Introduction to GOVT 2301
American National & State
Governments I
Welcome
This set of slides is designed to (1)
explain the role education is meant
to play in a democratic republic, (2)
broadly define the word
“government, and (3) broadly
define the word “politics.”
As with all other sections, you will
be assessed over your
understanding of this material.
Look at the syllabus for the dates.
You will note that there are lots of
slides here – consider this to be a
chapter and give it that much
attention.
As you know, this is one of two
required classes designed to
introduce you to the United States
and Texas government. We will at
the constitutions of each, the basic
language of government and
politics, and the nature of
American political institutions.
These are the basic
subjects we cover in this class
- The Natural Rights
- Constitutional Design
- Civil Liberties and Rights
- Elections
- Political Parties
- The Participatory Rights of
Speech, Press, Assembly and Petition
Other items are
covered in GOVT 2302
These will include the History,
Constitutional Structure and
Contemporary Design of the
Legislative, Executive and Judicial
Branches.
Why is it important
that you know this stuff?
Why is this a required class?
Here’s an attempt at an answer:
Because you are citizens
of (or at least residents in) a
democratic republic.
The legitimacy of democrat republics is based on
the people; its actions are the culmination of
the preferences of the population.
That is what “consent of the governed”
ultimately means.
Consent is expressed subtly when individuals
choose to follow or not follow the laws, or to
pay taxes, or protect the republic when
threatened, or participating in public events like
elections.
But people can consent to all sorts
of things.
People sometimes consent to
authoritarian governments.
An educated participatory and
virtuous citizenry has always been
considered to be necessary to the
survival of a democratic republic.
Why?
Because democratic republics are
fragile. History provides many
examples of them losing public
support and falling into anarchy
and then despotism.
Here’s a key historical example:
Ancient Rome.
After almost 500 years as a Republic
(509 BC–27 BC), where it was ruled by
its citizens, Rome became an empire.
The driving force behind this change
was Julius Caesar.
The nation’s founders were generally
classically educated and were familiar
with the history of Rome and while
they desired to create a republic, they
wanted to ensure that it lasted.
(By the way: Who were the founders?
Here’s the Wikipedia page on who
qualifies as a “founder.”
Before we continue (and in case you
are curious) what is a Republic?
A republic is a type of government
where the citizens choose the leaders
of their country and the people (or at
least a part of its people) have an
impact on its government. -Wikipedia
It is a governing system where the
people rule themselves.
But while a republic, Rome was
also chaotic, unstable, and
sometimes ungovernable. Leaders
were often corrupt and unpopular.
This instability and corruption led to a
general contempt towards the
governing system and civil war.
An ambitious general – Julius Caesar –
was able to take advantage of popular
discontent to attempt to take over all
levers of governing power.
He failed because he was assassinated
by Senators who were aware of his
plans, now you know why he was
killed.
Have you ever heard the phrase Et tu,
Brute?. (Here’s some information
about Marcus Junius Brutus – these
names will matter soon enough)
Click here for a scene from HBO’s
Rome which recreates the scene.
While Julius Caesar failed, his
nephew Augustus Caesar would
succeed in establishing an empire.
Here’s a quick video about him.
But what is an empire?
“A major political unit having a territory of
great extent or a number of territories or
peoples under a single sovereign authority;
especially : one having an emperor as chief
of state. The territory of such a political
unit. Something resembling a political
empire; especially : an extensive territory
or enterprise under single domination or
control.”
During the empire, all civil and
military power rested with an
emperor. The people had no say in
governance, though emperors had
to appease them in order to
minimize the possibility of
rebellion.
An empire is a governing system
where the people are ruled by an
emperor and have little ability, if
any, to directly participate in public
affairs.
But ironically, empires can also be
peaceful and prosperous.
The chaotic republic was
transformed into a more peaceful
empire. After Augustus there
would be over 200 years of peace
in Rome: The Pax Romana.
This creates a dilemma: Which
system is preferable?
Do you want to be free in a system
that is chaotic and violent or one
that is less free (or at least one
where you cannot participate
politically) but where you are
secure and prosperous?
Is it possible to be both?
A bit more history from the
movies: The emperor who would
end the Pax Romana was
Commodus – the guy from the
Gladiator. It is argued that the
decline of the Roman Empire
began with his rule.
A few videos on You Tube try to
explain this transition. Here are a
few you might want to watch:
Rome: The Fall of the Republic (1-4)
So the question became: What
factors led to the decline of the
Republic, and could the decline
have been prevented?
In short: Is a republic – a system of
government based on the people sustainable?
Is order and liberty possible?
Here’s a provocative read:
Renewing Our Experiment in
Ordered Liberty
So the question posed – the one
that obsessed the founding
generation – was: What system of
government, if any, can best
preserve order and liberty in the
long run?
As a practical matter – considering that
the early empire seemed temporarily
to be a successful system – what
balance ought to be struck between
popular rule and a central state?
