nothing at all to do with the bill as it comes to the floor out of committee. What this really says is that as a rule, the work of the committees in the House shall not be tampered with. Senators have more policy making power because they do not have to conform to strict germane rules. For example, Senator Phil Gramm attached the Gramm Rudman Act of 1986 (which was a radical approach to reducing the federal budget) to a bill extending the federal debt limit. This federal debt limit bill had to be passed, so attaching his amendment to it was a shrewd move only possible in the Senate.  The degree of specialization of the members of the House and Senate differ due to the size of their respective bodies – the populous House and the tiny Senate must cover the same vast areas of public policy ranging from agriculture to space exploration. They must develop policy, legislate in identical areas and oversee its implementation. However, the House has 435 people to assign to the task while the Senate has only 100. This results in vast disparities in the degree of expertise achievable between Senators and House members. The average Senator serves on 11 standing committees while the average House member serves on 5. Thus Senators rely more heavily on staff than House members.  Organizational Differences – large organizations tend to be more hierarchical and efficient at processing routine tasks while small organizations tend toward more face to face contact between leaders and followers with more individual expressions tolerate and even encouraged. This is evident in the rules that govern the two houses. In the Senate, Senators can speak as long as they would like while the House has strict limits on debate.  Differences in Personal (Office) Space – it’s much more difficult to find comfortable office space for 435 members than 100 members. In fact, Senators each are given at minimum 4,000 feet of office space with the potential for 900 more square feet for Senators from populous states. A House member may find himself with as little as 1000 square feet, which amount to two rooms.  Differences in Collegial Interaction – the size of the House membership coupled with 2 year elections make it harder to know all of the other fellow members of the body. 178 | Brem & Sweeney ~ 2018 ~ Government and Politics in the United States Figure 6.3 The legislative process: How a bill becomes a law - key stages in the legislative process. Introducing a bill: Congress considers thousands of bills every session. During the 107th Congress (2001-2002), 8,948 bills and 178 joint resolutions were introduced in both Houses. Sources of ideas for legislation are unlimited and proposed drafts of bills originate in many diverse quarters. Legislation may derive from:  Congress members themselves  Constituents as individuals or through citizen groups or lobbyists may avail themselves of the right to petition and transmit their proposals to the Member. The right to petition is guaranteed by the 1st Amendment. Many excellent laws have originated in this way, as some organizations, because of their vital concern with various areas of legislation, have considerable knowledge regarding the laws affecting their interests and have the services of legislative drafts-persons for this purpose.  State legislatures may "memorialize" Congress to enact specified federal laws by passing resolutions to be transmitted to the House and Senate as memorials.  Executive agencies through "executive communication" can be a source of legislative proposals. The communication is usually in the form of a message or letter from a member of the President's Cabinet, the head of an independent agency, or the President himself, transmitting a draft of a proposed bill to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President of the Senate. o Despite the structure of separation of powers of the Constitution imposes an obligation on the President to report to Congress from time to time on the "State of the Union" and to recommend for consideration such measures as the President considers necessary and expedient. Many of these executive communications follow on the President's message to Congress on the state of the Union. o The most important of the regular executive communications is the annual message from the President transmitting the proposed budget to Congress. The 179 | Brem & Sweeney ~ 2018 ~ Government and Politics in the United States President's budget proposal, together with testimony by officials of the various branches of the government before the Appropriations Committees of the House and Senate, is the basis of the several appropriation bills that are drafted by the Committee on Appropriations of the House. The drafting of statutes is an art that requires great skill, knowledge, and experience. In some instances, a draft is the result of a study covering a period of a year or more by a commission or committee designated by the President or a member of the Cabinet. In addition, congressional committees sometimes draft bills after studies and hearings covering periods of a year or more. The practice of adopting bills whose ideas and sometimes draft legislation originate outside of Congress is a practice that is welcome by members of Congress for expediting the process. Congress members are not expected to be experts. As representatives, they will introduce legislation which they agree with and having it pre-drafted helps in the process. Drafts of bills may originate outside of Congress, but a member of the House and Senator must sponsor the bill and introduce it in each respective chamber. Next, the bill is assigned its legislative number by the Clerk. The bill is then referred to the appropriate committee or committees by the leaders of each house. Deliberation within Committee(s) and Sub-committee(s) on the Bill: Perhaps the most important phase of the legislative process is the action by committees. The committees provide the most intensive consideration to a proposed measure as well as the forum where the public is given their opportunity to be heard. Standing committees are required to have regular meeting days at least once a month. The chairman of the committee may also call and convene additional meetings. Committee meetings may be held for various purposes including the "markup" of legislation, authorizing subpoenas, or internal budget and personnel matters.  One of the first actions taken by a committee is to seek the input of the relevant departments and agencies about a bill. Frequently, the bill is also submitted to the GAO with a request for an official report of views on the necessity or desirability of enacting the bill into law. These reports are not binding on the committee in determining whether or not to act favorably on the bill. Reports of the departments and agencies in the executive branch are submitted first to the OMB to determine whether they are consistent with the program of the President.  Authorizing subpoenas - A subpoena may be authorized and issued at a meeting by a vote of a committee or subcommittee with a majority of members present. A subpoena may require both testimonial and documentary evidence to be furnished to the committee.  Open Meetings - all meetings by standing committees or subcommittees must be open to the public (except when the committee on ethics meets or when the majority determine by vote that the meeting shall be closed). Open committee meetings may be covered by the media. 180 | Brem & Sweeney ~ 2018 ~ Government and Politics in the United States  Public hearings - If the bill is of sufficient importance, the committee may set a date for public hearings. Public announcements of hearings are published in the Daily Digest portion of the Congressional Record as soon as possible after an announcement is made and are often noted by the media. Personal notice of the hearing, usually in the form of a letter, is sometimes sent to relevant individuals, organizations, and government departments and agencies. Each member of the committee is provided only five minutes in the interrogation of each witness until each member of the committee who desires to question a witness has had an opportunity to do so.  Mark-ups - After hearings are completed, the subcommittee usually will consider the bill in a session that is popularly known as the "markup" session. The views of both sides are studied in detail and at the conclusion of deliberation a vote is taken to determine the action of the subcommittee. It may decide to report the bill favorably to the full committee, with or without amendment, or unfavorably, or without recommendation. The subcommittee may also suggest that the committee "table" it or postpone action indefinitely. Each member of the subcommittee, regardless of party affiliation, has one vote.  Final Committee Action - at full committee meetings, reports on bills may be made by subcommittees. Bills are read for amendment in committees by section and members may offer germane amendments. Committee amendments are only proposals to change the bill as introduced and are subject to acceptance or rejection by the House itself. A vote of committee members is taken to determine whether the full committee will report the bill favorably, adversely, or without recommendation.  Calendar - When a public bill is favorably reported by all committees to which referred, it is assigned a calendar number Consideration of the Final Bill by the House or Senate: When a bill comes before the full House and Senate, each body has the opportunity to debate and vote on the bill. At this point in the process, amendments to the bill may be added. In the House, amendments must be germane (relevant) to the bill. In the Senate, there are no such restrictions on amendments. It is not unusual to have more than 100 amendments adopted, including those proposed by the committee at the time the bill is reported and those offered from the floor during the consideration of the bill in the Chamber. If the full House or Senate pass a bill (with 50% +1 in support of it), the measure ceases technically to be called a bill and is termed "An Act" signifying that it is the act of one body of the Congress, although it is still popularly referred to as a bill. Conference Committee: The mere fact that each House may have separately passed its own bill on a subject is not sufficient to make either bill eligible for conference. One House must first take the additional step of amending and then passing the bill of the other House to form the basis for a conference. 181 | Brem & Sweeney ~ 2018 ~ Government and Politics in the United States The conference committee is sometimes popularly referred to as the "Third House of Congress". Although the managers on the part of each House meet together as one committee they are in effect two separate committees, each of which votes separately and acts by a majority vote. For this reason, the number of managers from each House is largely immaterial. The House conferees are strictly limited in their consideration to matters in disagreement between the two Houses. Consequently, they may not strike out or amend any portion of the bill that was not amended by the other House. Furthermore, they may not insert new matter that is not germane to or that is beyond the scope of the differences between the two Houses. Under a recent reassertion of a Senate rule, Senate conferees are bound to consider only those matters that bare a certain relevancy to a House or Senate provision in conference. Once the Conference Committee agrees to a compromised bill, this bill goes back to the full House and Senate for reconsideration and a vote. Final Passage of Bill: The single bill drafted in the conference committee must be sent back to the House and Senate, approved and then sent to the President to sign. If the president vetoes, Congress can override with a two thirds vote in each house. Legislating as the "Access Game" & the rise of gridlock The legislative process is one of "access." There are many opportunities within the process where individuals and groups can access decision makers and attempt to influence the shape of policy. These points of access are prevalent due to:  Bicameral legislature (two houses of Congress)  Separation of powers/ checks and balances (i.e. President and Congress share legislative responsibility - need both to assent to create laws)  Congressional committee system - power is decentralized among committees, subcommittees and committee chairs  Filibuster - the tradition in the Senate to allow unlimited debate enables one or several Senators to derail legislation (more on this later)  Divided government - the prevalence of the two parties sharing control of the institutions of government (i.e. Republicans holding a majority in the House and Democrats in the Senate) which then requires party compromise to pass legislation full of veto points, places in the system where several or sometimes just one person can derail legislation. Taken together, this system leads to a more pluralist form of government. It is much easier to derail a bill than pass one! Of the thousands of bills that are introduced in Congress each year, only a few hundred will become law. Gridlock: is difficulty passing laws through the legislative process. Gridlock occurs because the structure of government creates an abundance of veto points in which a few people may slow down or stop legislation (produce gridlock). Notably, the graphs below illustrate a recent increase in the amount of gridlock. 182 | Brem & Sweeney ~ 2018 ~ Government and Politics in the United States Source: Washington Post Source: Brookings Institute This increase in gridlock means the Congress is less able to address the pressing problems facing the country (like immigration reform, climate change, rising cost of higher education, etc.!). 183 | Brem & Sweeney ~ 2018 ~ Government and Politics in the United States The filibuster: The House has limits on how long a representative can talk during debate. In the Senate, there are no limits on how debate. A Senator may debate as long as he or she would like. On occasions, Senators opposed to a measure may extend debate by making lengthy speeches or a number of speeches at various stages of consideration intended to prevent or defeat action on the measure. A filibuster is a tactic to delay or prevent action on a piece of legislation. It often involves talking/debate. Although it does not look like this today, it is a classic model as an example of what it was designed to do – delay consideration – to watch this classic illustration of a filibuster in the film 'Mt Smith Goes to Washington.' Where Jimmy Stewart plays idealistic Senator Jefferson Smith, leader of the Boy Rangers, who uncovers his colleagues in the Senate are engaged in corruption and employs a filibuster to try to bring an end to it. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s6UbYHCkoZs A filibuster can be ended with a vote to invoke cloture. Invoking cloture requires 16 Senators sign a motion to asking to end the debate. If 60 Senators then vote to support the motion, the debate comes to an end. Because the minority party will use the filibuster to derail the majority party's legislation, the majority party effectively needs 60 votes to pass legislation and overcome the threat of filibuster. When the majority party does not have 60 seats, then the majority party has to take into consideration the views of the political minority or legislation will stall. Voting in Congress Members of congress all have staffs that help inform them on the issues that they must vote on. Staffers make recommendations, but the legislator makes the decision. When we look at the way members of Congress vote year after year, we find patterns in voting behavior. 1. Delegate – a representative who defers to their constituents when voting. This form of voting may use opinion polls, town hall meetings, and correspondence to decipher what constituents want. When you are a delegate of the people, your vote reflects the majority opinion in your district. 2. Trustee – a representative who votes based on his/her best judgment and conscience even if their own constituents disagree. A trustee votes the way he or she thinks is right. There was a representative at the 1776 Continental Congress delegation from Georgia named Lyman 184 | Brem & Sweeney ~ 2018 ~ Government and Politics in the United States Hall. Lyman Hall was asked how he felt about independence. He responded that “the Georgia delegation is split. The people of Georgia do not want Independence but I do. Until I figure out which one is right, I am going to err on their side and vote against Independence". The whole debate for him was whether he should vote for independence or not despite the fact that most Georgians did not want Independence. He ended up voting for independence. He remembered a quote from a member of the House of Lords named Edmund Burke. Burke argued that “a representative owes his constituents his judgments and he betrays both his judgment and his constituents if he surrenders his judgment to his constituents’ opinions." This requires courage. John F Kennedy wrote a book called Profiles in Courage in which he profiled Senators that had voted their conscience and then lost the next election. He argued that you have to have the courage to tell people things that they do not want to hear. Sometimes you have to vote differently than what your constituents want. 3. Politicos – a representative that votes relative to the game of politics. When there is no particular reason why a representative needs to vote yes or no on a bill, that person may vote for whatever makes political sense. Who runs for Congress? Historically, parties chose candidates based on their service to the party. Today, parties do not have the power to determine the slate of candidates. This is thanks to primary elections decentralizing the party nomination process and giving voters the power to determine which candidates will represent the party in a general election. Running for office is a personal choice that is often influenced by ambition, access to financial resources to run a campaign, district ideological leanings, and incumbency. An incumbent is the current office holder. The current office holder often has such an advantage in elections that a race with an incumbent will scare off challengers. The two graphs below illustrates the high rates of reelection enjoyed by members of Congress. Incumbents win reelection between 85 - 98% of the time in the House of Representatives and 55 - 95% of the time in the Senate 185 | Brem & Sweeney ~ 2018 ~ Government and Politics in the United States Why the Incumbency Advantage? Incumbency is the single most powerful explanation for election to Congress. Less than 2% of representatives and less than 6% of Senators lose in a primary. One main reason for this primary success is the low turnout of voters in primaries. Low turnout always helps incumbents. In congressional races, close calls are rare. Only about 15% of races are truly contested – that is, not a foregone conclusion. Why? Incumbency is often just too hard to overcome for a challenger for several reasons:       Incumbents get to take credit for any Federal spending done locally. “Pork barrel” spending is always in another state, not at home. For even the most conservative of constituents and their congress person, “feeding at the through” is a right, “we deserve it.” This is also why the concept of pork barrel exists in the first place! So long as a congressperson keeps federal dollars coming in to their districts, their constituents are happy with their job. If they don’t, a congress person might lose reelection and there replacement will certainly have to get those federal dollars. Thus, “pork barrel is not exclusively the fault of Congress – the electorate has to take much of the blame.) The franking privilege of incumbents allow Congress people to publicize their job for free in the mail. An incumbent member of congress has a high profile and name recognition among the public. Congresspersons have a ready campaign organization in place. Incumbents are usually representing a gerrymandering district tailored to their party Since federal bureaucracies work with incumbent congresspersons, whenever major project commences under the auspices of a particular bureau, the congressperson in whose district the project is being done, is present to shovel the first groundbreaking dirt. It is a publicity opportunity which lets the congressperson show what they are doing to help their district. It is legitimate in that congressperson actually did have a hand in getting the project because they probably had to fight to get it in the budget over demands for budget cuts. 186 | Brem & Sweeney ~ 2018 ~ Government and Politics in the United States  For example, Representative Pelosi was at the kick off ceremony for the Doyle Drive Improvement project which was a Department of Transportation project because the work is occurring in her district. On March 1, 2009, Congresswoman Pelosi secured $50 million of federal stimulus aid to help with the cost of rebuilding Doyle Drive in San Francisco. In this photo, Pelosi is announcing the rebuilding of this roadway with federal dollars. The role of money in Congressional campaigns Money is a major worry of any campaign. Most successful candidates are also fairly wealthy. Between 1984 and 2000, the average expenditure for the House went from $350,000 to over $1 million. For the Senate, campaign expenditures doubled about three times that much. These figures are of course going up with little likelihood of effective campaign expenditure limits. There are three main causes of such hikes in expenditures. 1. A greater reliance on television/internet for advertisements – this is very expensive, yet it reaches many people, though not targeted audiences 2. A greater reliance on the growing enterprise of campaign entrepreneurs – professional campaign managers and organization whose whole job is to get the person, who pays for their services, elected. This includes pollsters primarily – also public relations firms usually built into polling organizations telling candidates how to play to public opinion to maximize their electability 3. People spend money when its available and a great deal of money is available. More money means more expensive campaign. Incumbency and Descriptive Representation: The current Congress is 72% male and 84% white. These demographics clearly do not mirror the US population. One reason for this is the power of incumbency in perpetuating the status quo. As so few elections are actually competitive, it is hard for women and minorities to gain access into Congress. However, when there is an open seat (no incumbent), studies show that voters are just as likely to vote for a women or a minority as other candidates. 187 | Brem & Sweeney ~ 2018 ~ Government and Politics in the United States Apportionment and Re-districting: Apportionment and re-districting effects who gets elected to Congress. Apportionment is the process of allocating congressional seats among the 50 states every 10 years. Apportionment steps:  Census - every 10 years the country takes a census (or population count) to determine allocation of federal funds and distribution of political power in the House of Representatives. In 2010, the census counted 309 million Americans. It is important to note that all people are counted in the census (citizens, legal residents, and undocumented individuals).  