Reading Notes PART I READINGS Week 1: Sept 1-3 Wilson Ch 1 Power, authority, legitimacy Constitutional Convention 1787 Direct/participatory democracy (Aristotle); representative democracy or elitist theory of democracy = people don’t have time, knowledge, etc. make bad decisions = Schumpeter Republican form of government = representative democracy Majoritarian politics Theories on distribution of power Marxist (capitalists dominate US government), power elite (Mills = government dominated by few top leaders – of corps, military, media, etc); bureaucratic view (Max Weber = government dominated by appointed officials); pluralist view (competition among all affected interest shape policy) Huntington: Political Modernization Political modernization requires – rationalization of authority, differentiation of structures and expansion of political participation Political participation earlier and more extensive in America than Europe This does not mean that political modernization occurred earlier or more rapidly in the US than in Europe = the rationalization of authority and differentiation of structures occurred later in America Possible inverse correlation between the modernization of governmental institutions and the expansion of political participation Three patterns of governmental institutions: Continental model Rationalization of authority and differentiation of structures were dominant trends of the seventeenth century; connected to centralization: age of great simplifiers, centralizers and modernizers; church subordinated to state; standing armies; replaced feudal principality – rise of nation-states by 1700 British model Similar in nature to continent but different result; authority centralized, church subordinated, etc. but efforts of Stuarts to rationalize authority along continental absolutism provoked constitutional struggle – Parliament emerged victorious = authority centralized in parliament, not crown American model Political institutions didn’t undergo revolutionary change; imported principle elements of English 16th century constitution and given new life (essentially Tutor) Main concepts in Tudor medieval constitutions = organic union of society and government, harmony of authorities within government, subordination of government to fundamental law, intermingling of the legal and political realms, balance of powers between Crown and parliament, complementary representative roles of two bodies, vitality of local govt authorities and reliance on militia American system can be understood in its origins, development, workings and spirit only in the light of precedents and traditions which run back to England of the civil wars and prior Unique today because so antique – page 9 Rationalization of authority = single authority replaced the many which had previously existed In US – continued focusing on fundamental law as source of political authority Fundamental shift from acceptance to activism marks off modernity; Fundamental law and diffusion of authority were incompatible with political modernization = authority must reside in men not in unchanging law Closely linked to idea of absolute sovereignty was concept of state as separate entity from people = “European monarchs took to legitimize themselves and their actions by reference to the state” Doctrine of sovereignty helped political modernization by legitimizing the concentration of authority and the breakdown of medieval pluralistic political order Substitution of sovereignty for law and the centralization of power England – James I attempt to modernize Britain, looked like it would follow continental model but invoked counter claims for parliamentary supremacy over royal absolutism = Milton’s argument that parliament is above all positive law, whether civil or common, makes or unmakes them both Parliament no longer “law declaring” but law making machine America = two traditional concepts of law continued in America: The idea that man could only declare law and not make law; the idea of a fundamental law beyond human control was given new authority by identifying it with a written constitution Persistence of fundamental law doctrines went hand in hand with rejection of sovereignty = revolution was essentially an argument against the legislative sovereignty of parliament – sovereignty lodged in people in America, but rarely exercised by people except when ratifying constitution, etc. Popular sovereignty in US = latent, passive, ultimate authority, no a positive and active one Representation = in England elimination of the estates was paralleled by a decline in the legitimacy accorded to local interests; the Old Tory system of local interests rep by MPs replaced with Old Whig system under which king lost active representative functions and MP became representative of whole community = parliament became collective rep of the nation In America = dual system of representation Differentiation of Structure: Power = control or influence over actions of others; function = particular types of activity In Europe = rationalization of authority and centralization of power were accompanied by functional differentiation and the emergence of more specialized governmental institutions In America = sovereignty divided, power separated, functions combined in different institutions – in pure form the separation of legislative, executive and judicial functions would give one institution a monopoly of the dominant law making function and would thus create centralized power = but in US checks and balances which equalized power US doesn’t have separate powers – has separate institutions sharing powers = US perpetuated a fusion of functions and a division of power Comes at cost of efficiency In US – fusion of judicial and legislative powers = judicial review; mixing of legal and political functions US presidency combines chief of state and head of government; continues the traditional type of constitutional monarchy Typically division of power between two bodies in a legislative assembly varies inversely with the effective power of the assembly – not in USA though In America – the militia became the crucial military force at the time it was decaying in Europe and replaced by standing armies; identified militia with popular government and standing armies with monarchical tyranny = militarily traditional to use militias Tudor institutions and Mass Participation Differences in political modernization are directly related to the prevalence of foreign war and social conflict in Europe Competition forced the monarchs to build military strength, required national unity, suppression of regional and religious dissidents, expansion of armies and bureaucracies and increases in revenues “War was the great stimulus of state building” Divided societies cannot exist without centralized power; consensual societies cannot exist with it Differences in social consensus between Europe and America also account for differences in manner in which political particip. Expanded Countries where tendencies towards absolute monarchy were defeated (England), stalemated (Sweden), or absent (USA), developed more viable democratic institutions = the continued vitality of medieval estates and pluralistic assemblies is associated with subsequent democratic tendencies In US no class differences existed as in Europe and hence the social basis for conflict over suffrage extensions were less; US extension of suffrage more referred to extension to more institutions (ie. Governor, president, senate, etc.) In US – many venues to political power, so many different groups could participate, hence less violence and instability; in Europe expansion of participation was linked to centralization; institutional pluralism on the other hand encouraged expansion of participation and then strengthened it US = worlds most modern society with one of the most antiquated polities Spread of early participation led to creation first of political parties, but the absence of rationalization and differentiation and the continuation of traditional political institutions also explains why American political parties never became as strongly organized Conclusion In US continuity in governmental institutions has permitted rapid change of society which in turn encouraged continuity in government External security and internal consensus have been principle factors in militating against the modernization of American institutions Week 2: Sept 8-15 Wilson Ch 2 Articles of Confederation = went into effect 1781 Constitutional convention Philadelphia May to September = 55 delegates Pennsylvania most democratic constitution with unicameral legislative; but disenfranchised Quakers, no trial by jury = tyrannical because concentrated powers Shay’s rebellion = January 1787 – prevent court in Massachusetts from sitting because taxes/property; issue of raising army/militia Galvanized people into attending Philadelphia convention Virginia plan = led by Governor Randolph and Madison Strong national government, three branches; one house of leg direct elected; national legislative has supreme powers on issues not competence of state New Jersey Plan = led by William Patterson Proposed to amend the articles of confederation; give government more power Great Compromise = reconcile big-small states, solve issue of national legislature Enumerated (delegated) powers = those given to the national government; reserved powers = states only powers; concurrent powers = shared Ratified in 1788; offices filled in 1789 McCulloch v Maryland = necessary and proper clause (Article 1 section 8) Nullification, doctrine of dual federalism = state and fed supreme in own sphere, which should be kept separate Initiative = process to put legislative matters on ballot; refrendum = procedure of rejecting a passed legislative matter; recall = voter can remove elected official from office Grant in aid = money from national to state government Categorical grants = fed grants for specific purpose Revenue sharing = fed share fixed % of rev with states Conditions of aid and mandates Waiver = permission to violate a law Second order devolution = flow of money and power from states to local government Third order devolution = increase role of non profit, private groups in implementation Express preemption = congress explicitly supercedes state/local law Implied preemption = fed law conflicts with state law Cigler Ch 1 Jack Rakove = A Tradition Born Of Strife States constitution writing in 1767 was practical experience, lessons Glorious Revolution 1688 limit kings authority over Parliament – but stamp act crisis 1765 = constitutional dispute Reconstitute government with written constitutions Massachusetts = issue of distinguishing an act establishing government and a legislative statute Two conditions = document had to be drafted by a body appointed for the purpose; it had to be submitted to the people for approval Two errors of initial compilers = defective procedures used to adopt them prevent it from becoming fundamental/unalterable law and failure to balance government (strong unchecked legislative) Madison et al = national government need power to enact, execute and adjudicate In 1789 = Bill of Rights = issue of federalists versus anti-feds Richard Hofstadter = An Age of Realism Founders – liberty menaced by democracy; liberty linked to property not democracy Founders thought of liberty as negative = freedom from fiscal uncertainty, trade wars, economic discrimination by foreign states, popular insurrection = wanted govt to be honest broker To protect property is to protect men in their natural faculties/abilities View that democracy is a transitional stage in government – can evolve into a tyranny or an aristocracy Widespread property holding = gave people a stake in government Framers admit yeoman into partnership, but limited and fails = yeomen joined with rich farmers in south, Hamilton favor North = strong coalition that democratized US Stake in society political theory of rights Human nature argument John Roche = A Reform Caucus Goals of constitutional elite subversive to established order, but worked procedurally with the game Public opinion = only effective weapon in constitutional arsenal Continental vision = within international arena = ie govt too weak Assets = George Washington; talent and energy and communication; preempt skills making opposition on defense; credo of American nationalism (post War) Ideologically non-polarized political atmosphere Madison = Virginia plan = political master stroke Divisions structural not ideological otherwise opposition would have walked out – compromise Virginia plan highly central, free of states in legislature, Madison inch away from stance = ironically father of federalism Idea endorsed in principle, but smaller states needed protection, compromise imperative if to pass nationally New Jersey plan = political acumen, not states rights – want it to pass; aimed at political liabilities of Virginia plan = institutional structure not scope of national authority Supremacy clause first in Patterson’s 6th resolution; idea that national government act directly on citizens Virginia plan put big states in saddle Committee created to solve deadlock of representation = second level political entrepreneurs = Connecticut compromise Constitution not a triumph of architectonic genius; instead a patchwork sewn together under pressure of time and events by talented democratic politicians = success of national elite Federalist #51 Jillson page 1-17 = Perspectives on the Federal Convention of 1787 Looks at how scholars have interpreted the work of the federal convention and how these interpretations have developed and changed Interpretations range from simple ones of consensus to complex interest-based interpretations Whig Conception of history and men predominated in 19th century studies of constitution drafting = “all right thinking persons sought the immediate strengthening of the central government;” “critical engagement in battle between liberty and tyranny” J. Allen Smith in 20th century set tone for a much less flattering interpretation of conventions work = “American scheme of government was planned and set up to perpetuate the ascendancy of the property holding class” Interests were partial, competitive and engaged = zero sum contest for control of the levers of political and economic power Charles Beard = proponent of the economic interpretation of the motives of the framers – expanded on Smith’s interpretation; said founders derived personal economic advantages in new system; were broad economic and social class interests as well as direct individual interests at stake in convention Constitution a victory for investment capital over capital employed in small scale agricultural production (personality versus reality interests) Beard’s thesis attacked by Warren = said too neat and simple picture; if Beard was correct the mobile capital within each state should have been arrayed against capital invested in land on opposite sides of ratification Robert Thomas’s research disproves this – no rich-poor dichotomy among different groups Forrest McDonald tried to salvage Beard’s economic reductionism by extend the kinds of economic interests active = “various interest groups operated under different conditions in the several states and thus their attitudes varied with internal conditions” – replaced Beard’s simple dichotomy with more complex = said there were at least thirty four major factions form the different states John Roche = concluded that the constitution was no more than a particularly impressive patchwork sewn together under the pressure of both time and events by a group of extremely talented democratic politicians = said basic differences of opinion were not ideological but were structural Many feared that the constitution as a document of principled purpose providing a clear statement of operative national values was in danger from pluralist or interest based interpretations Martin Diamond = promoted the impact of ideas and political principles over those of economic or narrow political interests Debate was over how the ends of democratic consent, liberty and competent government can best be obtained More recently interest based interpretations has been modified by a developing sense of the importance of intellectual, theoretical and ideological influences on the behavior of Americans Which ideas were important and how so is debated Louis Hartz = argues the impact of a uniformly Lockean political culture on the origins and future course of American political development = produced a fixed, dogmatic liberalism; Lockean principles so pervasive during founding period that they represented America’s general will Lockean principles that counted were more social with political implications; for Hartz = radical version of social equality which led to individualism; thus Lockean principles influenced a competitive individualism, social equality and unlimited economic opportunity Also trend to describe a republican political culture more diffuse than Lockean consensus; accordingly the American political culture’s roots are complex and atavistic, growing out of the rich English intellectual traditions of the dissenters, radical whigs, classical republicans, commonwealthmen, country party, or “The Opposition” = Bailyn Civil humanism is the social or communitarian character Godron Wood and this author’s position: what is needed is a broad social interpretation in which the struggle over the constitution is viewed as the consequence of opposing ideologies rooted in differing social circumstances Thus the interaction of classical republican ideals with the principles of Lockean liberalism The intellectual composition and regional distribution of the