And once that balance is struck, can
the citizenry maintain it?
There was a general belief among the
educated around the time of the
founding that civilizations tended to
have a life cycle that followed a
specific pattern.
A 19th century artist, Thomas Cole,
made this the subject of a series of
paintings called The Course of Empire.
The Savage State
The Pastoral State
The Consummation of Empire
Destruction
Desolation
Notice that political systems
develop, then decay. Political
commentators like to speculate on
where we might be in this timeline.
This talk by Niall Ferguson (well regarded smart
guy) provides an alternative take on the rise and
decline of current western civilization.
That’s the basic question: Is self
government really possible?
In a nutshell, that is the American
Experiment.
Benjamin Franklin put it this way:
Mrs. Powel: "Well Doctor, what have
we got, a republic or a monarchy?"
Benjamin Franklin: "A republic if you
can keep it“
- An exchange alleged to have taken
place at the conclusion of the
Constitutional Convention.
Abraham Lincoln would also ask
the question, posed differently,
during a challenge to the
preservation of the republic:
“Four score and seven years ago our
fathers brought forth on this continent a
new nation, conceived in Liberty, and
dedicated to the proposition that all men
are created equal. Now we are engaged in
a great civil war, testing whether that
nation, or any nation, so conceived and so
dedicated, can long endure. …”
Abraham Lincoln
The opening of the Gettysburg Address
So why are republics difficult to
maintain?
The founders argued that the basic
problem stems from human nature.
Are we naturally co-operative or do we
like to fight? Are we willing to make
sacrifices for the greater good or are
we purely self interested? Can we
contain our ambition?
A democratic republic can only be
maintained if the people are willing
to look after a society’s long term
needs.
"Public virtue cannot exist in a
nation without private, and public
virtue is the only foundation of
republics." - John Adams
Public Virtue
But the founders were not certain
that the general public (you and I)
were up to the task.
They assumed that people tended
to be more focused on short term
personal needs, which is not
conducive to the maintenance of a
Republic.
Many argued that the role of the
general population needed to be
curtailed in order to maintain
stability.
Here’s a quote from Alexander
Hamilton.
“For my part, I am not much attached to the majesty of
the multitude, and therefore waive all pretensions
(founded on such conduct), to their countenance. I
consider them in general as very ill qualified to judge
for themselves what government will best suit their
peculiar situations; nor is this to be wondered at. The
science of government is not easily understood. Cato
will admit, I presume, that men of good education and
deep reflection, only, are judges of the form of a
government; whether it is constituted on such
principles as will restrain arbitrary power, on the one
hand, and equal to the exclusion of corruption and the
destruction of licentiousness on the other”
- (Caesar #2) Alexander Hamilton
This, by the way, was not an especially
wise thing to say politically.
Neither was it wise to sign the
document “Caesar.” He would not
repeat this mistake when he co-wrote
the Federalist Papers and signed them
“Publius.” (more on this soon enough)
We are all, they assumed, prone to
certain deficiencies:
Corruption
Ambition
Complacency
Self Interest
All create problems for the maintenance of
a republic. Note: A key philosophic dispute
is whether human nature can be improved.
Enlightenment thinkers fought this out.
The founders seemed to think it could not
be improved and a governing system had
to compensate for this.
Click here for fuller background on the
Enlightenment.
What’s worse, democratic
republics tend to develop the very
factors that will lead to their
demise.
The freer people are, the more
they can engage in conflict over
social affairs, including how
government ought to be run and
over who ought to be in charge.
This can create further dissension
that can lead to the dismantling of
the republic.
Democracies are inevitably unstable.
James Madison would make this case
in Federalist #10: “The instability,
injustice, and confusion introduced
into the public councils, have, in truth,
been the mortal diseases under which
popular Governments have
everywhere perished”
Notice that this conflict develops
because people are free to
develop, articulate and act on their
own opinions.
They are a consequence of
individual freedom.
Which makes the question even
more pertinent:
Is self government in fact possible?
American Government is founded, in a
sense, on a contradiction. While it is
based on the people (popular
sovereignty) historically the people
have demonstrated themselves not to
be a solid foundation for government.
At least the elites thought so.
The country’s founders did not necessarily
expect the republic to last. Previous republics
had not. One of history’s lessons is that
democracies tend to be very short lived. That
was what they took not only from Rome, but
also the Athenian Democracy.
The Wikipedia entry on Athenian democracy has
a section on the criticism of it that details the
deficiencies the founders were concerned
about. The democracy would eventually be
converted into an imperialist empire.
Similar criticism were made
regarding the English
Commonwealth as well as the
America under the Articles of
Confederation. Governing was
chaotic and unstable, and the
rights of the minority were not
protected.
This suggested that self government
may not be possible, perhaps the
natural state of government was rule
by the few over the many (some still
argue that this is the case).
But the American people were un a
unique position to determine whether
or not this was possible.