Reapportionment - based on the census count, seats in the House are re-allocated to the 50 states based on each states population as determined by the census. Each House seat represents roughly 700,000 individuals and every state must receive at least one seat. With re-apportionment, no state is an island. A state could see its population could remain stable, but still lose a district if another state is growing rapidly. In 2010, Ohio lost population and thus lost 2 legislative districts. Texas experienced a population boom from 2000 - 2010 and gain seats in the House.  Redistricting - once the seats have been reallocated, districts at time need to be redrawn. Ohio, which had previously held 18 seats in the House, had to redraw the legislative map into 16 districts. This is a very political process as this map drawing is done in most states by the state legislatures. Even when states do not gain/lose seats, the legislative map may still need to be redrawn to reflect population shifts within the state. California recently moved to a process in which an independent commission will draw district maps to make the process more objective and fair. Historically, the party that help a majority in the state house would draw districts to benefit its own party. The Politics of Redistricting The court has said that legislative districts within a state must hold roughly equal populations in accordance with the principle of one person, one vote. This is never perfect, but districts must average roughly 700,000 people per district. Further, the Supreme Court has said that districts need to be contiguous, compact and consistent with existing political subdivisions. Gerrymandering: The word "gerrymander" comes from a famous case of redistricting in Massachusetts in 1812. The governor at the time, Elbridge Gerry, signed a map into law that included a district shaped like a salamander. Critics dubbed the new oddly-shaped district the "gerrymander". With the advent of computer technology merged with past election returns, mapmakers can reliably predict the future voting behavior of any potential constituency. That manipulation of the process can undermine the very spirit of a fair, democratic election. Despite court rulings, state legislatures still engage in discriminatory re-districting, called 'Gerrymandering.' Gerrymandering is the apportionment of voters in districts in a way that gives unfair advantage to one racial/ ethnic group or political party. It is the manipulation of electoral districts for political gain. Partisan gerrymandering contributes to the incumbency advantage 188 | Brem & Sweeney ~ 2018 ~ Government and Politics in the United States and lack of descriptive representation. Benign gerrymandering creates districts primarily made up of minorities to increase their election to office (so called 'majority-minority districts'). The court has supported this practice as long as race/ethnicity is not the only reason for drawing the boundaries. The two principle tactics used in gerrymandering are:  Cracking: Spreading like-minded voters apart across multiple districts to dilute their voting power in each. This denies the group representation in multiple districts.  Packing: Concentrating like-minded voters together in one district to reduce their voting power in other districts. This gives the group representation in a single district while denying them representation across districts. In both of these tactics mapmakers typically draw peculiarly shaped districts to capture the desired results. In 2011, Rollcall magazine highlighted some of the “ugliest” redistricting abuses in Congressional mapmaking.9 They noted it is not a coincidence that some of the most awkwardly shaped districts have a minority population of at least 50 percent. Mapmakers often get creative to adhere to the Voting Rights Act but give massive advantage to their party. The most hideous districts are classic cases of partisan gerrymandering. Mapmakers packed as many Democrats or Republicans as possible into a district or spread it out to fulfill a lawmaker’s wishes — or future ambitions. Since the 2010 census redistricting; by and large, the process has benefitted Republicans most, who use gerrymandering, voter id laws, and voter restrictions to keep power despite getting fewer votes than democrats overall nationally. North Carolina’s 4th district: Republicans packed all the Democrats they could into this district. It’s just one controversial part of an aggressive redraw intended to oust four House Democrats in the next election. 9 Rollcall (Nov 10, 2011) Top 5 Ugliest Districts: Partisan Gerrymandering 101; http://www.rollcall.com/features/Election-Preview_2011/election/top-5-ugliest-districts-210224-1.html 189 | Brem & Sweeney ~ 2018 ~ Government and Politics in the United States Maryland’s 3rd district: Democrats drew a doozy district in Montgomery County 3rd district. The district immediately drew comparisons to a Rorschach test for its splotchy shape. One local reporter said it took him nine hours to drive from end to end. Ohio’s 9th district: Republicans moved Democrats into a thin district connecting stretching from west Cleveland to Toledo along the Lake Erie coastline. The district is connected by a bridge that’s only 20 yards wide, as well as by a single beach at one point. Michigan’s 14th district: Republicans went to great lengths to pack as many minority and Democratic voters into this downtown Detroit district. The result is a winding, economically diverse district that follows the city’s famous 8 Mile Road. The road serves as a symbolic divide between urban blight and the affluent suburbs. 190 | Brem & Sweeney ~ 2018 ~ Government and Politics in the United States Illinois’ 4th district: This district was redrawn to pack as many Hispanic voters as possible into a supermajority Hispanic district that has attracted considerable unfavorable attention, because there are enough Hispanic voters in the state for two majority-minority districts. State legislatures & Municipal Government The legislatures in the states have variable formal names. In 25 states, the legislature is simply called the Legislature, or the State Legislature. In 19 states, the legislature is called the General Assembly. In Massachusetts and New Hampshire, the legislature is called the General Court. In North Dakota and Oregon, the legislature is the Legislative Assembly. All the states except Nebraska (which is unicameral) have bicameral legislatures: consisting of two legislative chambers. California Assembly 191 | Brem & Sweeney ~ 2018 ~ Government and Politics in the United States Figure 6.4 For comparison: How a Bill Becomes a Law in California 192 | Brem & Sweeney ~ 2018 ~ Government and Politics in the United States Municipal Local government by comparison – executive and legislative together Municipal governments come in three basic types: mayor-council, council-manager, and commission. The mayor-council type of government is the most popular form for running a city. Palo Alto city council meeting “Local governments” are those below the state level; most being two tiers: counties and municipalities. Some states also have townships within counties. The jurisdictions are city, town, borough, and village. There are also consolidated city-county jurisdictions; managed by a single municipal government. In New England, towns are the primary unit of local government. Additionally, there may be local or regional special purpose districts local governments such as school districts and districts for fire protection, sanitary sewer service, public transportation, public libraries, or water resource management. These serve multiple municipalities. II The Presidency – Chief Executive The Presidency is the branch of government whose job it is to enforce the laws. The job of the President as chief executive represent the country and leads the branch of government that enforce the laws that Congress makes. The founding fathers always assumed that Congress would be the most powerful branch – the first among equals. But in reality, the most powerful branch has always been the Presidency because the Presidency is one voice. The American people have high expectations of their presidents! They perceive of their president in mythical proportions and Americans tend to pin all of their hopes and expectations on this one mythical person. They do this because the president is the only unified representative of the nation. It is much easier to look to one person for answers and hold one person accountable. Americans tend to look to the President to make change happen and to do it quickly, without fully appreciating and understanding the complexity of what it takes to get 193 | Brem & Sweeney ~ 2018 ~ Government and Politics in the United States something done in Washington. (Instead of understanding the interplay that occurs between the President, Congress, competing parties, pressure from interest groups and lobbyists , politicians calling in favors, and external events beyond the president’s control). But, in many respects, the President does fulfill this esteemed leadership role: the President is the most prominent single force in articulating national priorities and in developing policies that reflects these priorities. However, whether and how quickly he can implement these policy priorities is a completely different matter (and we will discuss this shortly in looking at the real powers of the president and the checks and limits to these powers). The point is that people expect much more from their Presidents than the person or the power of the office can deliver. As a result, there is always disappointment with the job that is being done by a president. The office of the presidency has very little real command power. The president must work in conjunction with Congress to accomplish anything. This prevents anything from happening quickly or at all because 535 people get to be involved. The Double Expectation Gap: President's face a double expectation gap. This is the gap between presidential promises and powers of the office. Voters demand that candidates make grand promises during the campaign, but president’s relatively limited formal powers prevent him or her from delivering on promises while in office. Presidential honeymoon & the wild ride of popularity & “Favorables” Presidents come into office popular. They get a honeymoon of about plus or minus 100 days. Roughly for the first 3 or 4 months, the voters, press and opposing party leave the president alone and watch what he/she will do. The honeymoon is an important window of opportunity for a president to push for his/her agenda. Most political analysts agree President Obama never got a honeymoon from Tea Party Republicans who controlled their party for reasons which reflect rabid partisanship, a desire to undermine all government, and racist tendencies in that movement. The Honeymoon typically ends when a crisis occurs (which is often beyond the president's control). However, as national leader, the president inevitably takes the blame for said crisis. This begins the wild ride of presidential popularity. Popularity ratings will rise and fall throughout the president's four year term. A sure measure of presidential success is the midterm 194 | Brem & Sweeney ~ 2018 ~ Government and Politics in the United States congressional elections. The President’s party almost always loses seats in Congress. The President’s success is usually measured, negatively or positively, by how many seats are lost above or below the number 30. Donald Trump Approval Ratings 2017 The President's popularity is assessed by public opinion polls. Three days after President Obama took office he had a 68% approval rating from Americans. He fell short of the all-time high, set by President Kennedy in 1961. JFK had a 72% favorable rating immediately after taking office. At the same time, about 12% disapproved of Obama’s job performance– this is a typical number that reflects the partisans who voted against Obama because they fundamentally disagree with Obama on issues – and will not be changing their minds anytime soon. Presidential “popularity” & job approval is known as “favorables” and is crucial to governing. It is a measure of social and political capital and that is a direct measure of the power of president to act as moral leader and use the power of persuasion to get things done. When favorable are lower the President’s party “runs away” from them in the next election and 195 | Brem & Sweeney ~ 2018 ~ Government and Politics in the United States will stand up to their agenda in Congress more often. This is an inescapable consequence of the nature of electoral politics. Presidents' popularity continues after they have left office. Jimmy Carter became the most popular ex-president in history followed by Theodore Roosevelt. Taft was one of the most effective ex-presidents by being on the Supreme Court. John Quincy Adams became a member of the House of Representatives after being President and became more popular in that role. Nixon tried to reinvigorate his popularity post-presidency and was able to do so somewhat. As of mid-2018, Obama was wildly popular and his popularity climbed internationally when held in comparison to Donald Trump. Presidential Authority: Enumerated Powers The formal powers of the president: Presidential powers derive from Article II of the Constitution’s Vesting Clause. This clause vest the legislative, executive, and judicial powers in the Congress, president, and Supreme Court. Article II list (or enumerates) the formal powers of the President. The enumerated presidential powers is surprisingly brief and vague. This vagueness has led to repeated conflict about the limits of presidential power. All of the enumerated presidential powers have a check, except for one.  Power to enforce laws - The president serves as administrative head of the nation – the President’s job is to execute Congressional legislation. The constitution says that the President “shall take care that Laws be faithfully executed.” This has been interpreted to mean that the president is to supervise and offer leadership to the various departments, agencies and programs created by Congress. In reality, the President spends much more time making policy in these areas than enforcing existing policies (Limited by bureaucratic cooperation - LIMIT)  Veto legislation – The President has the ability to veto a bill sent to the White House from Congress. This power is a check on Congress. Congress can override a presidential veto with 2/3rd vote of each house. This veto does not include a “line item veto” craved by some Presidents and in the hands of some state governors. To give the line item veto to the President would shift power to the President and upset the balance of power. 196 | Brem & Sweeney ~ 2018 ~ Government and Politics in the United States  Appoint various officials – The President has the authority to appoint federal judges, ambassadors, cabinet members, other key policymakers and other lesser officials. The Senate checks this power as it must confirm many presidential appointments.  Make treaties – the President can make treaties with the “advice and consent” of at least 2/3rd of Senators. The president also has the power to recognize other nations and receive ambassadors. The Senate has the ability to check this power. To avoid conflict with the Senate, the President has increasingly relied upon executive agreements for foreign policy goals. These agreements with other nations do not require the approval of the Senate, but their distinction from treaties has not been clearly established. Some examples of executive agreements include the 1945 Yalta Agreement to divide Germany among the Allied nations and the 1980 agreement with Iran to end the hostage crisis.  Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces of the US – the Constitution names the President as the highest ranking officer of the armed forces, but it gives Congress the power to declare war. This is the principle of civilian control of the military. The American military has been committed to the structure of democracy for most of history. The US is one of few countries that has never been ruled by the military or overthrown by a “coup-de-tat.” As commander in chief, the President can call the national guard of the various states into federal service as well (happened with Iraq War). Congress must vote to go to war.  Grant pardons – the president does have one imperial power in which there is no oversight or check. The president can grant reprieves and pardons on any federal crime though not on impeachments nor state level crimes (governors can do it there). This power is a check on the courts. This was included to offset the possibility that sometimes even with checks and balances, the system does make mistakes and the power of the presidential fiat was seen as a way to address this. Presidents are known for pardoning a bunch of people on their last day of office. Presidents are always criticized for their pardons, but it is simply not a valid criticism since the Constitution gives the President this power. The history of this power is long and contentious. Examples include Truman and Carter pardoning draft dodgers, Ford pardoning Nixon, Bush Senior pardoning Weinberger, and Clinton pardoning some people with the appearance of quid pro quo. These powers are the powers that the Constitution explicitly grants to the President. However, the formal powers of the President have expanded over time because Presidents have become more aggressive in their use of these powers. For instance, Presidents use the veto much more frequently. This enables them to shape legislation. Also, presidents shape policy agenda by aggressively campaigning for their issues. The use of the State of the Union to push the president’s agenda to Congress is one example. Presidents have used their power as commander in chief to enter into foreign conflicts without appealing to Congress for a formal declaration of war. Example – Vietnam War, Kosovo and Afghanistan 197 | Brem & Sweeney ~ 2018 ~ Government and Politics in the United States A contested issue: Expanding presidential power One of the things which make understanding government in the US so complex is that separation of powers though clear in theory is not so clear in practice. It is often very difficult to identify clearly the lines of demarcation between realms of power over which each branch of government is delegated chief responsibility. Primarily, this confusion rests between the Executive and Legislative branches and to a smaller degree with the Judicial Branch. In these “confusions” has come the expansion of presidential power.  War Powers: The President’s war powers is one way in which presidential power has expanded beyond the formal powers designated in the Constitution. The constitution clearly states that only Congress may declare war. Yet, what is war? WWII was a clear cut war and Congress declared war at the request of the President without any problems. Yet, since that time, no military involvements the US has been involved in have been so clear cut and no war has ever been declared. In terms of war, only Congress can declare war. The United States has declared war five times.  War of 1812 (Against the British)  World War I (1917)  Mexico- American War (1846)  World War II (1941)  Spanish American War (1898) The executive power, as Commander in Chief, allows the President to commit American troops for up to 72 hours without consulting Congress. After that time, Congress must be consulted. Congress can authorize troops and must continuously reauthorize funding for the troops. However, this is not war; this is merely committing troops to a situation. In each case when a President has sent troops into a conflict without a declaration of war from Congress and then gone to Congress for authorization of funds, Congress has complied. Vietnam, Korea, Bosnia, Iraq and Afghanistan were all undeclared wars. The President just committed American troops to “conflicts” in Korea and Vietnam. The Cold War was called a cold war because it wasn’t hot. The US and USSR were not shooting at each other. The Cold War was fought through proxies and our allies. The War Powers Resolution of 1973 was passed to counter the expanding war powers of the President. It requires the executive to inform Congress of intent to commit troops to dangerous duty and Congress can limit the length of the commitment. Every president since has protested the act and flaunted it (examples include Bosnia, Gulf War and Grenada). The constitutionality of the act has been brought to the Court and the Court has ruled that it involved a “political question” between the executive branch and the legislative branch and has refused to intervene. The War Powers Resolution has been criticized by the executive branch as unconstitutional and an invasion by the legislative branch upon its area of responsibility and thus hampering executive action.  The use and abuse of Presidential signing statements: originally a rare occurrence - has over time become a way for a president through "an interpretation of how a law should be 198 | Brem & Sweeney ~ 2018 ~ Government and Politics in the United States enforced" make a partisan challenge or objection to the law being signed. And signal how the executive will use the interpretation to undermine the intent of the Congress. It becomes de facto "line item veto." Some of these "interpretations" or "objections" may imply that the President does not intend to execute these provisions of law. This practice was used really effectively for the first time by George W. Bush ("interpreting" over 700 provisions of law). It is a problem when the House and the Executive are in two sets of partisan hands.  