ideas, values and attitudes which formed the American political culture during the founding period provide the basis for an understanding of important aspects of the Federal Conventions work Daniel Elazar = description of political subcultures Robert Kelley = the congregational new Englanders were sharply distinctive in their moralistic republicanism; the south had libertarian republicanism (government should be small and inactive) Middle Atlantic state = had no uniform social or economic character, but had as a direct result of diversity a distinctive political style = Patricia Bonomi – important for the formation of political habits, not so much for cultural heritage = basic patterns of American pluralism Kelley = Middle States had egalitarian republicanism and nationalist/elitist republicanism All together = New England said politics about service to society; South said politics about securing the stability and continuity of the status quo; the Middle Atlantic states said politics were about power and influence and how to get them and how to wield them in pursuit of both public benefit and private advancement = regional subcultures thesis Robert Dahl = Two levels of debate = practical problem of designing a system of government that would work well enough to endure; and underlying the debate on practical matters were differences in political objectives that seemed to reflect differences in political ideas and ideology Constitutional level focuses upon alternative sets of rules or institutional arrangements Operational level is concerned with who gets what when, how, etc. At constitutional “higher” level = regional differences most evident = less influenced by economic status or social role of individuals, but by general assumptions concerning the interplay among human nature, political institutions and good society As general institutional design of the regime and the relationship that would pertain among parts became clear practical politics played more role Conclusion: Division into principle versus interest interpretations derives from scholars tendency to focus on one level of constitutions choice or the other; those who posit the dominance of ideas in the convention have concentrated on the higher level of constitutional choice; those who posit the dominance of interests focus on questions at the lower level At higher level = coalitions formed on intellectual cleavages; Middle Atlantic nationally oriented states opposed the more locally oriented delegates from north and south’ when focus went to lower field, the states split along lines defined by economic and geographic interests, state size and region The Federalist Papers # 10, 37, 47, 48, 51, 70, 78 Madison Number 10 Instability, injustice and confusion introduced into the public councils have been the mortal diseases under which popular governments perish Issue of factious spirit tainted public administration Faction = number of citizens whether a majority or minority, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adverse to the rights of other citizens or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community Two ways of removing mischief of factions = removing its cause or controlling its effects Two methods of removing causes = by destroying the liberty which is essential to its existence or by giving to every citizen the same opinions, passions and interests = both impossible or worse than the initial issue Factionalism inherent in men; most common and durable source of factions is various and unequal distribution of property = creates interests which need to be regulated through modern legislation and involves the spirit of party and faction in the necessary and ordinary operations of government The parties are and must be the judges and the most numerous party is expected to prevail Main point = the causes of faction cannot be removed and that relief is only to be sought in terms of controlling its effect To secure the public good and private rights against the danger of such a majority faction and at the same time to preserve the spirit and the form of popular government is the great objective Two ways = either the existence of the same passion or interest in a majority at the same time must be prevented; or the majority having such coexistent passion or interest must be rendered by their number and local situation unable to concert and carry into effect schemes of suppression Conclusion = pure democracy can admit no cure for the mischiefs of faction = a republic promises the cure Differ in their delegation of government and greater number of citizens and greater sphere of country over which the they extend Republics: Refine and enlarge the public views by passing them through the medium of a chosen body of citizens; need to balance between the number of representatives (constitution does it well by carrying out great interests at the national and smaller ones at the state levels) The smaller the society, the fewer the factions, thus more frequently will a majority be found of the same party – same advantage that a republic has over democracy in controlling the effects of faction is enjoyed by a large over small republic Madison Number 37 Discusses the need for the constitution – persuading people to support it Existing confederation and confederacies based on fallacious principles and can only serve as a beacon of what not to be Convention needed to combine stability and energy in government with liberty and republican form Energy important for security and execution of the law Stability essential to national character, confidence of people, and chief to good civil society Issues between small and large states hard to compromise on Two conclusions: The convention must have enjoyed in a very singular degree an exemption from the pestilential influence of party animosities (ie lots of compromise) All the deputations composing the convention were either satisfactorily accommodated by the final act or were induced to accede to it by a deep conviction of the necessity of sacrificing private opinions and partial interests to the public good and by a despair of seeing this necessity diminished by delays Madison Number 39 It is evident that no other form of government besides republicanism would be reconcilable with the genius of the American people, the fundamental principles of the revolution, or the determination motivates capacity for self government Distinctive character of republican form: Gives examples = Netherlands, England, Venice = not satisfactory republics because mixes aristocracy and monarchy also Defined as a government which derives all its powers directly or indirectly from the great body of people, and is administered by persons holding their offices during pleasure for a limited period or during good behavior Complaints that constitution is too republican, not confederal enough from opposition Says there is still a lot of federal influence – constitution must be ratified by the people of each state, thus being a federal act Says must result from unanimous assent of the states (I think this was changed) Argues senate is a federal not national entity Federation – powers operate on the political bodies composing the confederacy in their political capacities; in republic on the individuals composing the nation Argues US not a national government in its extent of powers because its jurisdiction extends to certain enumerated objects only and leaves to the several states a residuary and inviolable sovereignty Conclusion: Constitution is neither wholly national or wholly federal; in requiring more than a majority and in particular computing the proportion by states not by citizens it becomes more federal; in rendering concurrences of less than the whole number of states sufficient its more national Madison Number 47 Discussing the failings of the Constitution of England Legislative, executive and judiciary not separated fully; support for separation of powers from Montesquieu No entire department can exercise the powers of another department Cites cases in which the legislative, executive and judiciary departments have not been kept totally separate and distinct (such as New York, Maryland, etc.) Conclusion The charge brought against the constitution of violating the sacred maxim of free government is warranted neither b the real meaning annexed to that maxim by its author, nor by the sense in which it has been understood in America Madison Number 48 Argues that unless departments be connected and blended as to give to each a constitutional control over the others, the degree of separation which the maxim requires can never in practice be duly maintained Need security for each branch of government against invasion by other branches Legislative tends to encroach the most = “elective despotism” Examples of Virginia and Pennsylvania in failed separation and overly powerful legislative branches Conclusion: Mere demarcation of constitutional limits isn’t enough to guard against encroachments which lead to tyrannical concentration of all powers of government in same hands Madison Number 51 Discusses the merits of checks and balances – “ambition must be made to counteract ambition” Argues that there is a double security in dividing power first between state and national government, then again between branch Two methods of protecting the rights of the minority Creating a will in the community independent of the majority; comprehending in the society so many separate descriptions of citizens as will render an unjust combination of a majority of the whole very improbable First method prevails in all governments with hereditary or self appointed authority Second method exemplified in US Implies about human nature – ambitious, must be checked not just through conscious but in physical terms Hamilton Number 70 Energy in the executive is a leading character of good government Essential to protection against foreign attacks, administration of laws, protection of property, security of liberty, and anarchy Argues against plurality in the executive – strengths are unity, duration, competent powers and adequate provision for its support Danger of difference of opinion = impede execution, aide factioning In legislative branch, disunity serves to check excesses of majority; no same advantages in executive Plurality in executive tends to conceal faults and destroy responsibility (to censure and to punishment) Argues against the idea of a council to the executive since the supreme executive is already accountable Hamilton Number 78 Examines the judiciary department Judiciary is the weakest of the branches In saying that the constitution trumps legislative law in variance, does not imply that the judicial is superior to the legislative power Importance of independence of the judges Has neither force or will Conclusion: In discussing the tenure of judiciaries, it is wise to use good behavior as a point of duration The Constitution Preamble = “we the people” Articles 1-7 Article 1: Legislative branch Sections 1-10: vested powers, house of representatives, senate, elections, rules, compensation, pass bill, scope, limits, limits of states Article 2: Executive branch Sections 1-4: Elections and rules, president power, state of the union and ambassadors, impeachment Article 3: Judiciary branch Sections 1-3: powers vested, scope, treason Article 4: the states Sections 1-4: full faith and credit, privileges and immunities, admission of new states, guarantees to states Article 5: amendment process Article 6: legal status of constitution; supremacy Article 7: ratification Amendments = 27 1-10 = Bill of Rights Freedom of speech, bear arms, quartered troops, search and seizure, due process, criminal suits, common suits, cruel and unusual punishment, non-enumerated rights, rights reserved to states Number 11 = suits against a state Number 12 = election of president and vice president Civil Rights Amendments 13-15 Slavery, citizenship and voting rights, rights not to be denied on account of race Number 16 = income tax Number 17 = election of senators Number 18 = prohibition Number 19 = women’s vote Number 20 = presidential term starts in January Number 21 = repeal prohibition Number 22 = presidential term limits Number 23-27 DC, poll tax, presidential succession, voting age, compensation to congress Week 3: Sept 17-22 Marbury v. Madison 1803 William Marbury versus James Madison; headed by chief justice John Marshall Three questions Does the applicant have right to commission? If yes, do the laws afford him remedy; if yes can the court issue a writ of mandamus Question one Ruled that yes he is entitled to omission because of an act of Congress in 1801 concerning justices of the peace Commission signed by John Adams and stamped by US; never made it to Marbury; Court decides that according to the second section of the 2d article of the Constitution, Marbury was appointed and this is non-revocable; thus it is violative of the law to withhold commission Question two Conclude that he had legal title to office, had right to commission and country law afford him remedy Question three Said that clear case for mandamus, but could the supreme court issue it; constitution says a writ of mandamus used in cases warranted by principles and usages of law to any courts appointed, or persons holding office under authority of US = original jurisdiction in cases affecting ambassadors, public ministers, consuls, and state parties; in others has appellate jurisdiction Can only issue writ of mandamus in original jurisdiction; Thus court decides it doesn’t have authority to issue writ of mandamus Strikes down legislation from 1789 Important quote = it is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is = established judicial review McCulloch v. Maryland 1819 John James sued on behalf of himself and Maryland – sued McCulloch Congress passed an act on 10 April 1816 that incorporates Bank of the United States – a federal bank; On 11 February 1818 Maryland imposed a tax on banks; Bank of US in operation in Baltimore since 1817 without authority of Maryland – not given permission James McCulloch – a cashier of Baltimore branch Question is whether act of general assembly of Maryland to tax bank is constitutional? Decide that it is not Supremacy of national government, notion of implied powers, using necessary and proper clause Youngstown Sheet and Tube v. Sawyer 1952 = the Steel Case During Korean war; Truman issued executive order directing secretary of Commerce Charles Sawyer to seize and operate most of the nations steel mills in order to avert expected effects of strike Was this within the constitutional powers of the president? Decided that no congressional statute to support this; president power to see that laws are faithfully executed refutes idea that he is to be a lawmaker = order to seize not based on statue but on general powers of president New York Times v. US 1971 = the Pentagon Papers Case Nixon administration attempt to prevent NY times and Washington post from publishing materials belonging to classified defense department study of US involvement in Vietnam President said prior restraint necessary to protect national security Question = does it violate the first amendment? Decided that it violates 1st amendment; argued vague word ‘security’ should not be used to abrogate fundamental law Suspension clause US v. Nixon 1974 In middle of Watergate, to do with tapes Grand jury indicted seven aides of Nixon; defendants sought audio tapes – Nixon asserted that he was immune from subpoena claiming executive privilege = ie right to withhold Question – is president right to safeguard info using executive privilege confidentiality power entirely immune from judicial review? Decide no, doctrine of separation of powers, nor generalized need for confidentiality can sustain president privilege Nixon must obey subpoena Boumediene v. Bush 2008 Writ of habeas corpus submitted by Lakhdar Boumediene of Bosnia/Herzegovina = held at Guantanamo Court ruled that US has de facto sovereignty over US naval basis, and thus over Guantanamo, therefore constitution protections apply Ordered free in 2008 Week 4: Sept 24-Oct 1 Dahl Ch 1 Madisonian Theory of Democracy = refers to an effort to bring off a compromise between power of majorities and the power of minorities, between political equality and limited sovereignty Compromise democracy Three qualifications about Madison Much of what he set forth was widely shared by other political leaders of the time; even Madison did not always articulate his assumptions; Madison not a political theorist but was speaking for his own time Central propositions of Madisonian Theory Hypothesis 1: Without external checks, any given individual or group of individuals will tyrannize over others External check = a reward or penalty applied by another source; tyranny = severe deprivation of natural right (lack of specification of natural rights or severe deprivation) Hypothesis 2: The accumulation of all powers in the same hands implies the elimination of external checks (and thus implies tyranny) Hypothesis 3 & 4: If unrestrained by external checks, minority of individuals will tyrannize majority or vice versa Madison and others show fear of majority, less so of minority (not afraid of strong executive, but of legislature) Methods of testing hypothesis = historical experience and psychological axioms Madisonian axiom = goal is a non-tyrannical republic Implied since – natural rights ought to be attained, attainment of natural rights is nontyranny, a republic is a necessary but not sufficient condition for non-tyranny (last point disputed) Hypothesis 5 = at least two conditions are necessary for the existence of a nontyrannical republic = accumulation of