Alexander Hamilton (later, when he
seemed to have moderated his
stance on the capabilities of the
general public) would claim that
this was the question America was
to answer for the world.
“It has been frequently remarked that it seems
to have been reserved to the people of this
country, by their conduct and example, to
decide the important question, whether
societies of men are really capable or not of
establishing good government from reflection
and choice, or whether they are forever
destined to depend for their political
constitutions on accident and force.”
- Publius (Alexander Hamilton), Federalist #1
As we will see later, he made this
argument regarding the ratification
of the constitution. He believed
that the republic would not survive
under the Articles of
Confederation.
Notice the choices: “Reflection and
choice” or “Accident and force.”
Would people make the right
choice – rationally and deliberately
– or would they allow events to
determine how they were
governed?
For a current example, think of the struggle over the deficit and
debt. Are we making deliberate decisions to solve these or are
we continually delaying decisions? Will we make a rational
decision to solve these problems or will external forces impose?
The governmental system is a
choice, it only survives to the
degree that people make choices
that maintain it.
What are we willing to consent to?
People have consented to be ruled
in all sorts of ways.
Is the general population capable
of offering informed consent?
What are people willing
to consent to?
Is the general population willing to
be persuaded to support one party
or the other, or one candidate or
the other, for superficial short
sighted reasons harmful to the
long term interests of the
community?
In Ancient Rome (the period of
empire) the support of the population
was purchased with Bread and
Circuses.
Can the support of the people be
bought? At what price? As we will see
later, this is one of the reasons why we
are a republic, not a pure democracy.
Government based on popular
consent requires an educated
population capable of providing a
solid basis for governing.
. . . an educated choice . . .
An understanding of the principles
of government is argued necessary
to maintain the republic.
That’s what this class is supposed
to accomplish.
But here’s the problem:
Most public opinion surveys
demonstrate that people lack the
knowledge about governmental
issues, and the attentiveness to
politics that was expected
necessary by the founders.
Some links to some disturbing poll
results:
- PEW Research
- How Dumb Are We?
- Is voter ignorance killing
democracy?
As we saw with Hamilton, many
founders expected that the mass
public would be incapable of selfgovernment and purposely limited
participation to a ruling class that
would have the ability to govern
effectively.
Cato Institute: Why Policymakers
Should Ignore Public Opinion Polls.
This was one of the reasons why
participation was limited to
property owners for much of
American history. Here’s an
instructive quote:
Those who own America ought to
govern it. - John Jay
Jay not only helped write the
Constitution, he co-wrote some of
the Federalist Papers, and served
as the first Supreme Court Justice.
But since the early years of the
republic, suffrage has expanded
considerably. Participation has
broadened.
We have evolved into a more full
democracy than we were at our
founding.
Public education has been seen as
being central to this effort. An
educated citizenry can more
effectively govern itself.
Here’s some interesting
commentary:
Education for Civitas: The Lessons
Americans Must Learn
Thomas Jefferson was an early
promoter of civic education. He was a
driving force behind two pieces of
legislation that promoted education.
1- A Bill for the More General Diffusion of
Knowledge
2 – The Northwest Ordinance
Preamble to a Bill for the More
General Diffusion of Knowledge
Here is a link to the entire bill.
“Whereas it appeareth that however certain forms of
government are better calculated than others to protect
individuals in the free exercise of their natural rights, and are at
the same time themselves better guarded against degeneracy,
yet experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms,
those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow
operations, perverted it into tyranny; and it is believed that the
most effectual means of preventing this would be, to illuminate,
as far as practicable, the minds of the people at large, and more
especially to give them knowledge of those facts, which history
exhibiteth, that, possessed thereby of the experience of other
ages and countries, they may be enabled to know ambition
under all its shapes, and prompt to exert their natural powers to
defeat its purposes.” – From the Preamble.
In a nutshell, that is what this class
is about – what an educated
republic is supposed to be able to
do: recognize attempts to establish
tyranny, and how to adequately
respond to it.
The Northwest Ordinance (1787)
established the rules regarding the
development of the territory that
would become Ohio, Michigan,
Indiana, Illinois and Wisconsin (click
here for background from the Library
of Congress).
It encouraged the development of
schools.
Art. 3. Religion, morality, and
knowledge, being necessary to
good government and the
happiness of mankind, schools and
the means of education shall
forever be encouraged.
In addition, the lack of a system of
public education was used as by
the Texas settlers as a reason to
justify revolution against Mexico.
One of the grievances listed in the
Texas Declaration of Independence
made this point.
“It [the Mexican Government] has failed to
establish any public system of education,
although possessed of almost boundless
resources, (the public domain,) and
although it is an axiom in political science,
that unless a people are educated and
enlightened, it is idle to expect the
continuance of civil liberty, or the capacity
for self government.”
But over American history there
has been a struggle over what civic
education means, what should be
taught, how and by whom.