The unitary executive theory :is an argument in Constitutional law actively promoted by George W. Bush's vice-president Dick Cheney to increase the power of the presidency; holding that the President possesses the power to control the entire executive branch by command. The doctrine is based upon Article Two of the Constitution, which vests "executive power" in the President. It is an accepted principle but it is disagreed upon between "strongly unitary executive" power (the President controls policy-making by all executive agencies) and "weakly unitary executive" power (with much less control; power is negotiated between the executive and Congress). Many argue that this principle has expanded the power of the Presidency to harmful extent (e.g. being blamed in part for some of the worst excesses of the Iraq & Afghanistan War and the War on Terror) and propose to abolish it by constitutional amendment. This has not happened yet. Implied and delegated powers The power of the modern presidency comes not only from the explicit, enumerated powers listed in the US Constitution, but also from Presidents’ historical inference of additional powers in the Constitution and from powers being delegated by Congress. Implied Powers: Presidents have claimed powers that are not clearly specified in the Constitution (but are implied) and left it up to Congress or the Courts to stop them (which they largely have not). When a President asserts a new power and it is uncontested, then this new power gets passed on to his successors (and become precedent-based powers). This is how presidential power has expanded. The Court has upheld the principle that the President has some inherent powers that do not need to be specifically mentioned in the Constitution, especially regarding foreign policy. Executive order: one example of an implied power is the executive order. The executive order is a directive issued by the President to a federal department or agency. Presidents have routinely issued executive orders (since 1789) that carry the force of the law. Presidents cite a vague grant of "executive power" given in Article II, Section I of the Constitution and the statement "take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed" in Article II, Section III. Presidents have argued that they may take actions that are in the best interests of the nation, as long as the law does not explicitly prohibit these actions. Executive orders are an important policy making tool because they allow the President to act quickly and decisively, without seeking Congress approval. Some examples of executive orders include: 199 | Brem & Sweeney ~ 2018 ~ Government and Politics in the United States     President Lincoln used executive orders to declare martial law, suspend habeas corpus, and increase the size of the military and its budget. Lincoln justified his expansion of power citing his role as Commander in Chief, sworn to preserve the Constitution. Lincoln said that his actions, “whether strictly legal or not, were ventured upon under what appeared to be a popular demand and a public necessity.” He implied that it was the president's responsibility to discern that demand and that necessity, and to meet it. Lincoln argued that critical times (the South withdrawing from the union) forced him to act without waiting for congressional authority. President Eisenhower issued an executive order that brought the National Guard in Arkansas under the federal government. He then used the US army to enforce desegregation. President George W. Bush issued executive orders to open Guantanamo Bay camp and create the domestic spying program. Bush cited that he had inherent powers to protect the country that allowed him to do this. President Obama has used executive orders to close Guantanamo Bay and remove abortion restrictions on US aid as he promised to do. Delegated Powers: The president has also received additional power from Congress (statutory law based power). As the American public pressures the national government to solve more problems; Congress has delegated the President more responsibility to administer these programs. Examples include:    1921 Budget and Accounting Act – Congress gave the President power in the budgetary process, requiring the President to submit a federal budget to Congress each year. Congress gave the President wide discretion to solve economic and social problems during the Great Depression. Nixon was given flexibility in solving an inflation crisis. While Congress has contributed to the expansion of presidential power, it has also tried to reign in presidential power. In the 1973, it passed the War Powers Resolution directed at ending the president’s ability to pursue armed conflict without explicit congressional approval (didn’t work). The bully pulpit The one power that the President has that is above all other powers is the power to persuade. This power is called the bully pulpit. The bully pulpit is the power that the president has to stand in front of you and engage in bully. The term 'bully pulpit' originated with President Theodore Roosevelt. Roosevelt argued that the American Presidency is a terrific platform from which to persuasively advocate an agenda. Roosevelt often used the word "bully" as an adjective meaning superb/wonderful (a more common expression in his time than it is today); the term has no relationship to the word bully in the sense of "a harasser". A pulpit is the elevated platform used by a preacher. The office of the Presidency provides a bully pulpit, or an opportunity to 200 | Brem & Sweeney ~ 2018 ~ Government and Politics in the United States speak out and be listened to on any matter. The bully pulpit can bring issues to the fore that were not initially in debate, due to the office's stature and publicity. For example, President Obama said the following on the issue of Gay Rights: "As your President, I will use the bully pulpit to urge states to treat same-sex couples with full equality in their family and adoption laws," he wrote. "I personally believe that civil unions represent the best way to secure that equal treatment. But I also believe that the federal government should not stand in the way of states that want to decide on their own how best to pursue equality for gay and lesbian couples -- whether that means a domestic partnership, a civil union, or a civil marriage." Persuasion and Popularity While the office can be a tremendous source of power, this power is completely dependent upon the popularity of the president. The president uses his leadership position to appeal to the American people to support his policy proposals. The President will try to mobilize popular support for a proposal through using the media to speak directly to the American people. A president’s perceived character (trustworthiness) plays a big role in garnering favorable public opinion. If the public is not in favor of the President, he/she will have a difficult time being persuasive. The real power that a president has is determined in part by the political skills of the individual president. Thus, presidents who are most powerful and effective tend to be skillful in bargaining, working with adversaries, and prioritizing. Presidents need to choose their issues carefully and calculate when they need to intervene and play their cards and when they need to hold back. As a result of this need for a president to be persuasive in order to get things done, the President is often called the chief lobbyist. Presidents carry into office broad political visions that reflect their ideology and priorities. The president’s central role in the political system guarantees that he can always command attention for his agenda; however, nothing guarantees that he will be successful in getting that agenda through Congress. Therefore, the president has to lobby for that agenda, working to get legislation passed in a form that they want. What tools do Presidents use to persuade the American people and Congress?  The President directly and indirectly appeals to Congress and the American people through the bully pulpit.  Presidents appeal to mandates and political capital  Presidents who win the presidency claim that they have been given a mandate by the voters, but such mandates tend to be more rhetoric than reality.  A mandate is a clear signal of overwhelming popularity for a given candidate’s platform based upon the percentage victory over that of an opponent.  Presidents have a legislative liaison staff that do most of the interaction with Congress 201 | Brem & Sweeney ~ 2018 ~ Government and Politics in the United States  The White House works with interests groups to activate their membership and leaders to lobby Congress. However, it is important to note that even a landslide at the polls does not guarantee consistent public support during a president’s term, because the president's election is independent of the elections of Congress. (This often produces divided government) A President will claim a mandate to attempt to persuade (sometimes successfully and sometimes not) Congress to adopt his policy proposals. Presidents will argue that the issues that they took a stand on during the campaign (the platform upon which they campaigned) gives the president a mandate to pursue those policies once elected. They argue that in winning the election, voters endorsed these policy proposals. One criticism of the mandate is that candidates largely run on vague platforms in order to appeal to more voters. Candidates deal in too few, if any, substantive issues (to do so would alienate too many voters). Rather, they concentrate on image. Thus, when elected, candidates win having given out little substance in detail. As a result, clear mandates to act in policy formation is rare. Furthermore, only popular majorities are mandates; electoral majorities are not. The many hats of an American President: The president is expected to perform many roles. The American President is both head of government (party leader and 'runs' government) and head of state (ceremonial national leader). Many other democratic systems separate their roles, but in the US we expect the President to juggle both roles. Few presidents are skilled enough to be good at both roles. Usually, the talents that make a president good at one role disqualify him from being good at the other. Below are the 'many hats' that a President is expected to wear.  Chief administrator - the President is head of federal agencies and responsible for the implementation of national policy; as chief administrator, the president appoints cabinet members (heads of departments and agencies).  Chief executive – the President acts as national leader by pushing for certain political values and policy agendas. While the president will make lots of promises on the campaign trail, when he gets to office, he has to make choices over which policies to push for. The president submits bills to congress through his congressional allies.  Commander In Chief - The president is the highest member of the armed forces. This authority has evolved from: U.S. Civil War (1861); United States vs. Curtiss-Wright (1936); Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v Sawyer (1951); War Powers Resolution (1973)  Chief Diplomat – The American president acts in the capacity of a world leader and the chief diplomat for the US. The President leads the country on national security issues, leading foreign policy to foster peace in the world, protecting US economic interests, and dealing with worldwide humanitarian concerns and the promotion of democracy. 202 | Brem & Sweeney ~ 2018 ~ Government and Politics in the United States Manager of the Economy – The American president is considered the manager of the economy. This role has developed from: the Employment Act of 1946 ; The Budgetary Process ; Office of Management and Budget (OMB); Congressional Budget Office(CBO)  Party leader – Part of the president’s job is to lead his party – this is an informal role.  Chief Legislator and Lobbyist - Presidents act as a national leader promoting their legislative agenda. The Constitution encourages presidents to recommend for Congressional “consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient.” This is the power to recommend legislation. Presidents spend much of their time trying to get congress to enact specific legislation that reflects the president’s general philosophy and specific policy preferences. The president also acts as a legislator through his veto power. Vetoes are a NEGATIVE option, not a POSITIVE method.  Limits to presidential power: The President's formal and informal power is limited by:      Presidents are limited by social and economic realities and conditions. Whatever happens in these realms, the President gets blamed because they are responsible as leader. They also get credit – both deserved and undeserved (ex: Clinton got credit for economic boom). Economic realities may limit of stop entirely the goals a President may wish to achieve. The context of the times limits how the executive may execute policy and even what policy is acceptable. Policy acceptable fifty or even ten years ago is simply not acceptable today. The world has changed – something Americans disdain. Legally, constitutionally defined powers limit the power of the executive. What the President can do is limited by the Constitution and no president is above the law – legally. Nixon challenged these principles and was forced out of office. Lincoln, “the imperial president,” challenged these principles and was revered as a hero for saving the union. Presidents operate in a partisan framework as well. The realities of party politics often creates limits on what can be done by a President as those of the other party may thwart what the Executive wants to do. Thus, the opposing party can force compromise. This is where factions and wings of the party come into play. Americans exacerbate this situation by creating divided government. This is where one party controls the White House and another controls Congress. Americans often split their ticket and create a divided government, which poses a challenge for presidents and their policy agendas. One reason why the presidency does not always advance the interests of the majority lies in the difficulty the president has in controlling the vast federal bureaucracy, which is ostensibly under his power. 203 | Brem & Sweeney ~ 2018 ~ Government and Politics in the United States All Presidents are subject to these and other limitations. While having positive public opinion and communicating with the public is important, it’s also important to form coalitions in Congress and with interests groups to get things done. III The Public Administration Vision without execution is hallucination. ~ Thomas Edison In that the executive branch enforces the law; it is the public administration that actually does the implementation; and over which, the president, through the Cabinet Secretaries over each of their departments, is the “chief administrator” and manager of the country. So it is the cabinet that represents the actual implementation arm of the executive branch. And these departments are arrayed as follows: 204 | Brem & Sweeney ~ 2018 ~ Government and Politics in the United States Public Administration is the policy implementation & Enforcement “Arms” of the Executive Branch… The study of politics as applied in the “governance of society” in American Politics is the area of “the field” of Public Administration (applied politics). PA is a field more than a singular discipline as it calls upon all the “disciplines” pertaining to the areas with which governance is concerned (i.e. potentially the whole of society). This is the nexus between “political science” and “organizational theory” (i.e. organizational: management, behavior, culture…) and comes together in the area of policy studies. The core of this study is found in Policy Analysis. This is a key part of the study of American Politics in action. The political history of the world can be understood in terms of the rise and fall of public administration structures and with the varying degrees of functioning or “proper ways” of engaging and enacting the political will of a society, as contextually defined relative to the 205 | Brem & Sweeney ~ 2018 ~ Government and Politics in the United States situationalities and social dimensions at hand - the Zeitgeist. All Political theory is put “into practice” by the public administration. Public administrators are the ones who make the government work or not. They are charged with administration of the public’s business, in the public interest keeping the public trust. The traditional functions of public administration, or “the Bureaucracy” – is summed up as POSDCORB:  Planning  Organizing  Budgeting  Staffing  Directing  Coordinating  Reporting The manner in which these administrative functions are executed – processes of program and policy implementation – results in the nature of the social order of the social structure (you get that for which you: measure, reward, and actually do [as opposed to what you say you want to do]). This raises issues of validity and reliability in assuring that what you do is in fact what you say you want do. Action Philosophy is living – or enacting – the consequences of what you say you believe. Therefore, if you say you believe in democracy, then democracy itself and its values embody your code of ethics, morality, and thereby guide you actions. In this manner, the public administration administers the public’s business, in the public interest, keeping the public trust. As such, public administrators are “the guardians of the republic.” If the people working in government do not live the values of the Constitution in their actions, then the Constitution and the republic it defines are dead. Note: for each of these functions – and how it is framed as “democratic” or not – the meaning of the concepts will shift depending upon ideological world view (Liberal, Radical, or Conservative). It is the job of “the administration” to make policy happen and utilizing political theory as a guide (e.g. the principles of “democracy” found I, say, a Bill of Rights). This is called “praxis” – the merging of theory and practice to create a future. There are three kinds of future: possible, probable, and preferable. The task of public administration that is guided by theory and philosophy is to inquire: in which kind of future do we want to live, what will it take to make that future more probable than merely possible, and what is the most efficient, sufficient, and equitable manner in which to make this so to the highest practical degree of effectiveness. Isaac Asimov noted: "Futurism is no longer at the service of mere curiosity. No longer does it serve the simple wish to be entertained and astonished. It has become an indispensable adjunct to business and government." 206 | Brem & Sweeney ~ 2018 ~ Government and Politics in the United States The components of thinking like a public administrator - “Public Administration Consciousness” begins with 1. Action Philosophy, Consequentialism, and Pragmatism, which leads to 2. moderation of ideal views when applied to real problem in living in the real world of lived and shared reality, and then, 3. When we think in this fashion, we naturally tend to become more moderate – this is when we are asked to critically reflect upon: a) the “what” and “how” as to what implementation of our conclusions - in policy - would look like “to explain the mechanisms by which a policy would work “ - and; b) what the consequences of our actions (i.e. policy) enacted might be; and then 4. The Praxis Cycle informed by futures consciousness is used in planning is the application of disciplined informed policy formation, implementation, and analysis. Figure 6.5 The Praxis Cycle The Infrastructure of the Social Contract The Public Administration administers the national infrastructure - the basic physical and organizational structures necessary for a functional society and the mechanisms and systems of service delivery necessary for a functional economy. It is the whole physical and technical systems of structural supports that play a crucial role in assessing whether a society is “functional” or “legitimate.” 207 | Brem & Sweeney ~ 2018 ~ Government and Politics in the United States The Social Systemic Infrastructure is the network of public, private, and social sector assets as a whole that must be developed and maintained over long periods of time within a certain range of functionality relative to the provision of services in meeting the demands of the inhabitants of society. These are also known as Large Networks which may have often been constructed over generations, and are not often replaced as a whole system but rather in parts and only function the degree they are maintained. Such networks may provide services to a large geographically defined area (e.g. a greater municipal area). As well, these have long service “lives” with service capacity maintained via continual maintenance, repair, and replacement of components and following rules of satisficing. Here is graphic from the City of Davis California describing the infrastructure crucial to the operation of a city. American infrastructure systems and responsible Federal Agencies include:           National Monuments and Parks - Department of the Interior Agriculture and Food – Departments of Agriculture and Health and Human Services Water – Environmental Protection Agency Public Health – Department of Health and Human Services Defense Industrial Base – Department of Defense Information and Telecommunications – Department of Commerce Energy – Department of Energy Transportation and Shipping – Department of Transportation Banking and Finance – Department of the Treasury Government – Department of Homeland Security o Emergency Services Government o Chemical Industry and Hazardous Materials o Post Office o Critical Manufacturing 208 | Brem & Sweeney ~ 2018 ~ Government and Politics in the United States The critical infrastructure: is the complex of structural elements of society – all of which must remain at a minimal level of functioning to avoid the disruption of the society as a whole. Each element of this structure is critical and necessary though not sufficient to the functioning of a society. The infrastructure is crucial to be protected and maintained in order of society o be able to function. The typical phenomenon which can lead to critical infrastructure collapse includes: natural disasters such as storms, flooding, earthquakes, or systems failure disasters due to incompetent design (e.g. the Grande Teton Dam or the Tacoma- Narrows Bridge), systems failure due to incompetent and/or insufficient maintenance or regulatory oversight (e.g. the I-35W Mississippi River bridge or the BP Oil Spill). Figure 6.6 identifies the Critical infrastructure assets essential for the Functioning of a society and economy: 209 | Brem & Sweeney ~ 2018 ~ Government and Politics in the United States A functional infrastructure facilitates: economic production of goods and services (e.g. roads and rail for transport); social functioning (e.g. basic social services, schools, and hospitals]; capacity for the projection of national power (e.g. military bases and support installations]. Relative to the domestic arena, the term "public works infrastructure" is often used in reference to individual functional structures and complex support systems. These Public Works and/or Public Services include government owned and operated infrastructural systems such as: public buildings (e.g. schools and court houses), physical assets needed to deliver public services such as those services generally provided by government. These are identified in two general ways.  The functional structures include: highways, streets, roads, and bridges; mass transit; airports and airways; water supply and water resources; wastewater, sewage, and solid waste management, treatment, and disposal; electric power generation and transmission; telecommunications; and hazardous waste management.  