powers in same hands must be avoided; factions must be controlled It is not a given that accumulation of powers will lead to tyranny; ambiguous Second condition = proved necessary by hypothesis 1; but how to control? Cant limit their causes (differences), Hypothesis 6 = frequent popular elections will not provide an external check sufficient to prevent tyranny If this is false, then no reason to have separation of powers; Madison validates this by using Hyp. 2 but this is ambiguous and not necessarily true also Federalist 49 = specific arguments that frequent appeals would indicate defects in government and weaken stability; that public tranquility would be dangerously disturbed by interesting public passions too strongly; that being few in number, embers of the executive and judiciary can be known only to a small part of the electorate; all lead to unequal contest for power; all this saying that voting would increasingly put power in hands of legislative – doesn’t establish first condition validity Hypothesis 7 = if factions are to be controlled and tyranny to be avoided, must control effect of factions Hypothesis 8 = if a faction is less than a majority, can be controlled through operation of the republican principle of voting Hypothesis 9 = the development of majority faction ban be limited if the electorate is numerous, extended and diverse in interests Hypothesis 10 = to the extent that the electorate is numerous and diverse, a majority faction is less likely to exist and if it does, it is less likely to act as a unity Hypoth 1 in more detail: It implies = control over others by means of government processes is a highly valued goal; it is impossible to create a self restraint sufficient to inhibit impulses of tyranny among leaders; the range of sympathetic identification of one individual to another is too narrow to eliminate impulse to tyranny Frisch and Stevens: page 69-88 Founding Fathers are predominately understood as being quasi or even antidemocrats; idea that they got rid of the democracy in the Declaration of Independence when they adopted the Constitution Not to be undone again until the breakthroughs of Jackson and Jefferson Basic view of founders: popular government was the genus, and democracy and republic were two species of that genus of govt Popular government – derives political authority from society Democracy and republic mean different things to the founders – but both are forms of popular government to them; the difference between them is not related to the essential principle of popular govt Democracy refers to the form of government where the citizens assemble and administer the government in person Republics differ in that people rule through representatives Founders – faithful to principle of popular government, while solved problem of it Declaration of Independence vs Constitution Constitution thought to be characterized by fear of the people, preoccupation with minority rights and measures against the power of majorities Declaration = has two criteria for judging any government good and legitimate Is good procedurally if rests upon consent of governed; is good substantively if it secures certain rights There is tension here = that the people should judge rightly is the substantive problem of democracy – will procedure bring about substance? A republican remedy Features considered undemocratic: Amending process = requires a qualified majority (so minority can block) Suffrage question = framers did not try to prevent expansion, it was left to the states Senate = author holds that framers found a way to protect property without representing it; other legislations balanced democratic and aristocratic = framers didn’t want this Hartz page 3-32 = The Concept of a Liberal Society View = since American community reacted against the existence of feudal and clerical oppression, American community is liberal Talks about the separation of American and European politics America = lacked a feudal tradition – also lacked a socialist tradition No frustrated middle class, but a frustrated aristocracy The south under Jim Crowe was closest to Old World Europe Lockian doctrine symbol of rationalism, but in America the devotion to it has been so irrational = really is liberalism America’s moral unity = liberalism Tyranny of opinion = danger of unanimity Irrational lockianism = Americanism Liberal society lacking feudalism, and therefore socialism, governed by irrational Lockianism = domestic struggles in such a society are all projected within the setting of liberal alignments Irrational liberalism – American nationalism American Hamiltonianism = Whiggery Right = big propertied liberalism in Europe, whigs Left = petit-bourgeois Speedy victory of manhood suffrage in America was dictated by frustration of elitist whiggery in a liberal context Beard = emphasize conflict in American history = progressive versus reactive (conservative) Hartz = argues America has liberal tradition due to lack of feudalism and irrational acceptance of Locke as national system Point = all within liberal spectrum, so progressive and conservative within same block, not conflict history of Beard Lipset, A.E Ch 1-2 = American Exceptionalism America founded on a creed = liberty, egalitarianism, individualism, populism, and laissez-faire Being an American is an ideological commitment; possible to be un-American Conservatism in Europe and Canada = derived from alliance of Church and Government; connected to welfare state; represent rural and aristocratic values Liberalism in Europe and Canada = a deeply anti-statist doctrine emphasizing the virtues of laissez-faire (in America = conservatism) Idea that Americans aren’t really conservatives in the European “Tory” sense American conservatives are old fashioned liberals Davis page 316-345, 444-471 = Rise of the Positive State Progressives Accept large business but not some of its consequences, believe in progress, support government intervention New version of liberalism emerged during the Great Depression Talks about women rights to vote = from equality to expediency Talks about John Dewey’s ideology = No fixed and abstract theories because of change; old liberal individualism was out of harmony with prevailing social conditions and was obstructing badly needed reforms; laissez faire was one element of the old liberalism that needed to be discarded Week 5: Oct 6-13 Wilson Ch 3 NOTES SOMEWHERE – chapter on federalism Cigler Ch 2 Federalist #39 McCulloch v Maryland Walters & Kettl = Katrina Breakdown Federalism complex, hard during catastrophe Fed government increasing role in disaster response = starting with Hoover during Mississippi flood FEMA 1988 under Carter New Orleans = relied on faith based community to evacuate city; no plan B Issue of when to use military = Bush support Funding and control overlap Robert Gordon = No Child Left Behind NCLB 2001 Value dimension = standards should differ from state to state based on individual preferences, but whose preferences would support worse educational standards? Practical dimension = states are defining proficiency down, biggest fear that fed will blow it; big waste 500 million on bad standards No contradiction between a nationally set goal and community implementation Issue of communication of performance; cant compare state to state Argues need for national test and overall standards convergence Peele Ch 6 – Changing Federal System Increased salience of federalism as an issue: Public disillusionment with DC; Republican success at the state level, Republican takeover of Congress in 1994, conservative revolution Dual federalism, cooperative federalism Pattern of federalism sensitive to shifts in socioeconomic variables Belated recognition of economic and political realities of the New Deal gradually led the Supreme Court to abandon its adherence to notions of dual federalism States = weaker in some areas because of institutional capacity, professionalization, and revenue bases of states Devolution and deregulation are at odds = deregulation involved enactment of statutes that preempted state authority to regulate various industries Support for national leadership in policy areas such as economic policy, civil rights, environmental protection US versus Lopez (1995) = supreme court said federal government overstepped boundaries with Gun Law; Rehnquist court Brinkley Ch 15 Federalism not a question of rights or inviolable principles but of practical questions = what allocation of power between the two best serves ends Federalist 51 by Madison = division of power between two levels of government provide more security for rights of people Federal government better at providing public goods, stops race to the bottom, collects revenue and redistribution Federalist Hamilton 25 = federal government and national defense Federalist Madison 45 = federal powers are few and defined, states are numerous and indefinite States cannot = coin money, grant titles of nobility, conclude treaties, pass bills of attainder, ex post facto laws or laws impairing contract, or violate individual rights Federal government = can only set a floor, are confronted by powerful lobby forces; federalism is rooted in a long tradition Federal power has served as a crucial check on local factionalism System is self correction due to state politics and supreme court PART II READINGS!!!! PART II THE ELECTORAL SYSTEM AND VOTING BEHAVIOR October 15-29: The Electoral System and Voting Behaviour Wilson, Ch. 10. Elections and Campaigns Elections = weaker party, more money, more media, less mystery (polls) Polls = Patrick Cassel under Carter Congress = low turnout, service to constituents, avoid responsibility = high rates of reelection Individuals con only give 2,000 in each election PACs = set up by corporations, unions, interest groups that raises/spends campaign money Congressional districts = malapportionment (unequal populations) and gerrymandering Sophomore surge Position issues – public divided and candidates adopt different views Valence issues = public united, candidates adopt similar positions to best represent the people (ex. Crime) Independent expenditure – spending by PACs, etc done to help candidate but independent of them; and soft money = funds spent on party activities but not on behalf of the candidate = both avoid laws Bipartisan Campaign Finance Reform Act 2002 Banned soft money from corps and unions, restricts independent expenditure – repealed now 527 organizations = under section 527 of Internal Revenue Code Prospective voting = voting because you favour candidates views/ideas for future Retrospective voting = voting because you like past actions Cigler, Ch. 7 Change in campaign politics = social changes like rise of education levels; reforms in political parties; new technology Mayer = Race for Nomination Nomination process = final decision made by national conventions; national parties regulate how delegates are picked (Democrats more); delegates elected by caucuses or primaries; primaries/caucuses open to participants; timing of primary/caucuses wide in range Criticisms = too much power for ordinary voters versus parties; tried to remedy this in 1984 with superdelegates but not enough; too long and expensive; too much power to Iowa/New Hampshire which leads to frontloading that lessens voter info and turnout Remedies = National primaries = simple and straightforward; states equally represented; advantage to rich, well-known, frontrunners; ex. Minority candidate could win with only 25% of vote Regional primaries = easier/more efficient; tailored to region; disadvantages less well known; influence of region going first Conclusion = incremental changes – dates later, contributions limited, more superdelegates McConnell versus Federal Election Committee 2003 By Justices Stevens and O’Connor Argue there is evidence that soft money gives rise to corruption by creating a quid quo pro situation Dissent = Scalia First amendment, right to criticize government, argues that favours are the nature of politics Dissent = Kennedy Corruption defined too broadly Mark: Attack Ads Good For You Opinion that negative ads suppress voter turnout Negative ads more substantive usually; more partisan/tough electioneering can bring in more votes Voters have right to information Several cases = financial background, living in the state, etc. Ornstein and Mann, R: Ch. 3 and 7 (Bowman – Polling) Technological changes in polling; continuities in American concerns and general questions asked in polling Media-polling partnership Roosevelt liked polls – never changed end goals though, just used polls to try to win support Truman disliked polls because predicted his loss Kennedy, Johnson, and Nixon = developed public opinion apparatus as institutional component of presidency Blurred line between campaigning and governing Polls that advance the campaign calendar trivialize the context Large product of media-polling partnership (Loomis – Campaign without elections) Permanent campaigns differ in and out of electoral arena in one major way – try to influence electoral outcome, but rarely try to influence mass opinion ex. Health Insurance Industry Association and Clinton 93-94 health care Thesis = issue based initiatives and politicing make up the core of permanent campaigns (1) Winner takes all economics = congress, executive, bureaucracy more in charge of distribution as regulation tool (2) Glut of info = information precludes argument idea (3) Dominance of narratives = structuring info, aimed more at elites (4) Scope of conflict = broadening conflict helps perspective losers Economics of lobbying = largely a negative calculation (ie taxes avoided), the stakes are usually extremely high Have high hopes/low expectations; no accountability in way money is spent; Info also reflects basis for interest group influence Volume and sources of info in policy making = hyperdemocracy and hyperpolitics (terms by Heclo) = almost ever interests has a voice and some kind of claim on public policymaking Consistency of communication and number of interests with claims Competition among narratives Competing causal stories that imply different policy choices Narratives that socialize or privatize the scope of conflict As scope widens, narratives become less complex, focus on symbolic/metaphors Quadrant of narrative/interests/scope (1) Symbolic politics = broad scope, few interests/individual affected (2) Niche politics = narrow scope, few affected (3) Policy community politics = narrow scope, many interests and individuals (4) Public confrontation politics = broad scope and many interests One and Four have large audiences Three largest interest groups concentrations = Financials services-insurance-real estate sector Communications-electronics sector Health sector Conclusion = Organized interests often campaign more on issues than on electoral politics Permanent campaign tactics and funding of interest groups contribute to decline in congressional deliberation Permanent campaigns on issues favour those with most resources Fiorina, R: Ch. 3, 6. A state is a large aggregate or gross unit of comparison – red and blue state division is not really accurate – most take division too seriously DiMaggio et al = study different areas of potential polarization between 1972 and 1994 = Found that convergence on age, education, race, religion, region, no change in gender, and ideology (except abortion) = polarization on party ID Partisan polarization not popular polarization! In part due to realignment of the south Pattern of polarization on the top = the elites Main point = lack of polarization in policy preference of Americans Caveat possibly individual voters polarization – relatively high polarization but dips in 2000 so thesis doesn’t hold Explaining polarized choices Answer is candidates have polarized Shift in electoral cleavages Religious cleavage = president votes and party ID more correlated with religiosity No decline in economic cleavage, increased POLITICAL CULTURE AND PUBLIC OPINION November 3-5: Political Culture and Public Opinion Wilson, Ch. 4: Political Culture Political culture = distinctive/patterned way of thinking about how political and economic life ought to work Five elements in American political system Liberty, equality, democracy, civic duty, individual responsibility Civic duty – a belief that one has an obligation to participate in civic/political affairs Civic competence = a belief that one can affect government policies Culture clash = Hunter – Orthodox versus progressive (morals versus personal freedom) Political efficacy (internal and external) Wilson Ch. 7: Public Opinion Opinion saliency versus opinion stability Political socialization – process by which background influences views Gender gap = different in party and issues that matter Elites = frame and raise issues, establish norms of issue settlement Public opinion = many publics and uninformed/unstable/changing opinion Cigler, Ch. 4. Public opinion = issue of distinction between public and private opinion Polls = make government more responsible by making politicians aware of citizens wishes; some argue that polls inhibit responsible government by making politicians respond to ill informed public wishes Larry Bartels – Is Popular Rule Possible The fluidity and contingency of attitudes make it impossible to discern meaningful public preferences on issues of public policy Issue of framing effects = different way of posing a question produces different responses = issues of ordering and wording Argues that citizens have attitudes rather than preferences; conventional view of democracy as dictated by popular preference sis unrealistic – public opinion Issue for the democratic theory – which rests on assumption that people have definite