The ongoing battles in the Texas
State Board of Education over the
government curriculum are an
example.
This overview should explain why
the Texas legislature wants you to
takes this class.
If you want to file a grievance about it – that’s
where you should take it. . . . Just sayin’
After this semester is through, you
should have a general sense of the
principles of American government
and the various debates that have
occurred over history regarding
those principles.
For purposes of this class, this
means having an understanding of
basic governing principles, a basic
appreciation of the rules of the
game, and the terminology of
government and politics.
We will begin with a
definition of a few terms.
And these are the two basic terms
that will define what we cover in
class:
“Government”
“Politics”
Here are two, of the many,
definitions of “Government”
- The institution, or institutions, with the
monopoly on the legitimate use of
coercion in society
- The institutions and procedures through
which a land and its people are ruled.
And here are three, of the many, definitions of
“Politics”
1- The authoritarian allocation of values in
society.
2 - The struggle over who gets what when and
how.
3 - Intrigue or maneuvering within a political
unit in order to gain control or power
These terms are distinct.
“Government” refers to the
institutions that possess the
authority to rule, “politics” refers
to the efforts to influence what
those rules will look like.
We should discuss one more term
so that the rest of these slides
make sense.
Sovereignty
Three definitions of “sovereignty”
1 - supreme power, especially over a body
politic
2 - the quality of having supreme,
independent authority over a territory
3 - the power to do everything in a state
without accountability
In the U.S. we claim that
sovereignty rests with the people.
Of course, things get complicated
after that since the people cannot
directly rule – but we will dig into
this later.
The terms effectively refers to who
is in charge. The United States, we
are reminded continually, is based
on popular sovereignty. Authority
rests on the people – the consent
of the governed.
. . . though we commonly whether this is in fact the
case . . .
Here is a key controversy
concerning sovereignty:
Do the people always retain
sovereignty or, once they agree to
establish governing institutions,
and elected people to hold
positions in those institutions, do
they surrender that right to those
institutions with the understanding
that they can keep them in check
through periodic elections?
How much direct and immediate
control do “the people” have over
government?
As we will see soon enough, the
people (more specifically – the
electorate) have little direct control
over government.
Back to defining the first term:
“What is Government?”
This is the term used to define the
institutions that have evolved to
establish and implement rules that
determine how a group of people
will live together in some
agreeable way.
Here’s a trivial way to approach the
issue.
Among other things, a government
helps determine what types of
transportation systems will be
developed and what rules will
determine how people use them.
Think of roads and the various rules
(drive on the right hand side of the
road, stop for red lights, and drive at
reasonable rates of speed) that allow
people to use them safely.
These are also imposed authoritatively
to ensure they are obeyed.
We will discuss controversies regarding
what types of goods and services are
best provided by the public or private
sector soon enough, but for now think
of government as the entity that has
the authority to make – and more
importantly implement – rules that
govern interrelationships and
transactions among people.
The nature of these rules is subject
to limitations imposed by the
general population – this takes us
back to the consent of the
governed.
This is a political question though –
more on that below.
Here’s some history: There are two
models which describe the evolution
and origins of government.
1 - Coercion: Government
based on force.
2 - Consent: Government
based on an agreement.
A quick qualifier is in order.
Governments have to have
coercive power in order to exist.
They have to be able to coerce
people to follow the laws and to
pay taxes. Which means that the
two basic components of
government are law enforcement
and revenue collection.
Governments historically evolve
due to coercion. One group forces
another to join with them, or fall
under their dominion.
This is the most historically
accurate description about how
governments evolve.
Examples are numerous:
- Roman conquest of Britain
- Muslim conquests
- Mongol conquests
- Spanish conquest of the Aztec
Empire
In these systems, sovereignty rests
with the rulers, not the ruled. The
ruled are subject to whatever the
conquerors choose.
These governments are kept in
place through violence.
A government that rests on
consent derives its authority from
the general population. The ruled
are also the rulers. The only
justification for governmental
authority is the consent of the
governed.
American government is based on
consent. A group of individuals in a
state of nature join together for
mutual security and in order to
better achieve group goals.
This is stated in the
Declaration of Independence.
While we will dig into this
document more fully soon, the
following paragraph outlines this
idea.
We hold these truths to be self-evident:
That all men are created equal; that they are endowed
by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that
among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of
happiness; that, to secure these rights, governments
are instituted among men, deriving their just powers
from the consent of the governed; that whenever any
form of government becomes destructive of these
ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish
it, and to institute new government, laying its
foundation on such principles, and organizing its
powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely
to effect their safety and happiness.
As we will see in the next section, the
Declaration of Independence was
based on John Locke’s Second Treatise
on Government (1689), which
develops the idea that man is born in a
state of nature and consents to form a
government for mutual security,
among other reasons.
The theory begins with the
assumption that people are
endowed with rights and argues
that a government is consented to
in order to secure those rights.