The larger complex support systems include: the public works facilities as a whole system of a governance unit (e.g. a city or metropolitan area) and also the public management systems of procedures, practices, and policies relative to operations procedures and development that that interact together to meet the demands of the social (contract) structure. These demands include: comprehensive systems of public transit and general structures of transportation, water systems, waste management, energy production and dispersal, and information systems. IV The Federal Court System and The Supreme Court In this chapter, we examine the American legal system and the policy making process. We will discuss the basic structure of the judiciary and the principle of judicial review. 210 | Brem & Sweeney ~ 2018 ~ Government and Politics in the United States Also, we will consider the role that ideology (liberal, conservative, and radical) plays in the court, particularly the Supreme Court. We will explore the key stages of the policy making process and the constraints on shaping policy in a holistic, rational, and democratic values driven fashion. We do want to start once again by clarifying what it is we mean when we say: “Justice.” What is Justice? Justice is the result of order and liberty in dynamic relationship with one another leading to a fluxing state of equality over time and the result is a state of justice is society. A state of justice is said to exist in society when in the governance of society (public sector, private sector, and social sector action) over time yields a dynamic balance of classical conservative, classical liberal, and classical radical perspectives on these issues interacting together synergistically – as shown in the image to the to the right. Justice is also a culmination of classical conservative, classical liberal, and classical radical perspectives on multiple concepts arrayed as follows:  Given the Natures of The Universe and of Humanity; how should humanity be organized into society? (Van Wart)  Who they are most concerned about:  Attitude towards the “vulnerable”  Highest “calling” Order found in action which  Justice  Equality  Freedom 211 | Brem & Sweeney ~ 2018 ~ Government and Politics in the United States Justice and the Just Social Contract The purpose of a socially just social order is to enable citizens to have substantive access to the game. In terms of “liberation” from oppression; it is not sufficient to merely tell a different version of the story; rather, it is necessary to tell a substantively different story. The Center for Story-based Strategy (accessed 9-2016) http://www.storybasedstrategy.org/ The goal is to seek liberation from the narratives of others – or of the social ordering narrative constructs of society - about how our lives should be situated (how we should live or under what conditions we have access to the social contract of our social order). If these narratives limit options for life choices, they are oppressive ligatures. Ralf Dahrendorf notes that once people are liberated from these ligatures, we then have more options for action in society, and this enables us to experience a greater degree of “life chances” with our lives – a substantive right to pursue happiness. And seeking this “good life” is the primary purpose of the “good society” for its citizens. Justice results of a culmination of classical conservative, classical liberal, and classical radical perspectives on multiple concepts together over time resulting in a socially just social order. This can be explored in detail in Figure 6.7 The Goddess of Justice… 212 | Brem & Sweeney ~ 2018 ~ Government and Politics in the United States Figure 6.7 Comparative concepts in each of the three classical world views Concept Given the Natures of The Universe and of Humanity; how should humanity be organized into society? (Van CONSERVATIVE RADICAL LIBERAL Theocratic states, kingdoms (ordained by a god); Socialist (and communist) democracies; Laissez-faire capitalist democracies Societies are guided by a covenant with that divine source; crafted into a social contract to keep a moral social order. Society is given meaning by the nature of social relationships; and response and care of the requisites of healthy relationships guides the creation of social contracts for social justice. Societies exist as a result of individuals and groups; defacto entering into social contracts to ensure pragmatic functioning. Who they are most concerned about: Concern for the Just; Community Concern for the oppressed; Concern for the majority Relationships Individuals Attitude towards the “vulnerable” We take care of our own We take care of those in need We empower them to take care Of themselves Highest “calling” Community Trust Public Interest The Good & Moral Liberation Social Interest The Just & Equitable Self interest Private Interest The Profitable Order found in action which Conforms (“To Survive”) Cooperates (“To Act or Do”) Compete (“To Be”) Natural Laws rules humans for their good. People should get what they deserve. Principles guide & constitute law for human “good.” People should get what they need to live: Maslow’s “Basic Needs” to transcend “primal Fear” conditions. Reparative Justice – resocialization Equality of all Citizens People make laws for their good Justice Ethics & Law of Reciprocity (i.e. “the Golden Rule) Concern for individual’s Sovereignty Integrity of identity of persons based upon the right to be one’s self Free access to all rights to choose (e.g. speech, arms, Movement, and association). Freedom is a capacity to do what is right as defined by what one ought do in accordance with tradition and the (revealed) “truth” of received wisdom – “you will know the truth and the truth will set you free” Freedom is the capacity to act in the context of the degree of ligatures or oppression. Substantive freedom is about functioning constitutive of a person's capability to achieve wellbeing; any ligatures to this are oppressive. Freedom is the capacity to act – free of restriction – aside from the restriction of doing no one harm. Individuals are only free to the degree they have “life options” to define their own sense of happiness and identity in being themselves, doing what they choose to do – except that they may do none harm Wart) Retributive Justice- logical consequences Equality of Concern Equality Freedom People should get what they earn Utilitarian Justice – “what works” usually at: deterrence Equality of Choice All of these interacting together in a social order over time yield a picture of the different “types of justice” as follows. 213 | Brem & Sweeney ~ 2018 ~ Government and Politics in the United States Figure 6.8 Types of Justice A just social order is defined by rightful law and rightful liberty. And it is here that some important further definitions and distinctions need to be made as explored. What do we mean by liberty, law, rightful, and tyrannical? Thomas Jefferson who argued liberty ought to be conceived as unobstructed action according to ones will.  Rightful liberty, then, would be unobstructed action according to ones will limited by the boundary of acceptable behavior beyond which an equal warrant to human rights of others is at risk. That is, 214 | Brem & Sweeney ~ 2018 ~ Government and Politics in the United States Private affairs become public issues when private behavior has public consequence.  The rule of law in and of itself is not sufficient grounds for limits to be placed upon liberty, for, too often law is reflective tyrannical tendencies: of the majority, the minority, or of the one.  Tyrannical law is that which violates the right of an individual where there is no compelling public interest or reason to do so relative to protecting one individual – or individuals -- from the violation of their human rights by any other or others.  Rightful law, therefore, is that which limits liberty only to the extent that it protects the human rights of individuals. The judiciary is designed to meet the requisites of using rightful law to protect against tyranny while presiding over the rule of law in the pursuit of rightful liberty. The Judiciary An interesting thing about the U.S. system of government is the power of judicial review whereby the courts may review the constitutionality of the actions of the other branches of the government. This is a defacto realm of making political decisions on the part of the court despite its claim not to do so. This gives the court great leeway and is a unique feature of American government in comparison to other systems. When the country was formed, there were in place state courts upon which national court responsibilities could have been placed. The Constitution only specifies the Supreme Court and implies "other" courts as needed. What was decided upon was to create 3 levels of Federal Courts over the state systems. These Constitutional Courts are: 1) 2) 3) 4) U.S. District Courts, U.S Federal Courts of Appeal Circuit Courts, and The Supreme Court. As well, there are many special legislative courts such as the U.S. Tax court - which is a part of the Treasury Department. These courts hear cases first in their various areas of responsibility before any other court might hear an appeal. 215 | Brem & Sweeney ~ 2018 ~ Government and Politics in the United States Figure 6.9 The American Dual Judicial System 216 | Brem & Sweeney ~ 2018 ~ Government and Politics in the United States One cannot go from a lower state court to a U.S. District court without the mutual consent of the state and federal courts involved. Federal Courts will not tell state courts how to interpret their own constitutions. Federal Courts will not step into a state issue unless there is a federal question involved. Americans are very litigatious. They have come to expect that doing legalistic combat in the courts is a rightful place to have decisions arrived at. {One problems that is apparent in this case is that the system is not very consistent and awards in litigation vary widely for example: litigation over medical liability.} The courts, in that they hear one case at a time, are not very good at delivering massive social change. Rather, they act as a prod for legislative action with court decisions. This is how such sweeping social reform as in the civil rights years came about. (e.g. Brown vs Board of Education was the spark for the Civil Rights Act eventually passed by Congress). The U.S. Judicial system is a dual system - state and federal. Each state has its own court system and while they are all similar (except in Louisiana which has Code Napoleon instead of English Common Law as its base) they are also unique to the state in which they function. In essence then, there are 51 court systems operating in the country - state and federal. We can see how this is structured in figure 5.7 Federal courts only hear cases where federal questions are at issue. The U.S. Supreme court hears cases only so that it may set precedents. This is the principle of stare` decisis which means that previous decisions rule future decisions by precedent and may not be over ruled by a court lower than the court which made the original decision. Out of the thousands of cases the U.S. Supreme Court might hear in a given year, it actually only takes about 150. Which cases the court takes is decided in a private conference of the justices. (Debate starts from the Chief Justice down from the highest seniority member to the lowest - voting then takes place starting from the lowest seniority member up to the Chief Justice.) The court decides to hear a case if four out of nine justices ask for it. A case is taken from a lower court through a writ of certiorari which means the lower court is directed to send the case to the Supreme Court. When a decision is made, there are at least two opinions written - one from the majority and one from the minority (barring a unanimous decision). As many as nine opinions may be written on unusually controversial cases. 217 | Brem & Sweeney ~ 2018 ~ Government and Politics in the United States  More conservative justices write opinions from a classical conservative world view.  More liberal justices write opinions from a classical liberal world view.  More radical justices write opinions from a classical radical world view.  A court is considered more to the right or more of the left depending on the pattern n of decisions made over time from more conservative to more liberal over time. This can cause confusion on understanding what the court wants to say other than the actual decision itself. Of the members of the court, historically, there tends to be a split between conservatives and liberals on the court and usually a swing vote - a member who is really neither orientation consistently. The swing vote is crucial on various controversial decisions. Being a member of the court has had a history of changing the justices - from conservative to more liberal has been the tendency. The perspective from the highest bench is transforming and even the most conservative members become more moderate (e.g. Earl Warren - was nominated by Eisenhower on his tough law and order reputation as a staunch conservative, yet Warren became one of the most liberal Chief Justices that ever sat and the Warren court transformed the country. Sandra Day O'Connor was conservative who shifted left – and was the swing vote - even though nominated as a conservative. Anthony Kennedy was also a disappointment to conservatives as swing vote. Appointments to the court are always tied up in politics because a person may be on the court for some time - they have life tenure - and given the impact the court has, this is a very political decision. Since the early 21st century, the court has been swinging to the right. Congress sets the size of the court - currently at nine members though it has been as high as eleven. Some have argued the court needs be larger to handle its case load more effectively. Congress also determines appellate jurisdiction of the court - what cases the court may hear on appeal is determined by Congressional legislation. Only original jurisdiction cases may not be determined by Congress as they are set out in the Constitution. Of the cases the court does hear, it itself decides which ones as outlined above. There are two kinds of jurisdiction original jurisdiction and appellate jurisdiction. 218 | Brem & Sweeney ~ 2018 ~ Government and Politics in the United States The Supreme Court is the court of first hearing - original jurisdiction - in cases between states, between the federal government and states, citizens of different states and Americans and citizens of foreign countries and cases involving foreign ambassadors. Marbury vs Madison was the decisive case deciding on jurisdiction of the court in judicial review. Judicial review is simply an evaluation of a question in context of the constitution and whether the action being evaluated is constitutional or not. There are two kinds of federal courts: legislative courts and constitutional courts.  The legislative courts are to ensure the enforcement of laws - they hear cases dealing with federal laws.  The constitutional courts are to protect rights guaranteed in the Constitution - they hear only those cases of significant constitutional impact. (There have been exceptions to this however.) The courts do make declaratory judgments - directing a certain course of action to take place. Constitutional judges serve a lifetime tenure while legislative judges serve a limited term in office though life tenure has been proposed by some. They all serve so long as they properly fulfill the job and may be removed only for just cause. The Supreme Court is the highest court and court of last appeal. Below the Supreme Court are various courts of appeal. Thirteen Circuit Courts are currently instituted with about 165 judges who rarely sit together - doing their work where they live. There are 95 District Courts with about 600 judges currently. Jurisdiction is determined by the Constitution and act of congress. All federal judges are appointed by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate. In theory, the President has carte blanche on the selection of judges, yet there are limitations in practice. In the case of district judges for instance, the President consults with the senior senator who is a member of the President's party first. If that senator does not like a candidate, the nomination is not made - if it were, the Senate would not confirm. This process is called Senatorial courtesy. If a state has no senator from the President's party, this is not an issue. This is a clear example of politics being an integral part of the nominating process for judges. In the case of the Supreme Court, the President is "most free" in terms of who is nominated. Yet interests have a very high stake in the outcome of such nominations and fight hard battles to oppose most undesirable candidates. The American Bar Association from the moderate left (liberal presidents pay attention to them) and The Federalist Society from the conservative right (conservative presidents pay attention to them) try to assert that they ought to have an integral say in the process and issues a rating on each appointee which is considered in deliberations by the Senate even though it is an unofficial, though professional, source. 219 | Brem & Sweeney ~ 2018 ~ Government and Politics in the United States The reason politics is an integral part of the process is that any Supreme Court justice can have profound impact on the future of the country depending on the cases heard while that judge sits. It is absurd therefore to expect politics to be left out. Different ethnic groups strive to have a representation on the bench (e.g. seeking a Jewish seat, a Black seat, a Southern seat, etc.). Of course, given the complement of nine members, not all groups can be represented consistently. There are no formal qualifications for being a judge on The Court. In reality though, it is usually a lawyer - legally trained person - who is chosen. Though not all appointees have had extensive court experience - some of the greatest judges having been academics. At the state level, judges are popularly elected, appointed, or a combination of the two processes. The latter being very common, is a method whereby a judge is first appointed and then after a while is subjected to a retention or no retention vote. Such elections are supposed to be nonpartisan yet informed voters know backgrounds and certainly interest groups line up to influence the election of “friendly judges.” Justice of the peace and magistrates - often the same office - are elected in partisan elections. The system is very similar in most states. While state judges may be removed outright for unacceptable behavior, federal judges can only be removed by Congressional impeachment. It can be argued that the court system in the United States is too powerful. Many issues the courts decide may rightfully belong in the realm of political decision making processes. Unfortunately, social change often must be handled by the courts because the legislature won't do it and a glaring need is addressed through judicial challenge and subsequent Constitutional interpretation to which the legislature must respond - such was the case with the civil rights acts of the 1960s. However, judges and the courts have been awarded a Delphian Mystique in our society in "solving" our problems and in this, the courts may be too powerful. 220 | Brem & Sweeney ~ 2018 ~ Government and Politics in the United States Domestic Policy and Foreign Policy The Public Policy Spectrum Figure 7.1 What is policy? Policy is every law, rule or regulation. Policy is anything that the government does. Policy is also about what the government intends to do or does not intend to do. You cannot NOT make a choice. If you say we are not going to do anything, then your policy is that we are not going to do anything. If you understand that there are homeless people in your city and the city decides not to offer any services or housing for the homeless, then the policy is that government is not doing anything about homelessness. Every policy choice has a consequence. If you know that families sleep outside in the cold and often go hungry due to your city’s policy on homelessness and you chose not to have government services to help (to do anything), then you are also choosing for your fellow citizens, families and children to sleep outside in the cold and go hungry. You choose the policy and you also choose the consequences of the policy. You have to ask yourself very real political questions: 221 | Brem & Sweeney ~ 2018 ~ Government and Politics in the United States Is this something that we can do? To recap, all policy choices have consequences. Policy is what you intend to do or what you intend not to do. The intention makes the policy. It is important to note that public policy is more than simply passing and enforcing laws. Rather, it involves a complex web of interactions among different political actors that determine what government does and does not do. The action (or inaction) of government affects people’s lives and determines the distribution of benefits and burdens in society (who wins and who loses). In the end, engaging in policy analysis is a central task of making governments work. It is the standards of an overarching philosophy guided theory and practice (praxis), that shape public policy and that shapes the social order of a society. A more democratic public administration create a more democratic social order – no matter what the stated intentions, if the public administration does not follow it, then we get what we do, not what we intend. In this task then, we need to be guided by “evaluation” of policy. Policy Analysis: All governance is assessed or “evaluated” as being legitimate or not by a set of criterion defining “effective governance.” Good governance in America – congruence with the vision of the “Idea of America” – is the administration of the people’s business, in the public interest, keeping the public trust. That is legitimate and effective governance. It is this at which the practice American public policy analysis is aimed. With “effectiveness” itself as the prime factor of good governance, there are three definitions of “effectiveness” that comprise the guidelines of holistic analysis of policy and implementation. Four General Criteria of (Effective & Ethical) Policy Evaluation & all Policy Implementation These are the criterion by which we evaluate and through which we determine “good” policy (i.e. “effective policy”). Successful Policy Implementation is a found in balance over time (past, present, and future) of these four factors: 1) effectiveness, 2) efficiency, 3) sufficiency, and 4) equity. On each of these measures of “good policy,” we can evaluate in the GAF frame of reference and contextually to the various value structures of social orders to determine how well we are doing at each. Effectiveness -- doing the right thing – what really works – effect outcomes (the outcome of what you do [note what you do effective or ineffective is in fact the outcome of what you do… only “effective policy” is considered “good policy.”]). All world views posit “effectiveness” as a goal of policy. Utilizing the concept of “futures consciousness” (Lombardo; Hubbard; and Theobald), “good” policies are those which enhance the probability (versus mere possibility) of leading towards a “good society” as defined by our 222 | Brem & Sweeney ~ 2018 ~ Government and Politics in the United States “social contract.” That outcome is the “desired future” state in which we would like to live: Our “Vision of Us” towards which we enact all our actions to embody our desires. In this way, Francis Moore-Lappe argues “each moment of our lives is a vote for the future in which we will live.” The question should be driven by “effective at what?” See Harold Laswell: Politics is who gets what, when, where, how and why.” Political Efficacy is the ability to achieve the desired goal driven effect in changing society. Political claims making is the act of a group getting other groups in society to recognize as legitimate and implement that groups’ desired goals (or “interests”) into the social policy actions of the polity (i.e. Interest Group Politics). Efficiency -- doing that which you are doing in the right way – in a parsimonious manner – cost effective: doing things in the most economical way (a favorable ratio of input (cost) to output (benefit)) – resource utilization outcomes (the effect of your processes of doing what you do). Efficiency is the Classical Liberal Standard of Effectiveness. Focal point is short term and in the present – what are we doing now where action is always taking place. Pareto efficiency or Pareto optimality: given a set of alternative allocations of public goods for a set of individuals or groups; a change from one to another that can make at least one better off without making any other worse off (i.e. Pareto Improvement). Pareto Efficient or Optimal is when no further Pareto Improvements can be made. The Efficiency Movement (e.g. Taylorism) is related to the idea that there may be only one best way to do a given policy (e.g. “Best practices”) – which tends to fit clients to policy rather than tailor policies to clients..... technical rationality. A concept often related to quantitative analysis. Sufficiency -- doing enough of the right thing right enough – “satisficing”outcomes (what the people are willing to make suffice and with which we are willing to be satisfied). The Classical Conservative Standard of Effectiveness. Focal point is continuity with the past (foundations of action in the present is built up from what was done before) – incremental build up over time to achieve sufficiency in the desired goal. Political Sufficiency in the good society is a state of affairs wherein defined or required objectives are achieved – according to a standard of successful outcome relative to a state of being in which people are in no further need of assistance within the polity to be selfsufficient. The Good Society is that which enables its citizens to pursue happiness relative to a standard of defined conditions in the social contract (e.g. self-determined or socially determined) which conforms with the “right” (“legitimated” or consensually agreed upon degrees of timeliness, place, quantity, standards of quality, and acceptable costs. 