policy preferences As long as we continue to evaluate democracy in terms of the correspondence between citizens preferences and policy outcomes, issue Attitude expressions are context-dependent Popular rule better thought of as popular veto Michael Traugott – Can We Trust the Polls More and more polls (technology, lower costs, etc.), journalists not trained to know what is good/bad poll, enter media and become “fact” Declining response rates; doesn’t mean that accuracy is declining though Emerging technology – issues of digital divides, etc. Mueller: The Iraq Syndrome Iraq syndrome = public is developing an aversion to US involvement in future military endeavours abroad Lower tolerance for Iraq casualties than before Some argue that Americans are defeat phobic not casualty phobic Anticipated results = decline in Bush Doctrine; more multilateral inclination Lipset, A.E., R: Ch.3, 6 Chapter 3: socialism and unionism in the US and Canada Lack of socialism embarrassment to Marxistsà Defies statement that class struggle is inevitable, especially since it's the world's most advanced industrial system. Marxist thinking, More affluent country; Growth and presence of available land; Meritocracy; Americans believe they can get ahead Belief in importance of education to ensure equality of opportunity (American Creed) Societal Variables Absence of feudal societyà absence of political cleavages along class lines Viewed as a egalitarian society... no need for change Opposition to strong collectivist state Steady rise in standard of living Decrease standard of living among minority groups, less politically active Opportunities for upward mobility Large mobility among working class, forestalls class consciousness Large immigrationà often switching of SES Political factors Franchise predated suffrage Two-party system: adopt wide-spread grievances Repression Comparative social structure Americanism has coopted socialism Comparing Canada and the US Unionism and socialist parties (NDP) much more viable in Canada, and union decline only started in the 80s in Canada, as opposed to the 50s in the US. Why? Socialism and Statism in North America Third parties or independents never received more than 20% of vote in 20th century in US (as opposed to Canadian situation). Why? At foundation, Torys moved North and Yankees moved southà different founding peoples è Revolutionary v. Counter revolutionary Religious differences Anglican/Catholicà Communitarian v. Protestant denominationsà individualistic Result: state interventionism v. laissez-faire economics/social programs v. nothing/unions v. no unions Prosperity in post-war era has lead to return to laissez-faire beliefs in US. Why haven't there been equal changes in Canadian labour density? Canadian laws favour the growth of unions, as opposed to American laws. However, need for anti-labour efforts has diminished in US, due to the decrease in union forming efforts. Americans also believe that Unions are less beneficial and are less inclined to join one. Based on political tradition which emphasizes cooperation and collectivism, absent in the US Conclusion: Political exceptionalism (lack of socialism) = weak trade unions (or trade union exceptionalism) -US fosters invidual competitiveness over class-consciousness Chapter 6: American Intellectuals--Mostly on the Left, Some Politically Incorrect American intellectuals: centres of opposition, part of adversary culture. Before WW2, intellectuals, professors... were disproportionately secular and leftist (especially with role of Great Depression). In polls, most prestigious faculty are often most radical politically. Moreover, are liberal to an inverse and much greater degree than rest of population (tends to be more conservative) Politicization and quiescence: the 60s, 70s and 80s CR and anti-war movements began often on university campusesà politicization of campuses (leading to ostracization of conservative academics). After Vietnam was stopped and CR demonstrations endedà quiescence and conservative rise on campus (although limited), but rebounded by end of the 80s. New faculty liberalism is not oriented towards protests Difference between faculties (guess...) Marxism is still widely defended by scholars... Sort of distinguishing feature from the rest of society Conflicts within the Left Conflict between Stalinism and socialism before the war, some anti-communist leftists supported persecution of Stalinists under McCarthyism. Vietnam sparked new division over communism: students of New Left were anti-anti-communists, behind mass rallies and socialists split, on the left supporting anti-war and on the right forming Social Democrats USA, supporting the war. Divisions reflected within Democratic Partyà left divided. Labeling and the emergence of neo-conservatism Formation of neo-conservatives from rightist social democrats in the 70s. New intellectual allies for the Right. Greatest agreement with the right on hard-line foreign policy, but also favourable to welfare state (Hubert Humphrey). Nixon started wooing, than Reagan did best job (carter rejected by neocons for being soft on foreign policy). Reagan's appointments were all in foreign policy, education, intellectual fields... never on treasury or other matters affect by welfare notions (opposed to neocons), liberal in most domestic policy issues except for quotas (support meritocratic notion of democracy or bobos anne). Moreover most neocons are democrats. The Meaning of neoconservatism “A socialist in economics, a liberal in politics and a conservative in culture.” (Bell) but no clear ideology, -ism used to classify mainly. Wide misuse to describe classic resurgence in conservatism (thatcher, Reagan...) Emergence of political correctness Students are reacting strongly to non-accepted political beliefsà kissinger boycotted, conservatives not promoted... new mccarthyism for the right. Conservative groups are most likely to face harassment on campuses (think pro-life mcgill) Faculty selection increasingly based on non-scholarly, but political views Conclusion: political correctness is related to American Creedà country is characterized with certain features, defining deviants as “un-American”à intent on absolute standards Fiorina, R: Ch. 7. Micro-Macro Growing polarization of political class (elites) – only here does a culture war exist Religion and party ID affiliation maybe because parties reposit themselves with religion Distributional change = variation in distribution of voter attitude from election to election (ex. Candidate positions are close) Behavioural change = change in relative importance of issues (ex. Race) Change in candidate positions also important Candidate change can produce the appearance of voter change! Dulio, R: pp. 50-62. American dream – tenets of achieving success Three ways of success = (1) absolute; (2) relative – different measurements; (3) competitive – achieving victory where someone else loses – zero sum Who = everyone What to pursue = anticipate success How to pursue = belief reward for acts, equality of opportunity, hard work Why = success is associated with virtue American dream very elastic = adopt soft/hard versions for different circumstances Tenets = Everyone can participate equally and always start over – not true – cant shed past self; varying advantages, racist-sexist Second tenet – anticipation of success – due to link between anticipation and expectation; issue that resources/opportunities are limited As resources/opportunity get tighter – Americans shift understanding from absolute to relative to comparative Tunnel effect Third tenet – belief that success results from actions/traits under one’s control Fourth – success associate with virtue Flaws with American dream – individualism POLITICAL PARTICIPATION AND CIVIC ENGAGEMENT November 10: Political Participation and Civic Engagement Wilson, Ch. 8: Political Participation Literacy tests, poll taxes, grandfather clause, white primaries In 1965 = Voting Rights Act; in 1971 the 26th Amendment Australian ballot = government printed uniform ballot adopted in 1890 Progressive reforms (resident requirement, education) = reduced fraud and voting turnout Voting age population (VAP) and Voting eligible population (VEP) Verba and Nie = Six types of participation Completely inactive, completely active, voting specialists, campaigners, communalists, parochial participants Disparity in voting with world = party strength, automatic registration, compulsory voting; Age, sex, party organization, registration and views on significance \ More offices to vote for! Cigler, Ch. 5: Civic Participation Decline in voter turnout since 1960 Reising education, increasing prominent issues, removal of voter barriers; amount of information via media, cost of campaigns, trend of distrust Video malaise Demographics = baby boomers + enfranchisement of 18 year olds Sifry: Finding Lost Voters Point = alienating from parties why low voting; not apathy; just not happy with choices; believes populist/progressive candidates would do better – potential versus likely voters Discouraged voters Trends towards independence Non voters aren’t all apathetic, and tend to lean towards liberalism Legal//procedural barriers and demobilization of voters Examples of Jesse Jackson, Ventura, Sanders and Wellstone Schudson: Voting Rites: New Concept of Citizenship New concept of citizenship needed; citizenship as biproduct of rewards of social involvement; want to participate in social interaction; need to foster this type of environment, versus individualistic Real failure of electoral participation is not individual but contemporary concept of how democratic citizenship should work Need concept of citizenship that asks something from us, but is not burdened with impossible expectations – too many offices, elections, etc. Progressive model = current expectation of citizenship, more educated privatized/cognitive; less fun; requires attention and knowledge; impractical We take citizenship to be a function of the individual – a classical model asks people to seek good for public Three sets of trustees = politicians, lobbyists and journalists Need more expansive definition of citizenship =- actively taking unpayed/uncoerced responsibility for community Burden of progressivism Putnam: Bowling Alone: Declining Social Capital Civic engagement – associational connections to communities; experience in a wide array of civic engagement activities = social capital Social capital = features of social organization such as norms that facilitate coordination/cooperation for mutual benefit Decline of civic engagement = church, volunteer, bowling leagues = typical secondary associations New tertiary associations = in terms of social connectedness (ex. AARP, Sierra club) Also growth of support groups – AA, bookclubs, etc. Why? More women in workforce, less time, but not only answer because men decline too Mobility = re-potting hypothesis; reduced social rootedness, but issue of increase during 1950s Demographic transformations = various changes like more divorce, fewer kids, etc. Technological changes = transform leisure Keeter: Politics and Dotnet Generation Dotnet = between 1977-1987 Youth tend to be politically disengaged, but involved in interesting ways – display buttons, etc. also volunteer a lot Stereotypes of disengaged youth not fully accurate Putnam, R: Ch. 2-3. US low voting rate, but good politics participate otherwise – but doesn’t compare favourably to US past – turnout decline by roughly ¼ over ast 36 years Hurdle of registration Disenfranchisement in south – artificially depressed national average Influx of new voters masked decline of general electorate Some explanations = distrust of government, declining party mobility, fraying social bonds – long run decline due to gradual replacement of voters due to generational changes Social change = two combined factors; (1) individuals change tastes/habits in a single directions simultaneously – “intracohort” because change detectable in age groups; (2) slower change, generations have different tastes/habits, so with birth/death society transforms = “intercohort” because change detectable only across age groups Net decline in voting not really due to individual change, but to generational change Baby boomers and their kids – less likely to vote than their parents Better educated today – but civic knowledge stays level with past Intergenerational differences in political knowledge and interests Today generation gap is recent development Voting down ¼; interest down 1/5 sense of commitment to own team – fallen from 75% to 65% in 90s Organization health versus organizational decay (voting decline) One reason = more voter contact, less voter volunteer; trend of PACs and direct mail fundraising Financial capital (mass marketing) has replaced social capital (grassroots network) Good if think of politics as an industry, bad if think democratically Party organization as strong today – becomes bigger, richer, more profitable Correlation between civic and political participation; concept of social capital; decreasing voter turnout – generational change Civic involvement = frequency of almost every form of community involvement declined significantly (Roper) Civic involvement, partisan, electoral participation all down Every % point represents about 2 million people Across all fields decline appears to accelerate after 1985 Most decline in fields working with others – organizations, clubs, rallies Slower decline in individual things – writing letters, petition Cooperative versus expressive Political system needs to counterpoise articulating grievances and resolving them Cooperation falling more rapidly than expressive may have encouraged the single issue blare and declining civility of contemporary political discourse Trends of decline consistent among all demographics Absolute trends – decline greats among better educated Civic Participation: Americans more likely to be involved in voluntary associations than most countries; three types = community based, church based, work based (1) Community Based: social, civic, leisure – increase in sheer numbers of associations in the last three decades (numbers per capita up 2/3) – some talk of “participation revolution” – connected to number of interest groups Few members – median membership – 1,000 in 1988 versus 10,000 in 62 New/growing association now not located where members are but in DC (ex. AARP) – and focus on policy view not connect people Citizen involvement with groups and government down while group involvement with government up Secondary associations class but now new tertiary associations Veterans and environmental organizations grew most Direct association organizations = plateau in 1957, peak early 60s and decline ‘69 PTA decline in 1960s; desegregation, different organizations Membership in individual organzations not good general measure because wax/wane for different reasons; card carrying membership may mean nothing Still a nation of joiners, but not if joiner means more than nominal affiliation Conclusion = rose first 2/3 of century (minus Great Depression), now only mailing lists rise (tertiary) Dulio, R: 110-118. Equal citizenship; main point is that even though basic citizen rights have been extended to all these groups in the last century the idea of equal citizenship is under threat because of economic inequality; idea of socialization Affluent more involved, contribute more to campaigns, contact officials more, more involved in protesting Thesis = democracy/equality stalled – no equal voice across income, raec, gender Main issue – growing concentration of country’s wealth-income Society more integrated along some lines (race, etc.); growing gaps with money Growing rift not just rich poor but also privileged professionals-owners and middle class white-blue collar Government increasingly responsive to privileged – leads to cynicism and withdrawal Voting – 1/3 eligible during mid terms congress and ½ in presidential Less privileged often discouraged from voting; former criminals cant vote, selective outreach of parties – in sum, less privileged lack skills, motivation, networks acquired through education and occupation Interest groups for well off dominate Those active in politics usually more extreme POLITICAL PARTIES November 12-16: Political Parties Wilson, Ch. 9: Political Parties Three roles of importance: as a label, as an organization and as a set of leaders Organization weakened – one reason due to federalism; decentralized, local free from national federal government; decides on primaries Four stages: Creation (founding to 1820); two stable party system (Jackson to Civil War); development of comprehensive organizations and appeal (Civil War to 1930s); party reform (1930s) Jefferson = Republican in 1790s/ Hamilton = Federalists Jackson 1824; in 1831 end caucus, introduce party conventions Mugwumps/progressives = reformers in republican party in 1980s to 1910s Critical/realignment periods = major, lasting shifts in popular coalitions of parites Five = 1800 (Republican beat Federalist), 1826 (Jakcson elected); 1860 (Whigs ended – Republican elected); 1896 (Republican beat Jennings); 1932 Office Bloc ballot (or Massachusetts) versus party column ballot (Indiana) National convention, national committee, congress campaign committee Cigler, Ch. 6: Parties Realignments in history = major in 1932, none in 1970s – many claim system is undergoing dealignment away from both parties Decline of parties = electoral reforms in 1968, campaigning/financing Money politics, high technology, mass media Aldrich: Importance of Political Parties Parties reduce uncertainty and offer resources for politicians, regulate access to office, mobilize electorate, advance