Otherwise these rights are
insecure.
Others are always interested in
taking your stuff.
This provides a justification for the
existence of government, and a
general sense of what a
government is supposed to do.
But what is a government in fact?
We will now turn to governing
institutions in order to determine
what they are and what they do.
In the American system, there are
three types of governing powers
and these are vested in three types
of institutions:
Legislative
Executive
Judicial
As we will see soon enough, these
are the separated powers.
James Madison argued that the
concentration of these three
powers in one person or
institutions is the very definition of
tyranny (absolute rule). We will
explore this more deeply later.
These are, in turn, the:
Law Making Branches
Law Implementing Branches
Adjudicating Branches
They are generally composed of:
Representative Assemblies
Administrative Agencies
Independent Courts
Note the adjectives. The legislative
assembly is designed to represent the
will of the electorate, the executive is
designed to effectively implement the
decisions made by the legislature, and
the judiciary is supposed to impartially
adjudicate disputes over the
implementation of that law.
As we will see in future lectures, in
the American system, these three
institutions are designed to be
independent from each other (the
separated powers) and serve to
check each other’s power in order
to keep them in their proper places
(the checks and balances).
One of the major accomplishments
of Anglo-American governance was
the development of separate
governing institutions with defined
job descriptions and the ability to
restrain each other.
The most important of these
accomplishments was the ability to
restrain executive power.
We will discuss this more
thoroughly in the next section.
We will also note that these
institutions exist on the national,
state and local levels. The term for
this, we will discover, is federalism.
The point is that the American
governing system is very
decentralized and very complex as
well.
While each institution is held to be
equal, they aren’t really.
In reality, the legislative and
executive branches are stronger
than the judicial.
The Legislature possesses the
power of the purse
It can impose taxes and distribute
spending.
The Executive possesses the power
of the sword.
It implements the law. In some
sense, the term government in the
minds of many means the
executive.
This is an important point. In order to
be a called a “government,” a
governing entity has to be able to (1)
compel individuals to follow the law
and (2) to collect revenue.
The executive has the power to do
both, but is supposed to be restrained
by the legislature and judiciary.
The Judiciary is only as strong as the
other branches are willing to allow it
to be. It has no control over the purse
or the sword, apart from its ability to
check the powers of the executive and
legislature. Its primary power is
influence. Its influence depend on how
fair people think its decisions are.
What different types of
government can exist?
There are many.
There are two simple ways to
distinguish types of government.
We can ask two questions:
1- Where is sovereignty located?
2 – How much individual freedom
is allowed?
Again, the first way to distinguish
between governmental systems is
to determine where is sovereignty
located.
There are three possibilities: in the
one, the few or the many.
Autocracy - where there is rule by
the one
Oligarchy – Where there is rule by
the few
Democracy – Where there is rule
by the many
To tied these into recent events,
here are links to blog posts on each
subject:
autocracy
oligarchy
democracy
Each has advantages and
disadvantages.
Autocracies are efficient, meaning they
can act quickly. The fewer people
needed to respond to a crisis, the
more effectively it can be addressed.
But the rule can also be very arbitrary.
There are no rules in place that can
limit the actions of government, so the
autocrat can do what he or she
pleases.
Oligarchies are capable, meaning that the
ruling class is often composed of people
who have some general skills, knowledge
or ability that makes it more likely that
they can rule well, but their rule can be
biased. The benefits handed out by
government are more likely to flow to
them and those they choose to reward.
Oligarchies commonly use hereditary or
class distinctions to confer these
advantages.
Democracies are generally
considered to be legitimate by the
populations they rule over,
meaning that their decisions are
more likely to be accepted by the
general population since they see
themselves as being participants in
their formation.
But democracies, since they are driven
by a majority, prone to passion and
succumb to mob violence.
They have a tendency to not respect
the rights of the minority, and can be
as tyrannical as any other type of
government. It was a Greek democracy
that executed Socrates.
The founders believed that they
were prone to chaos and
instability.
Unstable Greek democracies were
taken over by tyrants.
Remember the Greek troops in
300?
They were Spartans – that was a
military dictatorship, not a
democracy.
Each of these systems are
incorporated into the American
constitutional system.
This allows for the benefits of each to
be incorporated into the government,
and the disadvantages of each to –
hopefully - be checked by the other
two.
Legislatures are Democratic
Executives are Autocratic
Judiciaries are Oligarchic
The (democratic) U.S. House of
Representatives is composed of 435 people
selected from 435 distinct districts around
the country. These people are held in check
with two years terms and regular elections.
It is specially designed to contain within it
all of the conflict one is likely to see in the
country at large. It is where all the various
voices in the nation are meant to be heard.
The Senate is a bit less democratic
since they are selected for six year
terms. They were also initially
selected by the state legislatures.
The (autocratic) executive branch
on the national level is headed by a
single person in order to ensure
that it has the ability to act quickly
and decisively. Once laws are
passed, they are to be efficiently
implemented.