223 | Brem & Sweeney ~ 2018 ~ Government and Politics in the United States Equity -- doing the right thing, in the right place in the right way for the people who really “need” the public goods in question – justice outcomes. The Classical Radical Standard of Effectiveness. Focal point is upon building a better future – action now should lead to the desired goal – you get that for which: you measure, you reward, and you (actually) do (as opposed to what you say you wanted to do…). This is doing “right” (Justice) by both recipients and providers of public services. Just policy is driven by fitting policy to the needs of the citizens rather than making citizens conform to the rule structure that benefits (or is “convenient to”) the bureaucracy. Justice is a legitimated or socially consensually agreed upon standard relative to the degree to which a social order contract enables people within the polity to meet their “basic (survival) needs” (needs versus wants; survival versus comfort) – especially those needs of the most vulnerable people (relative to “needs” and “justice” [see: John Rawls, Johan Galtung, and Abraham Maslow]). Legitimacy of a polity is determined by the degree to which people continue their grant of or withdrawal of the grant of authority to the power structures of the polity (the social contract and balance between social, private, and public sectors). The determinant is the degree to which “the people” perceive (note: power of perceptual politics) the social contract sufficiently enables them to meet their survival needs more often than not. I Domestic Policy The Policy Making Process Policy making in political communities is a struggle over ideas. Policymaking is a struggle over the criteria for classification, the boundaries of categories and the definition of ideals that guide the way people behave (Deborah Stone). At the heart of policymaking is how people interpret values such as equity, efficiency, security and liberty. The formal process involves the following components: Step One: Identifying the problem: Publicize a problem and demand government action. Participants in this process include the media, interest groups, citizen initiatives and public opinion. The key debate at this stage is over whether the issue is a problem. There is not always agreement on whether a problem exists. This is the first question that we must ask. For instance, there are poor people who are hungry. Is that a problem? Individuals will have different answers as to whether it is a problem or not. Even if they all agree that it is a problem, they may all have different reasons for believing that it is a problem. The extent that a problem is articulated effectively at times depends on resources, large memberships and connections. Disorganized collections of people, even those representing 224 | Brem & Sweeney ~ 2018 ~ Government and Politics in the United States large segments of the population, may not sway decisions makers simply because their message is not as well focused. Some problems cry out for attention, such as terrorism after 9/11. Focusing events are major events that bring the problem to the attention of the public and policy makers. Step Two: Agenda Setting: The agenda setting stage is when public officials determine what issues government will address. There is tremendous power available to the individuals who shape the agenda. The ability to exclude an item from an agenda is a powerful way to control what government does. For example, rules may be created to limit action and discussion outside ‘determined’ agenda. The process of crafting a solution cannot begin until formal decisions makers actually place the problem on the agenda. For example, in the 1950s, one of the Senate’s most powerful members, Georgia’s Richard Russell, was instrumental in keeping civil rights policy off the nation’s agenda by declaring there was no problem with racial segregation because segregation worked. In the absence of major crisis (focusing event), agenda setting is largely determined by organization and resources of individuals and coordinated interests. Persistence is important. Once a problem is on the policy agenda it can be hard to keep it there (attention deficit Americans!) Step Three: Formulating Policy: At this stage, policy proposals are developed to resolve issues and ameliorate the problems on the agenda. How you define a problem will frame the acceptable solutions. Was 9/11 a crime against US citizens and property or an act of war? If the prior, legal options might resolve. If the latter, military options will be considered; Congress, the President, Executive agencies, and the Courts all are involved in devising solutions to the problem and these solutions constantly evolve throughout the process as outside actors are influencing decision makers. Political actors care about public support because they want the process to be legitimate. They will often hold public hearings and ensure established rules are being followed. Step Four: Implementation: Once the policy is created, it needs to be implemented. This may involve coordinating with departments and agencies, providing payments or services and levying taxes. The executive branch is responsible for the implementation of policy. Step Five: Feedback: A key component of the policy making process is evaluating how well it is working once the policy has been implemented. Policy analysts, inside and outside the government, determine whether the policy is addressing the problem and whether implementation is proceeding well, and recommend changes. 225 | Brem & Sweeney ~ 2018 ~ Government and Politics in the United States Major debate in domestic policy-making The fundamental question of all domestic policy making begins with a debate about the size and role of government. In politics, the question is always how much government is too much government? How much government is too little government? This is the fundamental dilemma of striking the right balance between order versus liberty. Whether we have government that is large or small or regulates or does not regulate is related to this same old battle of ideas over the size and role of government. There were two philosophers from the 20th century who have had a major impact on this debate over the size and role of government. They are John Maynard Keynes and Frederick von Hayek. These two theorists took opposing positions in the battle of ideas about the size and role of government. How much government should we have? Hayek argued for what he terms as “free market” supremacy. Keynes argued for “mixed regulated markets.” This battle of ideas is the same battle of ideas that exists between Democrats and Republicans on economic policy (figure 7.2). 226 | Brem & Sweeney ~ 2018 ~ Government and Politics in the United States Hayek and the Washington Consensus In the early 1930s, Frederick Hayek was teaching at the London School of Economics. He had watched fascism grow in Europe. At the time, there was a battle of ideas over whether fascism or democracy was the best way to organize a society. The countries that seemed to be doing well were the dictatorships on the right and the left, including Mussolini, Hitler, Franco, Peron and Stalin. The argument was made that people could not rule themselves. Chaos needed to be controlled by an iron handed dictator. Hayek saw all this and was very worried about it. This experience had a profound effect on Hayek's ideas on politics and economics. Frederick Hayek wrote a book called the Road to Serfdom. In this book, he argued that the more government you have, the more dictatorship you have. He believed that when you ask the government to do more, you begin to walk down the 'road to serfdom'. According to Hayek, in a democracy you have less government and you are able to be responsible for more in your own life. The more government you have, the more government takes responsibility for your life. Furthermore, Hayek believed that if you let markets reign free without restriction, in the long run we are all better off. In line with Hayek’s philosophy, an economist by the name of Joseph Schumpeter argued that we are subject to something called creative destruction. Creative destruction (Joseph Schumpeter) is the principle in a capitalist economy that innovation requires the destruction of the prior economic order. For example:  Polaroid cameras have been replaced by digital cameras which may be replaced by smart phones  Cassette tapes were replaced by CDs which have been replaced by MP3s and online streaming  Online new sources are destroying print newspapers When a business goes under, people get laid off and it hurts. Hayek would say that this is necessary. The market will correct itself and new jobs and industries will take the place of the old ones: “in the long run, we’re all better off.” Frederick von Hayek’s most important followers include many famous and powerful individuals, including Milton Friedman. Friedman and his associates created the Washington Consensus (or: neo-liberalism). The Washington Consensus was a school of thought that we need less government, not more government and that we need to increase free enterprise (not regulate). The Washington Consensus argued for deregulation - removing regulations away from things like banking, oil, automobiles, airlines, etc. The idea is that the more competition in the market place that we have, the better off we’ll all be. Since the 1980s, the ideas behind the Washington Consensus have been wildly influential in national politics. 227 | Brem & Sweeney ~ 2018 ~ Government and Politics in the United States John Maynard Keynes and Regulated Capitalism John Maynard Keynes was a key economist who took an opposing view in the battle of ideas regarding the size and role of government in the economy. Keynes argued that we need government to plan things. During World War II, John Maynard Keynes was involved in the planning operation for the British and American war efforts. Keynes argued that if planning brought us victory in war, then planning could bring us prosperity in peace. He argued that you cannot let the economy run without letting the government have some say in how it runs. If you do not have government involved in the economy, the economy will superheat and people will lose jobs, industries will close, you will go into a recession and depression. You need to regulate the economy and slow it down. When the economy is not moving fast enough, you need to use the government to stimulate the economy. Keynes argued that government should do this because everything about making the economy work serves the people. Keynes argued that unregulated capitalism hurts average citizens. he believed that it is the job of government to make sure that the private sector does not hurt people while making profits. Keynes' economic theories dominated national politics from the 1930s through the 1970s and have come back into prominence since the start of the most recent recession (2009). Types of Policy There are three main types of policy: redistributive, distributive and regulatory. Redistributive Policy: Redistributive policy is one that distributes resources from one group to another, specifically shifting resources from the “haves” to the “have nots”. This type of policy is usually controversial and overall garners less support among Americans. An example of a redistributive policy is Medicaid. Medicaid is a social welfare policy that seek to meet basic needs of people who are unable to provide for themselves. Medicaid is means tested, which means that beneficiaries qualify by demonstrating need (typically this means the individual or family must earn closer to or below the federal poverty line.) Individuals who qualify for Medicaid receive government subsidized health insurance. Another example of redistributive policy is food stamps. Food stamps provided nutritional support to low income individuals and families. Why are these programs not very popular? The answer in part has to do with the fundamental error of attribution. To what do you attribute success or failure? The error of attribution is to believe that when an individual 'fails', it is his/her fault. Of course, this is not always the case! But if you assume that someone is unemployed and unable to provide for a family because it one's own fault, you may be less likely to step in and say government should help. 228 | Brem & Sweeney ~ 2018 ~ Government and Politics in the United States This fundamental error of attributional thinking is embedded in American culture of rugged individualism: Americans pull themselves up by their own bootstraps. The problem is that many problems facing Americans (foreclosure, joblessness, debt) may not be entirely the individual's fault. For example, during the last housing boom, many banks preyed on new homeowners with risky mortgages. When the housing bubble burst, the question arose as to whether we should help these homeowners keep their homes. So! When it comes to human “responsibility for social inequity: Do you in fact, think about the things you think about? Attributional error driven thinking is a delusion with profound human consequences in terms of pain and suffering and creating a structurally unjust social contract. Distributive Policy: Distributive Policy distributes resources broadly. The goal of this policy is to meet the needs of various groups. This type of policy is funded by the whole taxpayer base to address the needs of a particular group (E.g., homeowner’s tax deductions). It is popular because benefits go to specific group while costs are spread so widely that no one notices them. Pork barrel projects, in which legislators try to secure federal dollars to support programs in their home districts, are often associated with distributive policies. Regulatory Policy: This type of policy seeks to limit or control actions of other groups. It is designed to change or restrict the behavior of certain groups or individuals with the goal of protecting citizens. Politics surrounding the creation of regulatory policy is highly confrontational as one group is being targeted and asked to change its actions. Figure 7.3 The Policy Making Cycle An example is environmental policy. Environmental policy seeks to improve the quality of the physical world in which we live. For example, the National Environmental Policy Act (1969) required environmental impact statements for any new federal regulations. 229 | Brem & Sweeney ~ 2018 ~ Government and Politics in the United States II Foreign Policy People have friends. Nations have interests! ~ Charles de Gaulle Let us explore briefly the context and constraints of making foreign policy in the United States in the 21st century. Foreign policy is the actions and statements the government takes pertaining to actors and institutions that reside beyond our domestic borders. Foreign policy is often referred to as a game – using game theory – and is entirely different than domestic policy. Whereas domestic policy is any action, regulation or law made within one’s territory (domestic borders); foreign policy is any action or policy undertaken by the government to achieve its “interests” or goals with such policy and actions directed toward actors outside of the national borders. This includes:  Statements, pronouncements, written policies  Actual behavior, such as: o Trade Policy o Diplomacy o War o Humanitarian or Military Aid o Arms Sales, o And other such actions 230 | Brem & Sweeney ~ 2018 ~ Government and Politics in the United States We must note that often the actual behavior of a country in its foreign policy may contradict its stated polices and even its own internal self-claims of values (e.g. a selfproclaimed “democracy” behaving like an “authoritarian imperialistic empire”). So we must endeavor to study both stated goals and policies and values and actual behavior in the real world where consequences of actions and mistakes can be quite profound for world peace and safety. What rules govern domestic and foreign policy? In domestic policy, the rules of the game are supposed to be the U.S. Constitution (the American social contract). In foreign policy, however, there is no absolute binding set of rules as each actor on the world stage is sovereign and looking out for their national interests. Rules that are agreed to (such as treaties) are temporary and not always enforceable. There are many changing values and forces and concerns or interests which shape the direction of American foreign policy. American foreign policy making context Foreign policy is made within a global and domestic context. Below are some key components of the global context in which American foreign policy is made:  Condition of “anarchy” - No binding authority above states  Reliance on power - Self-help international system; must cultivate and rely on power  Security a primary goal  Also an interdependent world – What happens in one place is felt around the world; o Free trade underscores this interdependence; o So too does global climate change.  The Bretton-Woods” system o International Monetary Fund; International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (World Bank); General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT); and the World Trade Organization o Terms of trade 231 | Brem & Sweeney ~ 2018 ~ Government and Politics in the United States o Relative value of the dollar compared to the other major currencies of the world This anarchical, self-help system, can create the “security dilemma,” in which the steps one takes to make one’s self secure can actually make one less secure. For example, the United States built up its missiles to make itself more secure against the USSR. But seeing this, the USSR built up more and more of its own missiles so as not to be at a disadvantage. Thus the action of the United States may have actually, if unintentionally, made it less secure. But if you don’t look out for your own security, you leave yourself open to attack. So it’s a classic dilemma: darned of you do and darned if you don’t. The Domestic Context includes:  Public opinion – the mass public’s beliefs are relatively stable. Americans are risk (casualty) averse, but can and do push policy change at times.  The media –there has been a decrease in coverage of foreign news on the major networks. However, the 24-hour cable news cycle may speed up the foreign policy making process.  Interest groups - groups that have individual members who share a common interest and lobby on behalf of these individuals. Some of these groups may be organized around ethnic “diasporas.” Other interest groups seeking to shape foreign policy include business and trade interests, human rights groups, defense spending interests, etc. Key Players We make foreign policy on the world stage. On the world stage, the US is just another country and the domestic rules do not govern. Other key actors include:  Other countries  Intergovernmental organizations (IGOs) - IGOs are groups composed of member nation-states and can be regionally based (EU) or globally based (UN), and can be general in scope (UN) or more specific with respect to function (IMF). There are hundreds of IGOs.  Nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) - NGOs have individuals as members and often tend to be quite specific with respect to function and purpose. There are thousands of NGOs.  Multinational Corporations (MNCs) - MNCs are sometimes called “stateless corporations” because their economic enterprise is so globally oriented that they have no single country they call “home.” Many of these corporations have economic activity through them that rivals the size of some nation-states’ economies.  Non-state actors (like terrorist groups) – Non -state actors can include national groupings without a state, religious groups, and terrorist groups, international organized crime (e.g. drug cartels), international gangs, to name a few. The world system is made up of many powers (actors) competing for national (and self) interest. 