careers or officials, help structure decision making in government Parties essential to politicians and mass public since system is complex and fragmented Partisanship decline among voters; but party organization is stronger than before = better financed, more professional Beck: Two Electorates: Changing Party Coalition 1952-2000 Sixty percent of electorate is highly partisan; forty percent is non partisan Secular realignment = change in composition of party coalitions Confluence of realignment and dealignment = two electorates result One electorate is partisan and ideologically polarized; since 1950s Second electorate is non partisan and independent; focus on short term factors Two changes = dealignment of loyalty especially among democrats; then reshuffling of coalitions and growth of republicans GOP = democratic party decay; better turnout, solid south disappear – versus realignment Post 1964 = democratic party decay = political tensions in makeup of south whites and liberal north New deal politics organized around economic and social class – shift to social/moral South – race issue, movement north-south; bigger middle class In 1960s = black votes in south Catholics and Labor unions = core democratic party in 1930s; still both democratic but smaller margin Catholics turned republican in 1980s; unions more dealign Women = dealign from both, but less from democrats Protestant evangelicals = more republican because courted by them Overall dealignment – 1964-1974 Not as big/total realignment because 40 percent didn’t join and because republicans still not ascendant party of realignment Conclusion = realignment has made more ideological, but dealignment stop ideological parties from dominating Nivola: Thinking about Political Polarization Polarization = religious factors, news media, congressional redistricting, united government, electoral college, etc. = all contribute Exogenous forces = historical circumstances, sectional realignment, party parity (very close margin), role of religion, role of media, technology Endogenous forces = congressional redistricting, dominance of primaries, electoral college, new institutional norms, unified government Remedies = focus on institutional reforms Restraining gerrymandering, primary reorganization, voter participation, reassess electoral college, revise congressional norms Hacker, R: Ch. 4. GOP operatives called “New Power Brokers” Dick Arney – never offend your base; first line of support, leading source of money, ideology Gypsy moths of N.E. – socially liberal republicans; sometimes aligned with boll weevil – centrists/conservative democrats from south Brokers and base – party leaders respond not to center of congress/American opinion, but to interests of their base – hard right Race to the base = fuelled by growing role of parties in campaign finance and more districts safe for one party, largest source due to increasing influence of the well off/organized Decline of unions = biggest change of political representation of mid-low class Rising economic inequality = political inequality, hardened class divide between parties bolstered GOP Between 1974 and 2004 south went from 2/3 democrat to 2/3 republican Increase republicanism of the south – lead to increasing conservatism of GOP Also more right wing republicans tend to replace other republicans Also once in office republicans go to the right – “adaptation” Republicans and democrats polarized but at different rate, for different reasons Dems grown more liberal, but mostly because lost conservative south Republican leadership used to be drawn down middle and from Midwest/NE Now super conservative and from south mostly Republican elite = agenda setting (selecting the issue) and recruitment Republican base – Christian right, small business, NRA, etc; then the elite interests Three lessons about the republicans dominance of selection in congress Primaries matter = districts more preordained; why – because upheaval post south demrep split sorted out; some districts allow minority-majority voting; and third is gerrymandering Reelection rate of senators – 90% Impact of primacy centered election – biggest impact is ideological extremism because worry less about reaching out to swing voters, and more about pleasing mobilized partisan voters – clear incentive to please the base; possibly primaries pull candidate 10 points towards ideological poles Base brawl – activist groups within GOP now play important role; they show up in large numbers Parties matter in a way they didn’t recently – one reason money, another because of intercandidate giving Conclusion: GOp built foundation in South and among conservative groups; augmented grassroots mobilization with a massive party-oriented fundraising machine and energetic conservative policy network; had stepped up its monitoring and enforcement of politicians = race to the base INTEREST GROUPS November 24-December 1:Interest Groups Wilson, Ch. 11: Interest Groups Why IGs = society many cleavages, many access points, large nonprofit sector, weakness of political parties Section 501 c (3) and (4) = nonprofits that can and cant lobby Rise of IGs = economic developments, government politics, organizational entrepreneurs, more government activities (taking on health care) Public interest lobby = political organizations whose goals will benefit nonmembers IGs = tactics = info, public support, PACs/money Cigler, Ch. 9: Interest Groups Madison: Federalist 10 Birnbaum: Lobbyists – Why the Bad Rap? Lobbying part of history – case in 1875 said immoral; seriously challenged under Wilson; Congress began regulating in 1930s and 1940s; in 1946 Federal Regulation of Lobby Act An underclass in DC Skocpol: Associations without Members Proliferation of groups – but centralized/professionalized and focused on lobbying Transition from membership to advocacy Causes: Racial/gender change; shift in political opportunity structure; new techniques for building organizations; US class relations Model of civic effectiveness = not same, now patron grants, mass media, mailing Growth of professional middle class Civic world too oligarchic, privileges wealthy/professional. Encourages doing for rather than with Drinkard – Drugmakers Sway Congress Lowi, R: pp. 42-63 Decline of capitalist ideology in America took form of dialogue between private and public view of society = dialogue between new liberalism and old liberalism (conservatism) Argument = whether expansion or contraction best produced public goods New liberals = expansion of government to combat injustices; instruments of government to induce social change By general rule the Right is conservative or reactionary while the left is liberal or radical = these criteria came out of constitutional period; after 1937 the basis for the liberal-conservative dialogue died; liberalism-conservatism as source of public philosophy no longer made sense = criteria arising out of issue of expansion in the first place became irrelevant Liberal-conservative debate has become almost purely ritualistic, because it is irrelevant to reality; politics becomes a question of equity rather than morality (adjustments first, rule of law last) In 1937 – principle of positive government established; old debate makes no sense anymore; attitude toward government and attitude toward change should be consistent with each other according to old divide, but in reality policies range the continuum Notes that it seems that government is most effective and most frequently employed when something in society has been deemed worthy of preservation – opposite relationship than theory suggests Those that support government produced social change are seldom favorign policies that would clearly effect any social change; conversely those who harangue against government and social change frequently support policies that would give strong doses of both Examples Taxes: liberal = steeply progressive income tax – its both governmental and effects social change; system in place is only mildly progressive and instead works as a weapon for fluidity among economic classes in society Social security: in total, liberal only because they are governmental; otherwise quite conservative because they are countercyclical in that they are automatic stabilizers that work to maintain demand and existing economic relationships; second they techniques of social and economic control – government role is paternalistic, making judgments on who deserves assistance Farm policy = liberals support high price controls despite the fact that this works to restore or maintain pre 1914 agriculture; conservatives against this and want to revolutionize agriculture Private sector: competitive business should gain support by liberals because it promotes change, innovation, etc. but both conservatives and liberals want to put restraints on the most dynamic aspects of private sphere Old public debate outmoded because elites no longer disagree whether government should be involved – still use debate as guidance and rationalization Paradox = expansion of public sector has been accompanied by expansion of distrust in public objects; crisis of public authority Argues that old justifications for expansion had too little to say beyond the need for expansion itself; purpose, form and procedure are foreign to public discourse New political formula only offers set of sentiments that elevate a particular view New names of public philosophy: maybe corporatism, but too much connotation to Catholicism and fascism; also syndicalism, but this is connotated to anarchy Clinically accurate name = interest-group liberalism; liberalism because it is optimistic about government, expects to use govt in good way for society; interest group because it sees as both necessary and good a policy agenda that is accessible to all organized interests and makes no independent judgements on their claims – defines public interests as amalgamation of various claims Assumptions of the new philosophy: (1) Organized interests are homogenous and easy to define (2) Organized interests emerge in every secotr of our lives and adequately represent most of those sectors (3) The role of government is insuring access to the most effectively organized, and ratifying agreements worked out by the competing leaders The most important difference between liberals and conservatives is to be found in their interest groups they identify with; this has been elevated from hypothesis to ideology of how system should work Interest group attractive because can be taken as popular rule in modern dress, dealt with realities of power (since congress and president issues of power) Also interest group liberalism helped flank the constitutional problems of federalism – became synonymous with self government Second, offer a justification for keeping major combatants part and for delegating their conflict – transformed access and logrolling from necessary evil to greater good Third = helps create the sense that power need to be power at all, government need not be coercive = to administer does not always mean to control; Transition from first to second US republic – pluralist theory became handmaiden of interest group liberalism, and interest group liberalism became the handmaiden of modern American positive national statehood New republic pretends that through pluralism, countervailing power, creative federalism, partnership and participatory democracy, government need not be coercive Requirement of standards has been replaced by the requirement of participation Arguments against pluralism: (1) Pluralist component badly serves liberalism by propagating the faith that a system built upon groups is self corrective Pure pluralist competition occurs far below an acceptable level of legitimacy, access, equality or innovation (2) Pluralist theory is comparable to laissez-faire economics to the extent that it is unable to come to terms with the problem of imperfect competition (3) The pluralist paradigm depends upon an idealized conception of the group Madison in Fed 10 said groups are necessary evil, need regulation which is principle task of govt; new says groups are good, supportive countervailing power of government Interest groups responsible for atrophy of institutions of popular control, the maintenance of old and creation of new structures of privilege; and conservatism in several senses Conclusion: US politics have an uncommon degree of ambivalence to government power; dedicated to achieving it and justifying it; but with each expansion of government there has been a crisis of public authority; and each crisis has been accompanied by demands for expansion of representation Expansion during 1887 and economic role resulted in call for congressional reform, direct election of senators, reform nominating process, etc. Expansion during Wilson resulted in progressive reforms of female suffrage, short ballot, initiative, referendum and recall, direct primary extension, etc. Roosevelt = change in representation through development of administrative process theory; and emergence of interest group liberalism as the answer to problems of governmental power Problem is that the new representation embodied in notion of interest group liberalism is a pathological adjustment to the problem of representation; in reality spread a sense of representation at the expense of democratic forms and ultimately legitimacy Traditional assumption that expanded participation would produces changes in government policies expressed in laws that would make a difference; but since new representation extends into administration, calls for vague laws or opposes laws in legislature all together Finally = interest group liberalism seeks pluralistic government in which there is no formal means or ends; therefore there is no substance in a pluralistic government; no procedure either; only process! Skocpol, R: No. 25. Death of feminism in 1920s, absolute terms though number of degrees for women rising, other social changes like status symbols turning to cars helped create a class of highly educated, underemployed and underpaid women In 1960s revival = National Organization for Women (NOW) in 1966 from two different origins Older branch – higher age; supported by National Women’s political caucus, women’s equity action league, etc. traditionally formal organization; top down Younger branch = began on campuses, under 30 generally, many directly from New Left and civil rights organizations; lack of organization; results in broadly based, creative movement, with no concern for orthodoxy; negative side = political impotency; but the older branch has the organizational structure for potency It is structure and style rather than ideology that differentiates the various groups Older branch – activities generally legal, political and media oriented Younger branch – more experimental; developed ‘rap groups’ – a tool for social change which brings together women in a situation of structure interaction and serves as mechanism for social change in itself by altering participants perceptions through “consciousness raising” NOW older group split three times because of top down structure; two major factions were fighting – the insurgent group took power and began to centralize the organization which increased its national power and political leverage In 1979 with Equal Rights Amendment on horizon, NOW focused all energy on getting the bill passed = process from social movement organization into interest group The National Womens political caucus was always an interest group – get women into office Younger branch – primarily local groups, more important for its new ideas, less for its activities Several crises in 1970s = attempts by Young Socialist Alliance to take over movement and by gay/straight split – NOW absorbed many of these women from the fall out Ideology Split between politicos and feminists = whether womens liberation movement should remain a branch of the radical left movement or become an independent womens movement – the feminist won Two theoretical concerns: Feminist critique of society = traditional view holds men and women are essentially different and should hold different roles in society The idea of oppression = felt word oppression was too trite; has two aspects to the word – sociostructural manifestations are in legal, economic, social and political institutions; the sociopsychological ones are intangible Sexism – describes particular kind of oppression against women; two core concepts = men are no more important than women; women are here for the pleasure of men Not enough to advocate eradication of sexism – must offer normative alternative; two important ones: Egalitarian Ethic – the sexes are equal, so sex roles must go; Liberation Ethic – says that egalitarian ethic not enough; not only the limits of the sex roles must be changed, but the content as well Too much emphasis on this can lead to Radical Paradox = situation in which New Left women found themselves in, where pursuing reformist issues that could be achieved without altering the basic structure and thus they felt it would only strengthen the system – renders them impotent Together these ethics can liberate both sexes, etc. Schlozman & Tierney, R: Ch. 7 Techniques of influence: List of 27 techniques (from testifying at hearings to engaging in protests); the majority of groups engaged in over 17 of the activities; also striking similarities between types of groups and activities (ex. Unions, civilian groups, etc.); more variation in time dedicated to different techniques among groups Expansion in groups and group activity Two changes in political environment = revolution in assorted electronic technologies and a reinforcement of the nexus between the congressional representative