The (oligarchic) judiciary is
composed of a small set of
individuals appointed to office with
the intent that they be highly
educated and skilled. The office is
designed to give them the
independence necessary to do
their job without being limited by
the general population.
More on democracy
Since we identify ourselves as
democratic, here’s more detail on
democracy.
Definition: a government in which the
supreme power is vested in the people
and exercised by them directly or
indirectly through a system of
representation usually involving
periodically held free elections.
There are generally three
components of democracy
Universal Adult Suffrage
Majority Rule
Minority Rights
All adults should be able to vote. As
we will see in a future section, the
expansion of the vote occurred
gradually over the course of history.
The majority (or some such criteria)
should make decision about public
affairs. But there ought to be limits to
what the majority can do in order to
protect the rights of minorities.
We will note in coming sections the
tension between majority rule and
minority rights. We will point out that
democratic societies are not
necessarily free. Majorities can
tyrannize minorities quite easily in a
democracy.
Tyranny of the Majority
There are two types of democracy
Direct (or Pure)
Indirect (or Representative)
In a pure democracy, the people
are able to directly vote for
legislation while in a representative
democracy the people vote for
others who will pass laws, and
then hold them accountable in
periodic elections.
The United States is an indirect
democracy. We vote for
representatives and hold them
accountable.
Some states (though not Texas)
allow for direct democracy –
referenda, initiatives, recall
elections.
The distinction touches on a critical
issue. Democracy means rule by the
people, but how closely should the
people be able to rule?
Should decisions be instantaneously
implemented, or should there be
institutions to modify their direct
impact?
And example of a pure, or direct,
democracy:
The New England
town hall meeting.
Are these good or bad? Decision making is
kept close to the people, but passionate,
unjust decisions can be made by them, and
be implemented very quickly – before
people can think about whether the
decision was just.
We will note in Federalist #10 that James
Madison did not like these type of
government.
“Alexis de Tocqueville once said
that "local institutions," such as
town meetings, were ‘to liberty
what primary schools are to
science.’“ – WaPo.
- History of Town Meeting in New
England.
Here’s a famous example of unjust
decisions made and implemented
quickly: The Salem Witch Trials.
The Founders were uninterested in
founding a direct – or “pure” –
democracy. They believed that many
of the problems they faced were
caused by the excessive democracies
created under the Articles of
Confederation. Institutions composed
of representatives should come
between the people and the law.
They were suspicious of
democracy, and wished to
establish the Constitution as a way
to allow for broad participation,
but check it.
Click here for quotes regarding the
excesses of democracy.
The second way to distinguish
between governmental systems:
How much individual freedom is
allowed?
Three relevant terms:
Totalitarian
Authoritarian
Constitutional
And here are links to stories
related to each on the blog:
totalitarianism
authoritarianism
constitutionalism
In a totalitarian system, all power
rests with the state. There is no
sense of individualism as we might
recognize it.
But totalitarian governments are
difficult and costly to sustain. The
bright individual can be seen as a
threat and resource are used to
contain them. The most totalitarian
countries tend to also be the
poorest.
Here is Parade Magazine’s list of
the ten worst dictators of 2009.
Authoritarian governments wish to
expand their power, but tend to
have to share power with other
institutions in society and are
unable to have total control.
They are totalitarian wannabes.
Constitutional governments are
based on enforceable
constitutions. These place limits on
their power. As a consequence, a
priority is placed on individual
freedom.
A constitutional system is also
called a system of limited
government.
It is the only one where meaningful
limits are placed on the powers of
government. The others are prone
to arbitrary rule.
More on constitutions:
The nature of these freedoms and
limitations are spelled out in a
country’s constitution.
We will spend several weeks on
this subject soon.
First, a definition: what is a Constitution?
“A set of rules for a government that articulate
its powers and functions, and establishes its
institutions, principles, structures and
procedures. It also establishes its relationship
with the general population by clearly stating its
limits and the rights of the people.”
A Constitution does not simply
limit power by stating what its
institutions cannot do, but by also
properly balancing the various
powers within society so that no
one can dominate the others.
But here’s an important question:
Why value individual freedom?
Why should governments allow
people to be free? What’s in it for
them?
There are at least two answers
1 – Freedom is a natural right,
something that a government must
protect.
2 – There are tangible benefits to
living in a free society. Wealth
tends to grow in free societies.
The first is a philosophical question
which we will save for next week.
For now simply recall the argument
in the Declaration of Independence
above. It states that it is a self
evident truth that people are born
with unalienable rights and that
governments are established to
preserve them.
As for the second: Free societies
tend to be wealthier than un-free
societies. An independent business
and academic sector can emerge
and introduce new ideas that can
enhance the well being of the
people and the nation.
Minimal governmental
interference with business and
social affairs allows for innovation
and development.