232 | Brem & Sweeney ~ 2018 ~ Government and Politics in the United States Philosophical perspectives driving foreign policy Figure 7.4 Matric of Foreign Policy Attitudes Internationalist Other Centered Inward Centered Figure 7.5 Isolationist Aggressive; seek a hand in the control of the direction of the world and policy within other countries Passive: seek withdrawal from all foreign entanglements Passive: seek to nurture open communications and extend foreign aid Aggressive: seek to build up a strong defense for American interests Realism, Liberalism, and Idealism Theories: Core Beliefs Realism Self-interested states compete for power and security Key Actors in International Relations States which behave similarly regardless of their type of government Main Instruments Military Power and state diplomacy Doesn’t account for progress and change in international relations or understanding that legitimacy can be a source of military power Theory’s intellectual Blind Spots What the Theory Explains About eh Post- 9/11 World` What the Theory Fails to Explain About the Post – 9/11 World Why the United States responded aggressively to terrorist attacks: the inability of international institutions to restrain military superiority The failure to smaller powers to militarily balance the United States; the importance of non-state actors such as al Qaeda; the intense U.S. focus on democratization Liberalism Spread of democracy, global economic ties, and international organizations will strengthen peace. States international institutions and commercial interests International institutions and global commerce Fails to understand that democratic regimes survive only if they safeguard military power and security; some liberals forget that transitions to democracy are sometimes violent Why spreading democracy has become such an integral part of current U.S. international security strategy Why the United States has failed to work with other democracies through international organizations 233 | Brem & Sweeney ~ 2018 ~ Government and Politics in the United States Idealism International politics is shaped by persuasive ideas, collective values, culture, and social identities Promoters of new ideas, transnational activist networks, and nongovernmental organizations. Ideas and values Does not explain which power structures and social conditions allow for changes in values The increasing role of polemics about values; the importance of transnational political networks (Whether terrorists or human rights advocates) Why human rights abuses continue, despite intense activism for humanitarian norms and efforts for international justice Figure 7.6 Realist and Moralist Approaches to International Relations Praxis Conservative Realists Moralists Liberal Radical From a unipolar perspective; how can we manipulate the system to achieve American self-interest goals in a noninterventionist manner? Our friends are those who help our self-interest. “Realpolitik” is the guiding ethos. From a multipolar perspective; even a superpower must work within the framework of the international community in achieving its self-interest goals. Sovereignty is respected as a way to avoid making enemies. Free trade is a guiding ethos. There is only a multipolar perspective and the values of democracy (i.e. in the American Bill of Rights) are seen as universal human rights and as such should guide all American activities in dealing with other nations inside the framework of the community of Nations (i.e. the U.N.) and this should guide rules of engagement. This is the reality of the modern world - we should not deal with regimes that abuse the Rights of their own people. Universal Declaration of Human Rights is the guiding ethos. Liberal (capitalist) democracy (market driven) is the best form of “governance” and the United States is best served by actively exporting this ideal to other countries; even if it means unilateral Intervention. America should not shy away from acting as a hegemon Free trade is the best way to promote freedom and democracy as well as American self-interests. In the Global Community and Economy - we should actively promote our system in ways that respect sovereignty of culture so as not to be imperialist nor make enemies. We should ever strive to seek cooperate (treaty) friendship. Same as radical realists AND we should ACTIVELY use our power in diplomacy, trade, and the use of our military and entities like the Peace Corps to be exemplars of the principles found in the Bill of Rights. We should use our prosperity to help others in need - thereby promoting not only American Interests, but the interests of democracy (Human rights over property rights) as well. Who makes foreign policy? The Executive Branch The President: directs foreign policy but is advised by the National Security Team (listed below in figure 6.6) on foreign policy matters. Some of these players include:       the National Security Council, State Department, Defense Department, Joint Chiefs of Staff, The Intelligence community (CIA, New Director of National Intelligence), and Department of Homeland Security. 234 | Brem & Sweeney ~ 2018 ~ Government and Politics in the United States The President directs foreign policy as Chief executive, Head of state, Commander-in-chief, Chief diplomat, and Chief legislator. This team is comprised of people from the executive branch and other people as needed. The role of this team is to advise the president on foreign policy matters. These are the people who are experts on foreign policy matters. Figure 7.7 The Foreign Policy Team Congress The Senate must advise and consent with two thirds majority to ratify any treaty. If the President of the United States signs a treaty, it does not mean that the US has in fact adopted this treaty. Only after the US Senate ratifies the treaty does it become law. It takes 2/3rd of the US Senate to ratify a treaty. Other roles that Congress plays in foreign policy matters include the 235 | Brem & Sweeney ~ 2018 ~ Government and Politics in the United States powers to declare war, exercise its' spending power, oversee the executive branch and pass legislation. The executive and the legislative branches plus interest groups form the foreign policy iron triangle; and (de facto) the foreign policy industrial complex. Foreign policy choices Americans have ideas about what foreign policy should look like. There are opposing positions as to whether and to what extent the United States should engage in the 'great game' of foreign affairs. Internationalist vs Isolationist?  Internationalists believe that it is appropriate for the United States to be involved in international politics. There are varying degrees (and extremes) to this position. o An aggressive internationalist would argue that we should seek a hand in controlling the direction of world policy within other countries for our own interest. o A passive internationalist would say that we should seek to nurture open communications and extend foreign aid.  Isolationists believe that the United States should focus on domestic affairs and protecting our borders from external threats. There are varying degrees (and extremes) to this position. o The aggressive isolationist would say that we should use a strong defense to protect American interest. We should create a fortress Americana and build walls to protect our borders. o The passive isolationist would argue that we should withdraw from all foreign entanglements. This was the philosophy of George Washington. Hard Power or Soft Power? Another choice that has to be made in crafting foreign policy is whether to employ hard or soft power (carrots or sticks).  Soft power (or carrots) involve tools such as diplomacy, propaganda (Radio Free Europe), summits, and covert political operations.  Hard power (or sticks) involve tools such as sanctions, embargoes, armed forces, military technology, and special military operations. These tools can be used either in positive ways (inducements, rewards) or in negative ways (threats, punishments). Much of the art of diplomacy is managing how to create, and communicating, a mix of inducements and threats based on these instruments. 236 | Brem & Sweeney ~ 2018 ~ Government and Politics in the United States The Foreign Policy Iron triangle: American Foreign Policy Formulation is a complex political process with many forces shaping its form. It is also an ever changing position as the real world (context) changes - so American Foreign Policy is of necessity dynamic. The Players include:       The President State Department Homeland Security Presidential Advisors the intelligence community PIRGs Public Interest Research Groups - Think Tanks and consultants  Other countries e.g. Allies, interested other nations  Interested and or relevant “other transnational actors” - e.g. NGOs, representatives of important movements, significant figures (e.g. the Dalai Llama)  National Security Advisor  Department of Defense  National Security Council  The Congress  corporate America ….The part of this whole triangle that only includes the players that are most established in the world of American Super-Power dynamics (as opposed to being in opposition to this) is commonly referred to as the “Military Industrial Complex”, however, the whole triangle is not this… nor does it have to be. We have choices…. 237 | Brem & Sweeney ~ 2018 ~ Government and Politics in the United States By Way of Conclusion ~ The Future and The Will to Peace Will the United States evolve towards a social order something akin to that represented in “The Hunger Games” science fiction stories? “The Hunger Games” universe is a future dystopian country where the wealthy live separate from everyone else, who live in varying states of poverty & desperation, and these destitute people each year are pitted in struggle with one another to the death. Are we already there? Is the American Dream today really a farce and a fraud and in the end the only ones who win are the rich & strong and those among the rest of us who can beat the odds in a Hobbesian war of all against all... a form of hunger games? In this world, “may the odds ever be in you favor” is a dark taunt, for most never could have won in the first place. Is that America today? Albert Einstein noted: ”the splitting of the atom has changed everything save our mode of thinking, and thus we drift towards unparalleled catastrophe." In this context, political philosopher Mark Reader asks an overriding question we need answer: “Can a case be made for the retention of the humans in the cosmos?” If so, then it is a case that has to be made to ourselves. Will we listen? The cosmos and Planet Earth will respond to the consequences of our existence. If we act in a way that is not healthy, the ecosystem itself may simply “adjust” humans out of the matrix. Do we have it in us: to choose to survive? Futurist Robert Theobald used to wonder: “just what are humans capable of becoming?” what do we need to do to find out the answer to that question? History reveals humans certainly know how nasty and brutish they can be towards one another. Is that the final answer? 238 | Brem & Sweeney ~ 2018 ~ Government and Politics in the United States Humans are confronted with some profound crises in the 21st century which pace global civilization at risk for collapse. ? This is world in which the human species – and along with it all life in Planet Earth – are responding to overwhelming stressors and pressures of 21st century life under the Red Queen hyper culture. Life under the Red Queen is a world in which we must run faster and faster to just stay in the same place (as persons, a people, in groups, and as a society); and if we want to be somewhere else, we need to run twice as fast. And if we fall, we’re out of the race: “Red Queened.” In response, many people and we as culture tend to seek to numb them-selves, getting lost in meaningless pursuits and many activities which cannot make us happy. We do this in a belief in an ever more elusive idea of an “American Dream” where we shall “arrive” and be happy. At some dep level, we do know this is not happening. This often defacto result in addictions of one kind or another; the whole of our society behaves in addictive many ways. Capitalism is built upon them all; stuff & substance addictions such as: alcohol, drugs, nicotine, caffeine, and food; accumulating money, gambling, sex, work, religion, and even worry. Our interpersonal relationships can become addictive. Our politics encourage addiction like behavior (e.g. control, promising undeliverable agendas, promising things will get better when we know they will not. This is the White Queen which leads us to want and need to “believe at least 6 impossible things before breakfast” just to keep us in the Red Queen game; all while denying problems (e.g. global climate change, the debt problem, the corruption of money in politics), denying alternative ways of doing things (e.g. food, energy, health care, education, prisons….). The net result is an entire neo-liberal and McKinleyist capitalist system of addictions; feeding the biggest addiction of all: materialism. We have objectified our lives and dreams in the pursuit of stuff. We are owned by and exist for the pursuit of stuff. We are asleep – we are the Zombie apocalypse. We place property rights above human rights and the result is the Red Queen World. She is our pimp. And the White Queen is our drug dealer. 239 | Brem & Sweeney ~ 2018 ~ Government and Politics in the United States As Ludwig Feuerbach noted; religions can be the opiates of the people to keep them sedated and compliant with the power structure of the world system; thus: the first addiction offered by the White Queen are severe distortions of theologies which, rather than free human spirits, imprisons and crushes human souls. All the White Queen distortions are addictions keeping humans sedated from truth. Therefore, we sell our own soul-dreams and enlivening life chances to both Queens. And, when we allow this shadow world come between us and spirituality, between us and living; we destroy ourselves and those around us. Life in this world can be characterized as follows: Figure 8.1 Characteristics of Life Under the Red Queen Environment Factors Political & Economic Social & Cultural Personal/Psychological (Grande- Narrative Level) (Macro-Narrative Level) (Macro-Narrative Level) (Micro-Narrative Level) Global Climate Change: chaotic “hyper” weather (e.g. superstorms),warming, sea level rise; death of ocean ecosystems World Systems Instability: Economic meltdowns, banking system and monetary instability, and physical infrastructure failures. Demographic Shifts: Racial & ethnic related instabilities and violence; issues of: Migration and ecological & war refugees High Stress: “Life lived as if in a video game” – crucial existential knowledge deficits, and time & bandwidth poverty. Too fast to cope Fresh Water Crises: contamination and drought (insufficiency) Global Border Fragmentation: Privatization of public space & Left & Right “Wilding” dynamics Undermining “Purposive State” ideograph; Brexit type Issue Desertification: Poverty and climate change lead to vegetation destruction and encroaching desert. Liquidity Crises Underemployment & Insufficient wages, unstable private & public debt structures. Values & Meaning Inconstancy: Religious extremism in the face of cultural diversity, culture wars, and “clash of civilizations” (e.g. Daesh {“ISIS”} & Christian Dominionism). . Technology shifts: “Third Wave” Displacement, crucial technological knowledge deficits, under-employability Population Pressures: relative to resource availability & use, situational overpopulation, and generational imbalances ( Rogue actors Ideological, Corporate, and sociological (e.g. social systems violation dynamics): terrorism. Hot Zone Issues: (e.g. evolving diseases, anti-biotic resistance bacteria, resilient deadly mutating viruses) Social Contract safety net (“Entitlement”) Instability: Retirement, Health care & drug prices, Day care, Elder care; and out of control cost of living (e.g. rents). Environment as Commodity: Destruction of landmarks for exploitation; disruption of wetlands, geotectonic consequences of fracking, overfishing, over-logging, and over-development. Consumer values over “democracy:” Property Rights over Human Rights – objectification of humans subject to contract and cost benefit analysis and economic unviability - financial poverty “Basic Fear” Existential Angst: Postmodern Anxiety, social and intergenerational PTSD dynamics - as social norms collapse and safety net insecurities raise to level of daily fundamental personal violation & disempowerment. Future Shock & “Psychic numbing:” “rapids of change,” & hyper economy, “rage against machine “ and “The Tyranny of Nobody” Information overload & White Queen Dynamics: Hyper-social media; false news media, purposive distortion of knowledge & hyper-propaganda. . Community bonds breakdown: Civility decline (Putnam: “bowling alone”) and collapse of “public sphere” (Arendt: “Dark Times”) Isolation & disorientation: anomie and alienation; cynicism supplant hope & optimism “Hobbesian” Dynamics “War of all against all” & rogue “wilding” culture – feeling as if “rats in a maze” or in a cage. Dehumanization: Objectification & commodification of people leads to feeling worthless except as one can consume or produce: else one is ejected and marginalized. 240 | Brem & Sweeney ~ 2018 ~ Government and Politics in the United States “Primal Fear:” Substantive threats to capacity to meet basic or “Primal” needs; being one paycheck away for homelessness.. In response to the Red Queen/White Queen Matrix in which we ar ensnared, we need to imagine a new kind of politics, economics, culture, and relationship with the environment. This is required of us to create a world that is socially just, economically viable, and environmentally sustainable for life on planet Earth. The United Nations has a model for thinkin gof this. It illuminates the four domains of social sustainability in the Circles of Sustainability (Figure 8.2) approach to looking at the problems we face in the 21st century. 241 | Brem & Sweeney ~ 2018 ~ Government and Politics in the United States The Problems of Lasting Peace T.H. White argued that one thing it means to be human is that we mean well. We just don’t know how to do well, well. And that neurotic central tendency in human is why we fail… why we tend towards self-defeat and destruction. In the 1991 film “Terminator: Judgement Day” the character John Connor asks: “We're not gonna make it, are we? People, I mean.” The Terminator replies: “It's in your nature to destroy yourselves.” John Connor notes: “Yeah. Major drag, huh?” Well, do we have the will to learn to “do well” well? Herbert Hoover and Hugh Gibson argued -- along with other major thinkers in 1941 (at the darkest height of World War II) -- that "Freedom in America does not depend on the outcome of struggles for material power between other nations." Rather, "The American people must begin to think of the problems of peace. And it must think in a far larger frame than ever before." Lasting peace is founded upon the “rule of law.” It requires we have the capacity to enforce rights as we only have the rights we are able and willing to defend. “Peace or War?” …is a choice we make…. At the personal as well as at the global level, we have to choose. We choose the future in which we shall live based upon the direction our choices take us in each of these seven dynamic areas wherein “forces" spell war or peace. Recalling our earlier discussion about what is “good” and “evil” - Hoover and Gibsonj held that “evil” persons will “light the fuses for civilization's great explosions” with the explosive makings that are already there. Persons of honor and good will with cooler heads must prevail or we will find naught but war. There is a set of seven choices-- regarding the forces which can push us one way or the other -we need to make to determine which is our choice in life. These seven forces include:  Ideological dynamics – rooted in all of our socio-cultural-political our world views and become our micro-macro-grande narratives which guide our actions. Carl Sagan perceived that we humans are capable of such beautiful dreams and such terrible nightmares. Do we dream small dreams or mediocre dreams or great dreams? Who do we say we want to be?  Economic pressures – the logic of our economic systems; the rules of the game which shape our material reality that engulfs our highest aspirations in the pursuit of our perceived survival needs,  Nationalism – tribalism run amok rooted in the dynamics of “us versus them” and the illusions that boundaries are real and that blood means something other than mere biological fact.  Imperialistic urges – competition run amok – what James Carse argues says are: finite games (played to win creating angry losers resulting in “blowback”) versus infinite games (played to “continue playing the game” – the path to a sustainable and civil future). Any urge to “colonize” someone else (to dominate or silence an “other”) is imperialistic.  Militaristic pressures – “the will to war” urge to solve our problems with violence -- and through the violation of one an “other” -- to hurt or kill they with whom we disagree or are uncomfortable. This is what happens when we are driven by our smallest most petty dreams j Hoover, H. and Gibson, H. (1941). The Problems of Lasting Peace, Doubleday, New York. 242 | Brem & Sweeney ~ 2018 ~ Government and Politics in the United States and nightmares; when let our passions rule our choices without constraint… which is the result of  The Baser Demons of Our Nature found in the “complexes” of fear (leading to anger) leading to hate leading to revenge –our “dark side” -- which shall be active in every discussion (micro, macro, grande) in which human participate. This is human psychopathology that has been the author of human misery throughout the human story. It is only when we manage our passions such that our passions do not manage us that we might find a path to peace…  The Better Angels of our Nature (to which Abraham Lincoln appealed in seeking to heal a nation) represent the greatest dreams of people everywhere in a stricken world for a lasting peace. This is “the will to peace.” When we ask “which will survive” among the various “beings” (personalities and aspirations) which inhabit the inner universe of our humanity (as individuals and as societies and as a species), the answer is always: “the one we feed.“ Do we want peace? This is the greatest and first question. Is this the preferable future we seek? And what do we need to do today and each day and every day to make that a future that is more probable than merely possible? What “Could” Come? *IF* we do not destroy ourselves over our petty “will to war” mentality and adopt a “will to peace” mindset? Is 21st Century Democratic Republican Governance possible? What “Could” Come? *IF* …we do not destroy ourselves over our petty one dimensional B.S. (Belief Structures): Is 21st Century Democratic Republican Governance possible? We are able to “type” Democracies in one of four general categories. Each of these is an experiment and we offer four possible “experiments in progress.” These experiments are not (or were not) entirely successful even by their own standards. However, to entertain the possibility of a better society – we need to think better…. Minimally in three dimensional thinking idea systems (I.S.)