and his district – changes nature of activity too Both point to increased salience of indirect lobbying techniques in which groups mobilize citizens at the grassroots level to communicate with policymakers – however not true Deciding to get involved = exogenous actions (block a bill) or endogenous (bring issue to light – retarded children example) Deciding what to do = various points of access because of federalism; once this is decided, have to pick tactics – limited by laws, resources, and past experience Representation, access, and influence Influence of interests: victory not based alone on organized interest; cant look at who won and lost, but what would the outcome have been had the interest not been involved at all West and Loomis, R: Ch. 2. Point = more affluent groups have capacity to change the nature of policy debates and control narratives to determine the policy outcome; ability to generate and repeat consistent set of messages important – and depends on money Dominant interests often wish to restrict the scope of conflict wile prospective losers often seek to expand it = the definition of alternatives is the supreme instrument of power; also the struggle to define alternative not fair – because of resources and affluence Tight budget era = winners and losers in policy General trends: The number of organized groups has increased steadily in past 40 years Organized interests have engaged in more activities seeking to influence governmental policies Organized interests and government decision makers share needs for high-quality information, both about policy alternatives and political prospects The distinction between inside lobbying of members of congress and outside strategies based on grassroots mobilization has diminished, largely due to technology Organized interests investments in (mostly incumbent) candidates through PACs have grown steadily – serve to maintain access and complement lobbying Lowery and Brasher, R: Ch. 8. Consequences and Reforms: The Bipartisan Campaign Finance Reform Act (McCainFeingold) Issues of reform is not a neat dem-rep question, with conservatives and liberals on both sides of the issue (mainly a question of legislative independence v. First Amendment Rights). Impact of Organized interests on American politics and Public policy: Organized interests are seen as a cause of increased cynicism and decreased political participation. Because of their growing numbers, their strong campaigning in relation to policy issues and their wide use of donations, they have been demonized by journalists and other observers. Criticisms: source of political gridlockà pluralists defend interest groups/factions as representatives of the interests of citizens, but neopluralists contend that too much representation inhibits policy progression. Transaction scholars believe that interest groups allow for policy implementation, unlike neopluralists, but that this policy encourages tax breaks, focuses on large economic issues and generally leads to institutional sclerosisà restrictions on market competitions create inefficiencies and create vicious cycle. They are just too powerful. Pluralists see this as normal and that citizens must unite and defeat minority interests... others find this unreasonable, especially in low-profile issues. Reforms and their potential effects on interests and politics: Ethic laws are generally passed by Congress after a scandal that increases pressure on its members. Types of Reforms: Restructuring Interest Communitiesà efforts to restrict the size of the lobbying community have been ineffective. Moreover, tax exemptions provided by 501 (c) (3) are easy to infringe, as long as non-profits disseminate info instead of lobby. Registration and Reporting Requirements: Lobby Disclosure Act of 1995 saw the Feds register Lobbies + Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 defined the role of political Action committees (PACs), forcing them to register with the FEC Conflict of Interest Laws: vary from state to state... have altered lobbying practices, but not the public perceptions that were their main focus. Campaign Finance Reform, at the centre of efforts to restrict power of organized interests. BCFRA bans soft money contributions + issues-ads referring to a candidate in the days before primaries and elections (30 and 60 respectively). It also makes up for the potential losses to campaigns by allowing for greater hard money contributions. Option of full public financing of elections MEDIA Wilson Ch. 12 National press = gatekeeper, scorekeeper, watchdog Gatekeeper = influence subject; scorekeeper = who wins/loses Adversarial press = suspicious of officials Cigler Ch. 8: Media Improve democracy via informed public, accountable politics; damage democracy by manipulating public opinion and propaganda Meyrowitz: Lowering Political Heroes Decline in presidential image to do with communications Speech giving – backwoods versus national Full/open administration and strong leaders = incompatible Althaus: American News Consumption in National Crisis 9/11 changed civic attitudes but not behavior Gulf War – peaks when events occurred versus 9/11 peak during first week then steady decline Decline in print news consumption and rise in electronic post 9/11 = reflects desire for latest news Public disengagement – consider war on terror a domestic issue Shifting public agenda Kull: Press and Misperception about Iraq News important especially in foreign events Misperceptions = Iraq working with al-Qaeda; WMD; supportive world opinion Individual bias or failure of press? Variations based on where news came from – especially Fox Misperception support war – heavily correlated Administration misled public; press didn’t challenge the administration Peele: Chapter on Media News media does not foster reconciliation approach to differences in red/blue Overall news consumption on decline – sometimes adopt subjective news to capture audiences Bias: Journalists tend towards liberal versus media owners; perception of bias by public Liberals influence through selection, ie more likely to cover social agenda than flagreligion Deregulation – concentration of media outlets in fewer hands – has gone to supreme court Film = more liberal, advocate agenda (ex Michael Moore) Internet = blogs – issue between blogs as news that requires first amendment protections and as types of campaign advocacy subject to government regulation Commercials = part of trivialization of political debate; foster public cynicism; advantage incumbents so congress not likely change Bush – held much fewer press conferences Criticized for paying columnists/tv hosts to support no child left behind Fed government news releases – in format of tv Graber Ch 6 & 8 Manipulative journalism – 1960s, Watergate 74, advocacy for social responsibility in journalism schools Investigative = three objectives: excite audiences, gain journalistic praise, trigger political action Investigative journalism leads to political action in three ways Write stories about public policies that engender reaction; write stories to arouse political elite; collaborate between journalists and public officeholders who coordinate news-political activity Three modes = simple muckraking, the leaping impact model and the truncated muckraking model Simple muckraking: Investigate, publication, public opinion, policy initiative, policy consequence Leaping impact is when some levels are skipped Truncated is when sequence is aborted so no corrective policies Simple muckraking = modest outcomes typical because people are cynical about political status quo Leaping impact = publications lead to correction without elite or public opinion Conclusion = public opinion is largely irrelevant in generating reforms q PART III READINGS THE PRESIDENCY Fisher Ch 7 Presidents use war powers – pattern of acting unilateral when conflict is relatively isolated; and asking congress when not Evacuation from SE Asia In 1975 = Ford asked congress to flarify war powers for dealign with foreign citizens; Ford acted before congress finished Mayaguez capture In 1975 ship captured by Cambodians; Ford ordered air strike and marines; titled section 4(a)(1) Desert ore rescue effort = Iran In 1979 Iran hostage situation, failed rescue, told congress after the fact Lebanon In 1982 Reagan sent troops under Section 4(a)(1) Grenada In 1983 Invaded Grenada, congressman went to court Libya In 1986 air strike circumvented war powers Persian Gulf Escort Operations In 1987 cited Article 51 of UN Panama In 1989 ordered 11,000 troops More examples = Gulf War, Iraq, etc. War power drift from congress to president post WWII Reasons = promptness Precedent doesn’t build a lawful foundation though War Powers Resolution = expansive definition = president acting unilaterally up to 60 days Suggests tying war powers to power of purse; improve consultation clause of war resolution; pass resolution disapproving of president war (Legislative veto) Legislative veto = a condition placed on delegated authority such as the onehouse legislative veto (INS versus Chadha) Power shift to short term political appointees Milkis and Nelson Stagnation of presidency under Eisenhower = growth of strength and image under Kennedy, Johnson and Nixon Kennedy – use of press (TV, Conferences) – way to people over congress Theodore Lowi = “personal presidency” = a personalization of the presidency, came into own under Kennedy; aided by TV; family involved campaign (Kennedy machine) Modern presidency – more powerful, prominent and politically isolated Expanding public expectation but isolation made it harder Kennedy legacy = personalization that isolated presidency LBJ = expanded power and independence of office Failure to be educator/instrument of popular will Vietnam = cynicism of presidential power Nixon = administrative presidency – achieve objectives through administrative action; expand EOP; reorganize OMB Modern president never truly imperial = power depends on broad agreement from congress, bureaucracy and courts Watergate = congress passed legislation limiting president power; also shattered consensus that strong executive = public interest War Powers Resolution, the Case Act in 1972, Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act in 1974, CBO created, legislative reform for more aggressive = decentralized = rise of subcommittees Greenstein FDR – lends self least well to balance sheet of negative and positive Truman = broker politician but bad at rhetoric and vision Eisenhower = most to offer in policy vision and organization – bad at public communication Kennedy – good public communication, bad organization LBJ = political skill Nixon = strategic vision in leadership Ford = emotional balance, underappreciated Carter = offers avoidable shortfalls, responded to circumstances Reagan = opposite Carter, bad with specifics H W Bush = reactive, good with specifics Clinton = resiliency and political prowess W Bush = set goals Presidential qualities Public communicator, organizational capacity, political skill, vision (to inspire, to deal well with content of policies), cognitive style, emotional intelligence Moral = beware of presidents who lack emotional intelligence Refers to LBJ, Nixon, Carter and Clinton Thurber Ch 8 Theories of the veto (Cameron) 1) Concept of president-congress relations as a sequential game with complete info; if legislation is closer to the administrative preference than old law then it passes; congress will either anticipate this and make changes or not both to pass legislation 2) Concept of commitment game; starts with administrative making strong statement promising veto prior to congress action 3) Coordination game; congress makes strategic calculations based on presidential preferences; manipulation by administration = best model o Veto chains = lawmakers update expectations of what president will pass Groseclose and McCarty - add a fourth 4) Blame game model = bargaining before an audience; congress fully informed, but public only partially informed; goal is to get president to pass an unpopular veto Central legislative clearance OMB directs process; coordinate policy proposals; statements of administrative policy (SAPs) Presidents veto threat – explicit statement in SAP that he will veto Senior advisors threat = says they would recommend that president veto Administrative signaling scale President veto threat then senior advisor threat, then secretary threat, then strongly oppose, then oppose, then do not object, then support and finally strongly support Veto bargaining closely associated with divided government Process supports theory on strategic signaling (number 3) The model varies depending on the legislation Message politics = the two parties develop message agendas Connected to name brand politics On message issues you see the blame game model Types of messages 1) Shared message priorities = ex. Education, usually gridlock and high veto threats; this is where you see the blame game 2) Majority message priorities = expect middle level presidential signals, high success rate 3) Minority message priorities = most likely to go public, few middle range, high gridlock 4) Other bills – not tied to either party o Bargaining dynamics and message politics Point = closer issue is to message agenda of majority in split government, more likely an unambiguous negative signal from executive Cigler Ch 11 Most dangerous branch because ability to exercise immense power Two presidencies phenomenon = coined by Wildavsky about split between domestic and foreign/military powers of president Neustadt = Power to Persuade Argues constitutional convention didn’t create separate powers = created separate institutions sharing powers Persuasive power = more than charm and argument – also status and authority president has Vantage points = appointments, vetoes, etc. Power to persuade = power to bargain Constitution gives him central budgeting and degree of personnel control President even has problems with own bureaucracy Essence of presidential persuasive task is to induce others to believe that what he wants of them is what they want too Sum = president must protect reputation and popularity as they seek to persuade others to support their initiatives Dahl = Presidential Mandate Myth of mandate = start with Andrew Jackson and Bank of America o Explicit under Polk; Wilson first to argue that president superior to congress because of mandate o Whig view of office = president deferential to congress Mandate theory o Elections carry messages about clear problems, policies and programs o Must reflect stable views of candidates and voters Dahls primitive mandate theory o Elections confer constitutional and legal authority on victor o Conveys info o Conveys idea that majority favor winner because of policy o When conflict between congress and president occurs, president should win because has country mandate Issue = constituent wishes should not be binding and cant usually be discerned o Often don’t win majority of popular vote o No single policy reason voting for president – highest is 21% o House and Senate margins are important too Claim to mandate = psuedodemocratization of presidency; myth elevates president above congress; detracts from legitimacy of diversity Healy and Lynch = Power Surge Presidential oath – defend, preserve and protect constitution Bush failed to protect first amdnement – free speech, though, expression o Cites McCain Feingold Act (BCRA 2002) Bush abuses presidential war powers o Ignore federal statues, unilateral executive authority, lock citizens up without habeas corpus o Torture memos in 2002 and 2003 – argues congress is powerless to interfere with president decision to torture o Debate has been what is torture and does Geneva cover terrorists; not does president have this power Bush violated 4th amendment search and seizure o Assert authority to exlude judiciary in warrant process by using military orders; dilute probable cause; misuse federal statues to detain suspects without charging them = power to arrest o Claims can circumvent rules that wiretap is unconstitutional because he is commander in chief and has inherent power = power to eavesdrop Writ of Habeas Corpus o Enemy combatant order; writ is in Article 1 of constit. Therefore is power of legislature; they can suspend writ; Hamdi case = Bush said court cant second guess him American legal system based on precedent so Bush’s actions are important Wilson Ch. 14 Divided government versus unified government; gridlock occurs when government is stalled by rival parties Powers of president in real terms = role in foreign affairs, ability to shape public opinion, position as head of the executive branch and claims to have certain inherent powers by virtue of his office Actual explicit powers = commander in chief of armed forces, commission officers of armed forces; grant pardons, convene congress in special session, receive ambassadors, take care that laws are faithfully executed, weild executive power, appoint officials Powers shared with senate = make treaties, appoint ambassadors, judges and high officials Powers shared with whole congress = approve legislation Electoral college = people chosen to cast each state’s votes in a presidential election; based on how many people state has in congress Organization of presidents staff Pyramid structure, circular structure and ad hoc structure Executive Office of President Agencies = Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Director of National intelligence (DNI), Council fo Economic Advisers (CEA), Office of Personnel Management (OPM), Office of the US trade Representative The cabinet – heads of 15 executive branch departments of the fed govt. Presidential character – Eisenhower – orderly, military, delegating Kennedy – personal rule and improvisation Popularity – all face decline except Eisenhower, Reagan and Clinton Power to persuade Three audiences = DC audience of fellow politicians, party activists and officeholders outside Washington, the public Bully pulpit – presidential use of prestige and visibility Veto power Veto message – a message from the president to congress saying that he will not sign a bill it has passed Pocket veto = a bill fails to become law because the president did not sign it within ten days before congress adjourns Line-item veto = an executive ability to block a particular provision in a bill passed by congress = decided this is unconstitutional Executive privilege One branch of govt does not have right to inquire into internal workings of other branch headed by a constitutionally named officer; second the principle of statecraft and of prudent administration require the president to have the right to obtain confidential and candid advice from subordinates Challenged in US versus Nixon 1974 – no absolute unqualified presidential privilege of immunity from judicial process under all circumstances Presidential impoundment of funds – not spending all of what congress appropriates Signing statements = express presidential attitudes about law, tell executive branch how to implement, declare that the president thinks that some of the law is unconstitutional = many feel it is unconstitutional Presidential program = Putting together a program – sources are interest groups (will have specific plans and ideas but will have narrow view of public interest); aides and campaign advisors (will test new ideas for political soundness, but will not have many ideas to test being inexperienced in govt); federal bureaus and agencies (will know what is feasible in terms of govt realities, but will try to promote own agencies); outsides specialists (will have many general ideas but will not know details of policy or have good political judgement) Two ways to develop a program = 1) to have a policy on almost everything (Clinton and Carter); or 2) concentrate on three or four major initiatives (Reagan) Constraints = risk adverse reaction, sheer limit of his time and attention span, unexpected crises, and govt and programs can only be changed marginally, while vast bulk of expenditures is beyond control in any given year Legislative veto = authority of congress to block presidential action after it has taken place; the supreme court held that congress does not have this power Eight times a VP has become president The 25th amendment provides for orderly transition of power to VP Impeachment = charges against a president approved by a majority of the House of Reps; however to be removed must be convicted by two thirds of the Senate presided over by Chief Justice Two presidents impeached – Andrew Johnson and Clinton Clinton – perjury, obstruction of justice, abuse of power = majority not 2/3 of Senate voted to convict Lame duck = a person still in office after he or she has lost a bid for reelection Presidential rules of thumb = Move it or lose it; avoid details; cabinets don’t get much accomplished, people do Presidency powers: - How has presidential power evolved over time, esp post FDR o Policy initiation, foreign affairs, executive privelge - What are the constitutional checks on the president; and how effective have they been? - When, if ever, is executive privilege constitutional? - How has the presidential staff changed over time and what impact has this had on policy making? THE CONGRESS Dodd and Oppenheiner Congress = Strength derived from ability to identify the common concerns and shared interests of citizenry amidst disparate claims Today = growing apprehensions about capacity to acknowledge and address policy dilemmas Policy deadlock today symbolized by four trillion dollar debt, hc costs, unemployment Now people want term limits, incumbent reelection percentage drop; analysts attribute to divided government of reagan bush years; but really much deaper Thesis = immobilism is embedded in character of contemporary legislative politics; magnified politics of self interest, result of post industrial service state = congress shad a legitimacy problem now Redress = policy change, institutional reform, united government Legitimacy thesis = assumption that to maintain support of public congress must recognize the fundamental problem of historical era and address with legislation Two valuable attributes = 1) representative institution and 2) deliberative body Crises of the past = westward expansion/regional conflicts in 19th century; late 19th century industrialization; corporate corruption; Great Depression; Cold War; WWII (military industrial complex) Answer to why congress legitimacy crisis now = it’s a post industrial crisis Switch to knowledge based economy Fiscal limits on the state Not insolvable = reduction in global crises, less money on military, maybe move away from reliance on bureaucracy Fundamental restructuring of national government is a way to resolve policy dilemma!! o Shift state activism away from government bureaucracy and toward managed competition – money from military towards social o Result = create an entrepreneurial state = government that acknowledges responsibility to address nations collective problems but sees incentive structure that encourage managed competition among private and public service institutions = broad goal is provide collective goods without undue dependence on government Public doubts problem solving capacity of congress Capacities are eroding; congress increasingly out of touch with nations problems Failure as Representative body = Legitimacy connected to members of congress who represent broad focused issues; however now selection of legislature tied to service delivery to constituents = shift from issue representation to interest representation (offering local loans, price supports and new buildings) = collective problems go unacknowledged Failure as Deliberative body = not just debate/vote but also dialogue; eroded in late 19th century early 20th with internal organization and procedures; committee shift from dialogic deliberation to strategic deliberation Result = technocratic congress devoted to incremental and particularized policy versus a democratic congress Solution = best solution – moving first to foster entrepreneurial government; thereby foster conditions for improving congress; but catch 22 sort of; must simultaneously deal with both restructuring government and own issues Create emergency joint committee on government restructuring = 1) set example of collegial discussion; 2) public exposure; 3) meet for question hour in joint session Other solutions = incremental steps Argues for switiching ombudsman role from congress to a fourth branch Campaign finance reforms alone not enough Fear = loss of faith in congress could support the rise of executive government and reinforce loss of faith in state/local level Issue clearest in California where the legislature is stripped of power Conclusion = congress adaptation to industrial era served reelection and power concern versus representative/deliberative of nation at large = now legislative legitimacy crisis David and Oleszek Legislators independent of decisions and votes = article I, section six = “cant be questioned in any other place on their speech or debate” Decisions = how much time to spend in capital, how much homework they do (obscure caucus = unnoticed members list compiled by capital hill newspapers) Specializing = senators usually generalists while representatives specialize; policy entrepreneurs = stimulating more than responding to outside forces; since 1960s and 70s reforms, easier to specialize/influence policy (speeches, floor amendments, caucuses, task forces) Staking out a position = politics of timing (Fenno) Fenno = three types of decisions makers 1) Early deciders; 2) active players (delay decision and invite negotiation); 3) late deciders (usually forfeit influence but are courted and gain concessions) Casting votes General pair = listed without refrence to how they might have voted Specific pair = how two absent members would have voted; 1 for 1 Live pair = one present, one absent During committee = can vote by proxy Offering amendments In Senate = delayuing amendments after cloture What votes mean Not unambiguous indicator of legislative views Factors shaping voting = party affiliation, constituents, ideology, president 1) Party = strongest single correlate o Party unity votes = about 50%; party unity scores for individual members (about ¾ to 4/5) o Rise in partisanship – constituency, recruitment, institutional (process partisanship = degree to which institutions is structured or operates in partisan manner) 2) Constituency o Elect someone whose views mirror own or threat of reelection Attentive publics versus inattentive 3) Ideology o Conservative coalition vote = reps and dems o Honey bees (liberal dems), Boll Weevils (moderate to conserv dems); yellow jackets (conserv reps), Gypsy moths (GOP moderates) 4) Presidency o United government has better success rate, president lose support as administration ages (better early) Giving and taking cues Two phases of decision making = predisposition and conversation There are nine sources of voting cues = state party delegations, party leaders, party majority, president, House majority, committee chairman, ranking minority members, conservative coalition, liberal democrats study group o Policy dimensions as cue Legislative bargaining Disparate goals and widely scattered influence Implicit and explicit bargaining o Implicit = anticipated reaction and exchange of cues o Explicit = compromise, simple logrolling, time logrolling, logrolling with sidepayments Logrolling = parties trade off support so each wins Negative logroll = less than optimal provisions together Time = support one thing for something else later Congress of individual wills and congress of collective decisions Baker Senate seems less partisan because compact, but not always Committee participation Senators serve on more committees = bigger association circles House = easier to get majority versus sixty votes in Senate Partisanship of committees influenced by subject debated o House appropriations = least partisan Leaders and followers Service leadership Difference in rules (senate = amend, filibuster); sheer numbers in House, also more leadership positions in Senate (committees) so more individual Pyramid of hierarchy in House Endemic of staff Senators = bigger personal staff (average 15 versus 31 in Senate) Senate = nursery of presidents Senators rely more on staff = spread thin o Danger of over delegation = captives to staff Size and managed conflict Small = face to face; less partisan; rules of engagement personal so better at conflict management; Senate more unitary because minority likely to impact legislation; place of concurrent majorities!! All major segments of opinion need to concur (not proportionally though) Cigler Ch 10 = Congress Most open to scrutiny and influence Tons of changes = mores staff, more power to juniors, etc. Fenno = Ralph Nader and Congress Writing in 1975 House reelection rate 96% and senate is 85% Puzzle = approve of legislators much more than legislature o Different standards of judgement – individual sour standard is one of represenativeness; for institution standard is to solve national problems o Standards applied inconsistently = mad at obstruction and mad when work too well with executive; we change our minds frequently about what kind of congress we want – cooperative versus counterbalancing executive o Senators and rpes more worried about individual self than institution o They criticize congress, act as fighters against it Importance of committees o Big differences between them; some are cooperative and others aren’t Issue = broken branch metaphor is indiscriminating o Suggests less wholesale, more retail reforms o Argues seniority rule isn’t very important in terms of committee performance Shepsle – Textbook Congress Textbook congress = a stylized version of congress characterized by a few main tendencies and described in broad terms Congress post WWII and post legislative reorg ac tin 1946 – lasted until mid sixties, image remained until mid seventies Textbook in late 40s to 60s o Increasing workload, staff average rises o Characterized by apprenticeship, constraint of younger members; specialization, courtesy, reciprocity, institutional loyalty o Changes in the 1960s = Larger staff. Funding, trips home, franking; make it easier to get to constituency Constituency needs compete with party as guide to behavior Decreasing deference to expert committees; greater resources = vertical integration and independence Reapportionment in 60s and 70s = less homogenized – members had to diversify portfolio; less deference, recipority and specialization o Geography, jurisdiction and party hang together in equilibrium during this time Textbook in 1970s and 80s o Important break up of solid south o Tension between liberal rank and file and conservative committee chairs o Age of reforms = revolt against seniority; rise of four powers Subcommittees Individual members = growth of resources Party caucus Speaker position o Decline of chairmans and full committees A New textbook congress? o The 1940s was conspiracy between jurisdiction and geography o The 1960s was solid south break up of equilibrium o Now = geography undermined jurisdiction o Party and individual (member enterprises) is on rise o No new equilibrium Too many members of congress remain dissatisfied; one possibility is balance members with party leaders Equilibrium between strong members and strong leaders is vulnerable to circumstances supporting it Barbara Sinclair – US Senators Senate = most permissive rules – extended debate, etc In 1958 brought in new class of activist senators; mid 1970s individualistic stnate emerged; increasing paritsanship Senate became more diverse – individualism and partisanship o Partisanship exacerbated problems majority leader has in keeping senate functioning o Individualism changed how senate committees work o Majority leadership = senate majority leader has right to first recognition; can move a bill onto floor but it is filibusterable Senate rules o Filibuster = extended debate to prevent a vote o Nominations can be filibustered o Holds = hold up legislation but gives leader info on potential problems o Individual and partisan = more likely to depress legislation How do they avoid gridlock o Most want to do something o Likelihood of retaliation from members Today’s senate o Opportunity to agenda setting, debate framing and policy incubation Mann and Ornstein = The Broken Branch In 2003 Medicare vote = GOP leadership kept vote open, bribed members Institutional decline o Centralized leadership, deference to executive o Began near end of long democratic rule o Regular order = routinely ignored Began restricting debate and amdnement on House floor Speaker – supposed to be institutional leader not partisan o Sum = restricted debate, loose interpretation of rules, distorted role of speaker – now giving in to president Senate = some individual and partisanship trends too but less in line with president Where problems came from = partisanship and solid south break up Evan Thomas = Where Republicans went Astray In 1994 = Gingrich contract with America – cut government spending o In 1997 – transport bill was lots of money – there goes the revolution Gingrich said four areas failed = candor, competence, corruption and consultants Republican revolution = seeds in 1964 Goldwater; then Reagan landslide o Gingrich not really a leader, Clinton outfoxed him; DeLay and the rise of earmarks Overreaching in Iraq Wilson Ch. 13 Bicameral legislature Six House phases = Powerful House, Divided House (1820s); The Speaker Ruels (1880s); House Revolts (against Cannon in 1910), Members rule (Committees until 1960s); Leadership returns The 17th amendment in 1913 – senators are directly elected Rule 22 = cloture with 60 votes Marginal districts = winner gets less than 55% of vote; safe districts where winner gets more than 55% of votes Because of TV/Media, personal politics (heard of incumbent), incumbent advantages Party = house control by democrats – redistricting some blame Conservative coalition = dems and reps Congress behavior theories = representational, organizational and attitudinal Representational = when constituents have clear view, reps respond = especially on cases of civil liberties Organizational = cues provided by colleagues; party is strongest corellate Attitudinal = ideology of individual Organization of Senate Majority leader; minority leader; whips; dems = seering committee and reps Committee on Committees Orgs of House Majority, minority, whips and speaker More leadership power Party polarization = major one party versus majority of other party Redistricting, voters more partisan, role of seniority Caucus = association of congress members Committees Standing committees, select committees and joint committees (includes conference committees) In 1970s decentralizations and democratization House changes = chairman elected by secret ballot by caucus; only one committee chair at time; need subcommittees; increase in staff; meetings public Similar changes in Senate Changes in rules = ban proxy votes, limit chairman terms Staff agencies Congressional research service; General Accounting Office; Office of Tech Assessment; Congressional Budget office How bill becomes law Introducing bill = can be a public bill or private o Resolutions = simple res; concurrent res; or joint res Bills refered to committees by speaker or presiding