There tends to be a positive
relationship between freedom and
national wealth.
Adam Smith argued that free
markets promoted the general
welfare by unleashing the
productive power and the
ingenuity of individuals within
society. He wrote these thoughts
out in The Wealth of Nations.
John Stuart Mill argued that free
speech did the same. People
should be free to challenge
orthodox beliefs – scientific beliefs
for example - since that allows
societies to swap error for truth.
But free markets allow for the
development of powerful interests
outside the control of government
Businesses
Corporations
Universities
Religious Institutions
etc . . .
And free speech allows for those in
charge to be challenged by others.
It leads to the development of a
political sector. What had been
seditious libel, subject to
punishment, is now politics.
Concluding point:
The restriction of the arbitrary use
of governing power has led to the
development of a political sector.
Central to this was the development of
the right to peaceably assemble and to
petition government for a redress of
grievances in late 17th Century Britain.
People were able to meet together
and criticize the king.
This allows for the legal development
of political organizations.
This allows for us to transition to a
discussion of the second term:
“Politics”
Free societies tend to have vibrant
political organizations.
To repeat an earlier slide:
What is Politics?
Conflict over the authoritative
allocation of values in society.
The struggle over who
gets what when and how.
Intrigue or maneuvering within a political unit or
group in order to gain control or power
Politics almost inevitably
involves conflict. Conflict often
revolves around two key factors:
Values
Interests
Values
A sense of what is right and wrong,
and whether a government has the
authority to address it. For
examples, think of the ongoing
struggles over abortion and samesex marriage.
Values: the ideals, customs,
institutions, etc., of a society
toward which the people of the
group have an affective regard.
These values may be positive, as
cleanliness, freedom, or education,
or negative, as cruelty, crime, or
blasphemy. – dictionary.com
Since the U.S. was based on a set
of governing principles articulated
in founding documents, certain
values are held to be distinctly
American.
These include:
Natural Rights
Individual Liberty
Equality of Opportunity
Self Sufficiency
Self Government
Community
Some of these are in conflict.
We can’t be both free and equal.
The same with individualism and
communitarianism. These ideals
are in conflict. At some point one
must choose one or the other.
Disputes over values have led to
the development of broad
ideological movements organized
around these disputes.
The same is true for interests
Interests
The tangible benefits one receives
from government. Think of the
struggle over where tax rates are set,
which industries are subsidized, what
regulations are set, and where
spending is focused.
You may be familiar with the
ongoing conflict regarding funding
for higher education. How much
should be funded collectively
through tax dollars? How much
should be funded out of your
pocket? Should student loans be
made available to you? At what
rates?
Interests: regard for one's own
advantage or profit; self-interest:
The partnership dissolved because
of their conflicting interests. –
dictionary.com
According to James Madison,
conflict over interests are
inevitable, and groups will always
form around those interests.
He called these groups factions.
We call them interest groups.
A landed interest, a manufacturing interest, a
mercantile interest, a moneyed interest, with
many lesser interests, grow up of necessity in
civilized nations, and divide them into different
classes, actuated by different sentiments and
views. The regulation of these various and
interfering interests forms the principal task of
modern legislation, and involves the spirit of
party and faction in the necessary and ordinary
operations of the government.
- James Madison, Federalist #10
As we will see in future sections,
the framers of the Constitution
took these factors into
consideration and used the
Constitution’s design as a way to
condition how these groups affect
governance.
Conflict over values and interests
involve huge political fights and a
variety of organizations have
developed in America to conduct
those fights.
These are properly called political
institutions, since they attempt to
influence the decisions of government.
These are three dominant types od
institutions.
Political Parties
Interest Groups
The Press
Political Party: A group of
individuals that have organized
around shared political principles
with the intent of winning
elections to governmental office
and organizing governing
institutions once in power
Interest Group: an organization
that seeks to influence political
decisions often by lobbying elected
leaders directly and becoming
active in elections.
The Press: Organizations with the
technology and audience to
disseminate information. This can
include the media and public
relations firms among others.
Each are external forces (though
political parties have worked their
way into the operations of
Congress) on government that
allow those not in power to have
an influence on government, and
those in power to consolidate
control.
In a democracy, the most
important political force on
government is public opinion.
Public opinion directly impacts
elections
A key question investigated by
political scientists: Why do people
take the positions they do? We will
explore this in future sections.
Political Ideologies have evolved as
ways to make sense of the various
values people hold.
A simple definition of Political
Ideology:
A set of positions on issues that are
based on a fundamental value.
Two seemingly consistent values –
freedom and equality – can
actually lead to different positions
on political issues since these
values are often in conflict.
Two Dominant Ideologies in
Contemporary Politics
Conservatism
Liberalism
Some useful links:
- A list of policial ideologies.
- Nolan Chart.
- Political Spectrum.
- For Fun: A quiz on ideology.
- And here’s another.
The more one prioritizes freedom,
the more one is likely to be
conservative.