! Values Dynamic Democracy Radical Democracy Liberal Democracy Conservative Democracy Primary Value (Seen as preserving force of “Democracy”) Social Justice & Substantive Empowerment (Liberation) Social Welfare & Equality / Equity Economic & Personal Freedom Social Order & Fidelity with Tradition “Democratic” law Functions to ensure: Human Rights Human Needs Markets – Property Rights Safety & Harmony Relationships Continuity (Requisites of healthy Relations) Basics of life Individuals Families Discretionary Goal Focused Negotiable Consistent Flexible Permeable Movable Permeable Movable Semi-Permeable Inflexible Non-Permeable The Netherlands –Nordic Democracy Experiments The Sandinista Nicaraguan experiment United States The “American experiment” The Singapore experiment Most important subject Enforcements of Rules Boundaries Example 243 | Brem & Sweeney ~ 2018 ~ Government and Politics in the United States A Second Bill of Rights? Taking the political philosophical claims of the Sanders Social Democratic agenda at its face value, we arrive at this speculative analysis of what it had to offer had it won the political contest of 2016. To address the changed realities of 21st century modern world system; Sanders proposed a revision of the “Second Bill of Rights” from Franklin Delano Roosevelt (proposed in his State of the Union Address, January 11, 1944). The argument here is, if we use more modern language here, that we need rights not explicitly thought of in the 18th Century to make the democratic ideals in the Constitution more substantive than merely symbolic. These rights make the pursuit of life chances (“happiness”) -- in the context of the 21st Century World of lived and shared reality -- more “within reach” (in a democracy, there is no guarantee of happiness, only of the right to pursue it…) of “we the people” – and this is part of what it means to make this “a more perfect union.” Bernie Sanders’ proposed a 21st revision would have opposed the neo-liberal Obama-Clinton vision of governance as well as the TrumPence neo-McKinley world view of governance. What the Social Democratic vision proposed by Bernie Sanders (in 2016) would have activated was a combination of ideas:  a variant of FDR’s “Second Bill of Rights” with  an enhanced view of human rights, and  a great deal of the vision of Martin Luther King, and  a variation of “European Dream” (as compared to the “American Dream”) all merged into a social contract dedicated to serving all the citizens rather than merely the oligarchs. What could we learn from our European “relatives” about a more just social contact? If we compare the two visions of community, what do we see? A new 21st century American social contract would have include first an enhancement of the Bill of Rights – as Franklin Delano Roosevelt proposed - as follows:  The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries, shops, farms, or mines of the nation  The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation  The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living  The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad  The right of every family to a decent home  The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health  The right to protection from economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment  The right to a good education. 244 | Brem & Sweeney ~ 2018 ~ Government and Politics in the United States A Preferential Commitment to Human Rights The ideas proposed by Roosevelt went on to form the basis of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights. These arose under the leadership of Eleanor Roosevelt as a mergence of the ideas of the New Deal response to economic realities and the plight of human rights in the world and the findings of the Nürnberg Tribunal which sought to address human rights war crimes in World War II. These resulted in The Nürnberg Protocols. How would American Foreign and Domestic Policy behaviors over the past few decades be judged were we to be held to the standards of the The Nürnberg Protocols? These were established as a result of the Nürnberg Tribunal findings wherein four general indictments were lodged against officials of governments relative to their conduct in executing their duties in conducting the wartime policies of their governments. The indictment contained four counts: 1. crimes against peace: i.e., the planning, initiating, and waging of wars of aggression in violation of international treaties and agreements; 2. crimes against humanity: i.e., exterminations, deportations, and genocide; 3. war crimes: i.e., violations of the laws of war; and 4. "a common plan or conspiracy to commit" criminal acts (listed above); premeditation.  The tribunal established the precedent that there are grounds to hold authority over any individual guilty of the commission of war crimes and to declare any group or organization to be criminal in character.  If an organization was found to be criminal, individuals could be brought to trial for having been members, and the criminal nature of the group or organization could no longer be questioned.  In rendering decisions, the tribunal rejected the major defenses offered by the defendants:  First, it rejected the contention that only a state or an organization, and not individuals, could be found guilty of war crimes; the tribunal held that crimes of international law are committed by men and that only by punishing individuals who commit such crimes can the provisions of international law be enforced.  Second, it rejected the argument that the trial and adjudication were ex post facto. The tribunal responded that such acts had been regarded as criminal prior to World War II. The result of these debates was the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which have come to form the foundations of a more robust definition of democratic social order in the 21st Century. Completed by the United Nations Commission on Human Rights in June 1948 and adopted, after a few changes, by the General Assembly at its Paris session on Dec. 10, 1948, by unanimous vote (with the six members of the Soviet bloc, Saudi Arabia, and the Union of South Africa abstaining). 245 | Brem & Sweeney ~ 2018 ~ Government and Politics in the United States The declaration posits the fundamental Human rights that any democratic and civilized society guarantees. These include the general principal civil and political rights recognized in democratic constitutions as well as several economic, social, and cultural rights. To the first group belong such rights as  life, liberty, and security of person;  freedom from arbitrary arrest, detention, or exile;  right to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal;  freedom of thought, conscience, and religion; and  freedom of peaceful assembly and association. _______________________________ Among the new items in the declaration were the  right to social security; right to work;  right to education;  right to participate in the cultural life of the community; and  right to enjoy the arts and to share in scientific advancement and its benefit _____________________________ Dreaming and speaking reality and the future in to existence Merging Marin Luther King’s Dream into a future American Social Contract: What Would Make the Dream Real? Lee Mun Wah11 has pondered what it would truly feel like had the world changed according to Martin Luther King, Jr.'s Dream. He has heard white people ask people of color what would make a real difference in society. In response, he offered ideas on what this vison enacted in day to day life in the social contract of America would look like; that would help change that can actually happen. For change to occur, there must first be a shift in the way people perceive what is “real inclusion,” not just in the form of holidays, foods, or costumes or the election of one black man or woman as president. Inclusion must exhibit observable substantive attitudinal and behavioral shifts based on the quality of human inter- connection and willingness to be in truthful and transformative relationships with one another. This substantive inclusion means:  Not only having equal representation, but a desire for a meaningful relationship based on the mutuality of our trust, curiosity, and authenticity with each other.  Beginning where someone is, not where you want them to be.  Being open to hearing and experiencing different perspectives, ways of relating, and communicating. 11 Lee Mun Wah (September 2013), Merging King’s Dream into our Social Contract: What Would Make the Dream Real? http://www.stirfryseminars.com/pdfs/2013_newsletters/newsletter_sept2013.pdf 246 | Brem & Sweeney ~ 2018 ~ Government and Politics in the United States  Noticing the intent and impact of all our communications. In other words, noticing where and when we are connecting and/or feeling disconnected from others.  Noticing and taking responsibility about how we exclude others: o by trivializing, devaluing and invalidating their perspectives. o by valuing only what others have in common with us. o by not noticing the subtleties of our privilege and the lack of privilege for others.  By asking and wanting to hear the answers to: o What does inclusion mean to you? o In what ways are you excluded? o In what ways do I contribute to your feeling excluded?  By discussing: What parts of another culture do we value and what parts do we not. What kinds of stereotypes do we carry and how that affects how we relate or don't relate to others and to each other.  Desiring to embrace diversity because it will enhance our life, not take away from it.  A willingness to go beyond tolerating someone to truly wanting to have a meaningful relationship based on honesty and respect.  Noticing how often we use 'but' or 'have you ever thought maybe...' and realizing how those comments and many others shut down a conversation on diversity. Plato observed: "We can easily forgive a child who is afraid of the dark; the real tragedy of life is when we are afraid of the light." Lee observed that having a black president didn’t ensure that we were 'beyond racism'. What is needed is an attitudinal stance of openness to experiencing someone who is different and a willingness to learn and to grow from that opportunity. Statecraft as Soulcraft We can build upon the observations of Stephen Carter,12 George Will,13 and Abraham Lincoln14 to address the growing “integrity crisis” and a “moral poverty” afflicting American society today. In everyday life, human moral integrity is increasingly shamefully low. “We should be embarrassed by our national celebration of the notion that what matters is winning” not playing by the rules. Carter observes the ground rules for a civil & democratic society must include a set of Rules of Reason for the purposive state (a state that has a purpose to exist in the lives of its people). These foundational guidelines include the propositions: 12 As addressed by: Gerald Parshall (March 18, 1996) Yale’s Doctor of Dialogue, U.S. News & World Report, Article summary abridged and edited into text of this section. 13 George F. Will (May 13, 1996). The Politics of Soulcraft, Newsweek, Article summary abridged and edited into text of this section. 14 As addressed by: John Leo (April 29, 1996). Forget Lincoln, what about me?, U.S. News World Report, Article summary abridged and edited into text of this section. 247 | Brem & Sweeney ~ 2018 ~ Government and Politics in the United States  The nation exists for its people. The purpose of the purposive state – its social contract - is to serve “the people” and not just the elites; and the citizens have a civic virtue driven responsibility to one another through the community bonds of the polis.  Some things are more important than others; such as the requisites of a right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness honoring human dignity of all citizens  Consistency matters; we cannot have any human rights we cannot and will to defend  Everybody gets to play & engage here; o Regardless of differing world views, we need to respect & listen to one another and cease trying to exclude people with whom we are uncomfortable with their lives and cease seeking to impose rigid religious views on the private lives of others as a matter of public policy in the public sphere. In a democracy, freedom is always the right to be different.  We must be willing to talk about right and wrong in terms of “the life ethic” without mentioning the constitution  Our politics must call us to our higher selves: soulcraft  We must listen to one another with civility  We need to reclaim the memory of the self-evident fact: in a democracy sometimes the other side wins and we must cease trying to undermine debate, voting, and compromise with polarizing moves in the public sphere. To live an “integral life,” people must strive to discern right from wrong in terms of the life ethic, act on what they discern “even at personal cost” and then articulate that they are doing so because it is a doing right: what Gwynn Johnson refers to as the requisites of being a good human. And in a democracy, people must not only have the courage of their own world view driven convictions, they must respect the world view convictions of others. Also, we cannot not be democratic, civil, nor integral, and use stereotypes, bigotries, nor ideological labels to deny people the right “to be understood as a full person.” Carter argues the ugliness of racism is a risk of to everyone’s life and yet, without ceasing to consistently decry the evil of bigotry, still seek to see that even people with dark world views are not going away (they are a part of this community) and we need to seek out to connect with a basic goodness in people that can be reached; with empathy and understanding. Dialogue is a way to learn and grow together in a democracy, Truth, like integrity, is a journey as much as a destination. George Will discussing the ideas of Michael Sandel says the collective discontent in our society derives from the degradation we have allowed to occur in our democratic ideals. They argue American political discourse has become thin gruel because of a deliberate deflation of American ideals. Politics has been impoverished and life coarsened by the abandonment of the idea that self-government should be - indeed, cannot help but be - a “formative” project shaping the character of citizens. Republican Virtue: Time was when political disputants shared the premise that the success of society – the purposive state - should be judged in terms of whether it was conductive to the cultivation of the kind of character needed for self-government and that 248 | Brem & Sweeney ~ 2018 ~ Government and Politics in the United States cannot be taken for granted. People engaging in political discourse and in governance thought hard about what the De Tocqueville called “the slow and quiet actions of society upon itself.” Sandel notes that the American economic system (solely focused upon individualism and profits and winning at all cost) is increasingly in conflict and at odds with the civic conception of freedom; substantive human liberty and right. The notion that the civic consequence of economic arrangements do not matter; and that consumption is the sole end and object of all economic activity has led to a deplorable devastation of “Main Street” (i.e. where real people struggle to survive day-to-day) the Wal-Martization of society (destroying real self-sufficient local economic health) and Wall Street (private sector) values and property rights being given primacy over public sector civic and social sector cultural values and human rights. Sandel and Will argue we ought by all rights regret the missing moral dimension in public discourse and the destruction of the public sphere in the face of selfish private sector values in all things. This is what Hanna Arendt refers to as “Dark Times” in a deteriorating social contract. Will argues that we must reclaim the classical philosophical proposition that Statecraft is Soulcraft! One primary purpose of the state is nurturance of a sense of a public philosophy and civic and personal republican virtue in the people as citizens, workers, and persons. Recalling lessons learned by and articulated by Abraham Lincoln; and also citing Michael Sandel, we need to decry the systemic degradation of moral norms (honoring the human dignity of the people seeking to create a good society that serves the souls {statecraft as soulcraft} of its citizens - a “formative” project shaping the character of citizens - as people) in society and in the guiding principles of American Governance in practice today (i.e. the democratic and civil society norms guiding public, private, and social sector interactions with personal & socio-political consequences). In Sandel’s argument, if Madison or Lincoln returned to present-day America, neither would recognize “procedural republic” that has quickly replaced the political framework they sought to create. This “procedural republic” is based on the idea that government should be neutral toward the moral questions in policy – that we can only seek answers of how to enact policy but do not seek to ask if we ought to enact policies, Arendt and Camilla Stivers argue this is a hallmark of a banality of evil in governance in dark times with potential dark consequences and threats to the requisites of the “life ethic” in public policy, social relations, and in life (Robert Brem’s notion that this is the most functional basis {related to the reciprocity principle [i.e. “golden rule”]} for evaluating good policy in creating a good society: i.e. psychological and biological health) of the people in all their roles as persons, workers, and citizens. This invitation of dark times occurs when we frame everything in terms of individual rights, autonomy, privacy, and choice. The search for the good has yielded to the search for selfish private rights at the cost of community bonds of cohesion, stability, and domestic tranquility & the general welfare. There are simply seriously profound problems in basing 249 | Brem & Sweeney ~ 2018 ~ Government and Politics in the United States our politics only upon “the image of the self as free and independent; unencumbered by aims and attachments it does not choose itself…” denying any sense of a public spirit and civil or republican virtue. Attention to the common & public good withers as a “thin pluralism” preoccupies all actors and dominate socio-political actions in (pubic, private, and social sector) governance with merely and only self, rights, and preferences. Even the minimal demands of citizenship come to be seen as obstacles to this self-centered autonomy. The consequence of this loss of soulcraft in statecraft is we become ever more unable to address the confusions and sense of disempowerment that afflict our politics and society and personal relationships. Lincoln said: “policy should express such moral judgement, not avoid it.” For example, he argued, bracketing the issue of slavery as merely a policy issue to be neutrally addressed would have wrongly signaled that slavery was not a moral evil. Such a “procedural republic” approach “cannot contain the moral energies of a vital democratic life.” A vital democratic life means that we need broad democratic argument beyond merely rights-based debate and recall that democracy is dependent upon the virtue, character, and moral input of its citizens. Exploring and mapping human purpose Carl Sagan15 argued “We have always been explorers. It is part of our nature. Since we first evolved a million years or so ago in Africa, we have wandered and explored our way across the planet.” He suggests that dreams explore and map human purpose and the direction towards the future we seek. I look into my children's eyes and ask myself what kind of future we are preparing for them. We have offered them visions of a future in which--unable to read, to think, to invent, to compete, to make things work, to anticipate events--our nation sinks into lethargy and economic decay; in which ignorance and greed conspire to destroy the air, the water, the soil and the climate; in which, with over 50,000 nuclear warheads still in existence, we permit a nuclear holocaust. The visions we present to our children shape the future. It matters what those visions are. Often they become selffulfilling prophecies. Dreams are maps. I do not think it irresponsible to portray even the direst futures; if we are to avoid them, we must understand that they are possible. But where are the alternatives? Where are the dreams that motivate and inspire? Where are the visions of hopeful futures, of times when technology is a tool for human well-being and not a gun on hair trigger pointed at our heads? Our children long for realistic maps of a future they (and we) can be proud of. Where are the cartographers of human purpose? …Like Tom Paine, I believe it is our responsibility to create a future worthy of our children, to fulfill the promise… to open up the universe to those intrepid explorers from planet Earth. 15 Sagan, C. (Set/Oct 1992). Dreams Are Maps: Exploration and Human Purpose, The Planetary Report. 250 | Brem & Sweeney ~ 2018 ~ Government and Politics in the United States In his book "Contact," Carl Sagan16 explored the idea of a universe in which we understand there are not any absolute truths -- only an infinite and diverse array of possible realties and futures. It is our dreams that determine which manifests. The universe is so vast and full, such that, if there is only Earth upon which there is “intelligent” life,” it is a terrible waste. While we will never have final answers about so many things, such is the nature of knowledge, the most important thing is to believe what one feels is his or her own truth that has survived your own rigorous critical challenges. And only in a world where we have the human rights which guarantee this freedom to think and be as we choose can allow us to become equal to our greatest aspirations. The nature of belief has within it the potential to create anything we choose. We are all vulnerable yet strong; wide-eyed and intelligent yet scared; beautiful yet ugly. Humans are capable of beautiful dreams and such terrible nightmares. Humans are capable of progress and a lot of good, as well as destruction and evil. In this world there have been Hitlers and Mother Teresas, love, understanding, tolerance as well as hatred, war and corruption. Sagan calls upon us to be reflective about the human condition and the longing to reach out to the unknown. Whether there is a God out there or not, we have each other and far more important than faith is love and the spirit of a tolerant and peace-loving humanity however different we may be from one another. “Government should be a place where people can come together, and no one gets left behind. No one…gets left behind! …An instrument of good.” ~ Aaron Sorkin And “...if at any time, the universe is what we say it is... Then, Say!” ~ James Burke FloatingOpera7 (5 June 2006). user comments for Contact, http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0118884/usercomments?start=50, accessed: 6-30-09. adapted text following remix protocol. 16 251 | Brem & Sweeney ~ 2018 ~ Government and Politics in the United States 252 | Brem & Sweeney ~ 2018 ~ Government and Politics in the United States

Tutor Answer

School: University of Virginia



Political Socialization



Political socialization

Political socialization is defined in the course text as a process in which individuals
acquire a political identity. This identity covers multiple dimensions including the core beliefs
that an individual holds with regard to the human nature, their nation, the government, the
economy, and the attitude that one holds towards the government officials and the politicians
(Brem & Sweeney, 2018, 136). Due to this wide scope of political socialization, it differs
considerably from one individual to another and from time to time and particularly in
democracies like the US. However, there are a number of factors that contribute to the
diversities in political socialization.
The factors that contribute to diversity in political socialization are also known as
agents of political socialization. ...

flag Report DMCA

Goes above and beyond expectations !

Similar Questions
Hot Questions
Related Tags

Brown University

1271 Tutors

California Institute of Technology

2131 Tutors

Carnegie Mellon University

982 Tutors

Columbia University

1256 Tutors

Dartmouth University

2113 Tutors

Emory University

2279 Tutors

Harvard University

599 Tutors

Massachusetts Institute of Technology

2319 Tutors

New York University

1645 Tutors

Notre Dam University

1911 Tutors

Oklahoma University

2122 Tutors

Pennsylvania State University

932 Tutors

Princeton University

1211 Tutors

Stanford University

983 Tutors

University of California

1282 Tutors

Oxford University

123 Tutors

Yale University

2325 Tutors