The more one prioritizes equality,
the more one is likely to be liberal.
Conservatism
• Historically based on support for tradition, the
status quo, and the preservation of privilege
• More recently also focused on individual
liberty
• Private solutions preferred over public
solutions. Smaller levels of government
preferred over larger
• Most important historical figure: Edmund
Burke
Liberalism
• Historically oriented towards reform and the
liberation of lower classes.
• More recently focused also on equality.
• Support for anti-poverty and civil rights
policies.
• Governmental solutions often preferred over
private sector solutions
Neither is thoroughly cohesive.
Disputes exist within each. Few
people are completely
conservative or completely liberal.
Most people in the United States
call themselves moderate, rather
than liberal or conservative.
Where do you fit?
Here are a few areas of dispute
between liberalism and
conservatism.
Traditionalism vs. Reform
Conservatives argue that traditional
relationships (think: heterosexual
marriage) provide stability for a society
and that these should not be radically
changed. Liberals argue that these
relationships should be modified to
comply with changing morays of
society.
Religion
Conservatives historically have supported the
promotion of Protestantism and the display of
Protestant images in public buildings, thought
these have been recently expanded to include
Catholicism and Judaism. Liberals are more
supportive of a secular approach to government
(the wall of separation), restrictions of religious
imagery and inclusion of Islam, Hinduism and
other religions in their understanding of religion.
The Free Market
Conservatives support free markets (or more
appropriately laissez-faire markets), with
minimal intervention by government, except to
promote and enhance the marketplace. Liberals
are more willing to allow government to
provide, or subsidize, certain services that would
not otherwise be provided by the market, such
as Social Security and Medicare.
Regulations
Conservatives argue that private industry
can regulate itself and there is no need for
regulatory agencies, which only suppress
competition and inhibit innovation.
Liberals argue that regulatory agencies are
necessary to curb corruption, ensure fair,
open transactions, and limit externalities
like pollution.
The Military v. Diplomacy
Conservatives believe in a large military and
believe the use of the military should be based
on the sole interests of the United States with
little regard for those of other countries
(unilateralism). Liberals believe the military
should be smaller, the use military power should
be coordinated with other countries
(multilateralism), and diplomacy and
development are just as important as defense.
Civil Rights
Conservatives are usually opposed to
civil rights measures since they disrupt
the status quo and create
opportunities for certain groups to sue
for grievances. This is especially true
for affirmative action. Liberals see civil
rights as necessary to overcome long
standing denials of equal protection.
Law Enforcement
Conservatives tend to take a hard line
on law enforcement and oppose
measures, even constitutional
measures, that enhance the rights of
criminal defendants. Liberals argue for
the rights of criminal defendants and
often support additional funding for
public defendants.
Interpreting the Constitution
Conservatives usually argue for limited
interpretations of constitutional
language while liberals support loose
interpretations. Looser interpretations
tend to allow for additional national
power.
One final point before we conclude.
There is an area where government
and politics overlaps, where strong
political forces have seemingly taken
over governing functions and ensure
that they all act in their self interest at
the expense of others.
Iron Triangles
- or Issue Networks
Over the years, various well
connected groups have developed
close relationships with governing
institutions and have been able to
help write the legislation and
regulations that govern the
industry
The key components
of an iron triangle
Interest groups
Congressional Committees
Executive Agencies
If the interest group is strong
enough to influence elections to
congress and the appointment of
executive officials, they can
effectively regulate themselves.
Example: The Securities and Exchange
Commission is commonly argued to
have been captured by the financial
sector.
Is this why no serious investigations
have been made by the SEC of the
banks role in the 2008 crash?
Critics argue that a revolving door
exists between people that work in
governmental agencies,
congressional offices, and interest
groups.
These are the people that may
really run things.
Now that we have an
understanding of some terms and
concepts – as well as the goal of
the class - we can turn to the
development of the concept of
natural rights. This is perhaps the
most important of the principles
American government is founded
upon.
Here is a study guide questions to
help you along:
- Why is an educated population considered necessary
in a democratic republic?
- What were the founders concerned about when they
established a republic? Why did they pay attention to
Roman history?
- How do governments tend to originate? Why does
this matter?
- Be familiar with the terms “autocracy,” oligarchy” and
“democracy.” What issues are associated with each?
- What are the difference between totalitarian and
constitutional governmental systems?
- Why might governments benefit by allowing their
citizens to be free?
- What are the definitions of “sovereign,”
“government,” and “ideology?”
- Be familiar with the quotes offered in the
power points and what they mean.
- What is a republic? How is different from a
pure democracy?
- What are the basic components of
government? What are the basic components of
democracy?
- What are the three separated powers and why
are they separated? What happens if they are
concentrated?
- What is ideology? What are the two major
ideological position in American politics? What
do each rest upon?
- What positions do typical liberals and
conservatives take on contemporary issues?
-