officer of senate o Multiple referrals and sequential referrals o Mark ups, report out; discharge petition o Bill must be placed on calendars to come to floor Closed rules (forbid floor amending and puts time limit) versu open House debate = quorum (minimum of members there) Senate debate = cloture, filibuster; double tracking (shelving disupted bill to move onto others) House votes = voice vote, division vote, teller vote, roll call vote Pork barrel legislation = bills that give tangible perks to constituents Franking privileges SUPREME COURT O’Brien Gideon versus Wainwright (1963) – sixth amendment; right to counsel in felony cases Less than 1 percent of cases are granted to review by court Court sets own agenda by picking its cases Addresses issues of Gideon before in Powell versus Alabama (1932) = Scottsboro boys Court ruled they were given unfair hearing without counsel; Betts versus Brady (1942) = only require consel in special cases like Scottsboro (capital punishment cases) – Gideon overturned this Gideon extended under Warren court, cut back under Burger and Rehnquest Justices compete for influence in agenda setting Court Jurisdiction 1) Article III = all federal questions, original jursid; over specific cases = ambassadors, public ministers, states, states versus citizens 2) Congressional legislation on appellate juris. – appeals replaced with petitions for certiorari = 99% of cases are certiorari; may use writ of mandamus; writ of habeaus corpus (produce the body) 3) Interpretation of 1 and 2 = example court sets rules for filing fees, etc. Deniability = if lack adverseness, is brough by parties lacking standing to sue (not ripe or moot); or involved politics 1) Adverseness = Precedent set by Jay court; litigants must be real and adverse; no friendly suits; doesn’t give opinions in form of advice; only appeals; no advisory opinions; dicta = statements of personal opinion unnecessarily included in decision; some exceptions = amicus curiae = to ensure opposition 2) Standing to sue = standing a threshold required for getting into court – show injury and exhaust other means o Frothingham case = precedent for taxpayer suits o Exception = Flast versus Cohen in 1968 – standing because personally affected o Cases of US versus Scrap = precedent that people could stand as surrogates for special interest groups o Law of standing tightened under Burger and Rehnquiest 3) Ripeness and mootness = ripe if injury claimed has not yet happened and moot if too late o Griswold versus Connecticut (1965) = privacy in marital bedroom; Eisenstadt versus Bard = extend to singles o Defunis versus Odegaard = laws school case, moot o Roe versus Wade = moot but decided it 4) Political questions o Origins in Marbury versus Madison; later in Luther versus Burden – decided congres snot court right deciding Reversed in Baker versus Carr in 1962 when congress said it dcides what is and isn’t a political question Stake decisis = let the prior decision stand = promotes the uniformity and stability of law; controversial because changing society/technology; differs for cases – civil liberty by margin open for interpretation Formal rules and practices Judicial disqualification and recuse Agenda setting Screening cases = much is delegated now; issue of what to do with unpaid dockets Cert pool – in 1972; sharing memos; heavy reliance on clerks; 4/5 of cases disposed are screened by clerks and not discussed Conference discussions = given two lists (discussions and dead lists) Judges Burger – not that great; Rehnquest great; Best were Hughes and Warren Patterns of unanimity = decrease in reject/accept The Rule of Four = during conference, four must agree that case should be orally discussed Join-3 vote = vote to provide a fourth vote; if other vote to grant review; but generally considered a vote to deny Publishing dissents from denial What denials mean = split, some say means nothing DIG (dismissed as improvidently granted) – reverse rule of four; rule of four now only for allowing oral arguments – majority for everything else Role of superlegislature because picks case Interest group litigation = litigation easier and more success than legislation Cue theory Justices select cases based on cues = civil liberties issues; disagreement in lower court; involve federal government as petitioner Courts 9 ½ member = solicitor general More cases in recent years Trends Less than 1% of cases accepted; more cases on the docket; rely more on clerks; clerks are risk averse Court doesn’t exist to correct errors in cases Declare most are frivolous cases Baum Influences on Supreme court judges = legal community, interest groups, potentials Legal community – ABA especially; committee on Fed judiciary also who evaluate presidential nominees; other prominent lawyers; judges on court Interest groups = labour and civil rights groups esp; intervene at the senate stage Candidates for court Presidential decision making Decisional framework = decide only after vacancy; before or with criteria Extent of delegating work of nominations Qualifications Objective qualifications; policy preferences; rewards to political associations; and building political support 1) Objective Qualifications = ethnical and legal standards 2) Policy preferences = attitudes towards policies 3) Political and personal rewards = vulnerable to charges of chronyism 4) Building political support = geography important, religious affiliation; race and gender Senate Confirmation To judiciary committee then to floor Presidential strength, unified government, interest mobilization, situation Since 1968 Senate taken more active role in scrutinizing o Increase IGs; increase political awareness Career path Legal profession; high positions; sometimes academia Implications – age, SES, race Prior judicial service Partisan political activity Justices more likely to step down versus die in office today Judicial pension in 1869 Court attractive because importance of individual Cigler Ch 3 Civil liberties = strike at core of relations between citizens and state Balancing act between individual and society needs Balance relative amount of power given to government versus citizens Security versus liberty Cases = Mapp versus Ohio (1961) – limit use of evidence from illegal search; Miranda versus Arizona (1966) Near versus Minnesota (1931) Freedom of expression – prior restraint of the press Court opinion = Justice Hughes Question = statutes authorizing censorship in restraint of publication is consistent with concept of liberty o Decision = Has right to publish but must deal with consequences Only prior restraint limited when a nation is at war; also for obscene things; the security of a community from incitements of violence Madiosn in colonial times Just because some scandalous article, shouldn’t crack down on vigilant and courageous press Preliminary freedom does not depend on proof of truth o Important because used in NYT versus US (Pentagon Papers 1972?)! Fred Friendly = From the Saturday Press to NYT Pentagon paper case 1971 Near was little cared about – Holmes said these are the best cases to make good laws with Not based on national frenzy Near = decision was five to four Other press cases o In 1964 NYT versus Sullivan = prevent southern courts from using law of libel to thwart national news of civil rights; freedom of press to report cases said must prove malice to win libel NYT versus US (pentagon papers) o Decision was 6 to 3 o Didn’t establish absolutism of first amendment against all prior restraint! Gideon versus Wainwright (1963) Previously in Betts versus Brady (1942) – right to counsel not a fundamental right In forma pauperis Powell versus Alabama – upheld right to counsel on basis of 14th amendment Looks to fundamental nature of Bill of Rights to see in 14th amendment makes them obligatory on the states Reverses Betts ruling that 6th amendment not fundamental o Justice Black A second justice Harlen concurred = but didn’t consider Betts and abrupt break with precedent Griswold versus Connecticut (1968) Issue of right to privacy – not explicit in constitution Laid groundwork for Roe versus Wade (1973) Challenge to Connecticut restriction, but barely used law Estelle Griswold (planned parenthood head) giving birth control to married couples Opinion under Justice Douglas o Implicated due process clause of 14th amendment; some argued to use Lockner versus NY – but decided not to o In Pierce versus Society of Sisters – right to educate one’s children as one wants (under 1st and 4th amendment); and in Mayer versus Nebraska right to teach german in schools = court reaffirms these periphery rights; in NAACP versus Alabama = freedom of association o The first amendment has a penumbra where privacy is protected from government intrusion o Uses example of right to assocaiation as part of penumbra of 1st amendment – privacy is another o Amendment 4th is another facet of privacy; 5th amendment gives citizens a zone of privacy (self incrimination clause) – Mapp versus Ohio o Marital bedrooms subject to privacy Opinions of Goldberg, Brennan and Chief Justice agree o Invasion of marital privacy o Disagree that due process includes all 8 amendments o Broad interpretation of liberty = 9th amendment o Right to privacy in marriage = fundamental and basic Opinion of Black and Steward = dissent o No constitutional right to privacy o Says government has right to invade privacy unless specifically prohibited o Worried if take 9th amendment approach, it becomes personal = makes court a day-to-day constitutional convention Lawrence and Garner versus Texas (2003) Right of privacy Bowers versus Hardick (1986) = no fundamental right of homosexuals to engage in sodomy Opinion written by Kennedy o Case involved liberty of the person in its spousal and transcendental dimensions o Accused argued equal protection and due process o Griswold = then Eisenstadt allowed birth control to singles o Questioned Bowers – does constitution confer a fundamental right to engage in sodomy Statutes seek to control personal relationship Issue of whether the majority may use power of state to enforce their views on society as whole o Right to liberty under due process clauses 5 and 14 Opinion of Scalia, Thomas, and Chief Justice = dissenting o No right to liberty under due process clasuse o Substantive due process – decide that due process clause prohibits states from infringing on fundamental liberties unless compelling state interest o Argues what Texas did is well within its right o Conclusion -= statutes don’t infringe fundamental rights, is supported by a rational relation to what state considers legitimate state interest and doesn’t deny equal protection Cigler Ch 13 Irony – rely on undemocratic institution to safeguard democratic state Major tool = judicial review; Marbury versus Madison 1803 Hamilton = Federalist 78 Addressed question of constituting and extent of judiciary Constituting o Mode of appointing judges = same for other officials – appointment o Tenure = during good behavior; calls judiciary the least dangerous branch; because no sword or purse has no will or force Contribute to independent spirit in judges; to be the bulwark of a limited constitution against encroachment o Partition of judiciary between different courts Human nature is evil Marbury versus Madison 1803 Didn’t re-read = established notion of judicial review Posner = Potted Plants Strict constructionists (legal formalists) o Judges have no legitimacy to decide public good – not elected; decide if right exists, not legislate Sphere of discretion versus sphere of application Posner = sees this as bad because nature of laws/legal institutions, limits of human knowledge and chracter of political system Judges been involved with policymaking from the start Deciding how broadly right is interpreted must consider implication of interpretation for public good (there is a link between public good and private rights) Don’t have full knowledge of how laws will be invoked in future = tech changes, etc. Argues against Berns – cites 1st, 14th and 6th amendments David Cole = Kennedy Court Supreme Court = Kennedy playing centrist role that O’Connor played Initially high number of unanimous but ended divided Hamdam versus Rumsfeld = five to three decision that made military tribunals illegal o Ruled tribunals violate Article three of Geneva Convention o Important ruling because: Means congress cant pass a statute overturning Hamdan by authorizing procedures without sanctioning a violation of laws of war The decision in effect bans torture Declares war on terror is not a law free zone = refutes American exceptionalism Wilson: Ch 5 Civil liberties = protections the constitution provides against abuse of govt. Civil rights – usually to protect groups Restricted civil liberties = sedition act, espionage and sedition act, smith act, communist control act The 14th amendment Due Process clause = deprive any person of life, liberty or property without due process Equal protection clause Both used to apply certain rights to state government = a process called incorporation (process by which federal rights are applied to states) o Bill of Rights applied to states except the 2nd, 3rd, 5th, 7th and 8th First amendment Freedom of expression and freedom of religion o Press = freedom of prior restraint o Speech – clear and present danger test Four types of speech and writing not protected = libel, obscenity, symbolic speech (act conveying political message) and false adverstising Church and state o Free exercise clause and establishment clauses o Establishment = interpreted as a wall of separation Exclusioanry rule = evidence gathered in violation of law is unusable Search warrant = probable cause or if lawfully arrested Good faith exception = if error in gathering evidence is small Patriot Act of 2001 BUREAUCRACY Wilson – Turf More control/less money (Laird) versus more money/less control (McNamara) Executives and Autonomy High resource dependence Autonomy = condition of independence sufficient to permit a group to work out and maintain a distinct ID Unifying military services Autonomy struggles bad when share tasks Create single defense department Key west agreement in 1948 – helicopters versus aircrafts Organization imperialism = drive for more for the sake of more – not necessarily true Important too is strong sense of mission Issue of finding match between mission and jurisdiction Achieving Autonomy Avoid taking on tasks of other orgs Fight encroaching orgs Avoid taking on tasks that differ from orgs mission Be wary of joint or cooperative ventures Avoid tasks that will produce divided/hostile constituencies Avoid learned vulnerabilities Consequence of action Difficult to coordinate work of different agencies Resist regulation Conclusion Not really about imperialism Autonomy is most valued; because determines degree of costs to acquire and use resources; high autonomy means agency has supportive constituency base and coherent set of tasks that can provide basis for strong/wide share sense of mission Strategies = Organization harder in public versus private sphere o Maintenance not just survival but prosperity (autonomy/resources) FINISH Cigler Ch 12: Bureaucracy – any complex organization that operates on the basis of a hierarchical authority structure with job specialization Question is whether bureaucracy compliments democracy – class of government employees beyond voter control Pendelton Act 1882 = civil service system of competitive merit American solution is to keep bureaucracy accountable to other branches through congressional oversight; media coverage Dionne jr. = Political Hacks versus Bureaucrats Spoils system of providing jobs developed alongside parties in 19th century; progressives brought in political and professional approaches to administration Trend of winning presidency by running “against” the government in Washington Idea that citizen service is essential to the health of civil society; versus a purely professional bureaucracy Preference for political appointees over bureaucrats and a preference for civil servants over the beneficiaries of political patronage = contradiction but deeply rooted Jacksonian rotation in office o Rotation in office = rejected view that no one but a few elite had proper training or experience; demand public duties be shared by large body of qualified citizens; saw it as part of mandate/policy implementation American tradition of political appointments is rooted in idea of how democratic government can work best and become more democratic – foil for corruption and elitism The Tension o Led to decline in moral exhilaration of public affairs at domestic level o Wallace = pointed headed bureaucrats o Neo-Jacksonian reaction in recent years = want to make civil service system more accountable, so more political appointments o Rise of privatization of public services – hired by govt o At its best – the tension is highly productive = constant battled between democratic impulse and impulse for efficiency and predictability o General trend today is putting down both sides in favor of outside markets o View government sector as sterile and stolid James Wilson – Constraints on Public Managers Government bureaucracies more difficult to manage than private bureaucracies Key constraints o 1) Government agencies cant lawfully retain and devote to the private benefit of their members the earnings of the organization o 2) Govt. agencies cannot allocate the factors of production in accordance with the preferences of the organizations administrators o 3) Govt. agencies must serve goals not off the organizations own choosing Therefore driven by constraints on organization and not by the tasks Revenues and incentives o No fiscal incentives to economize = have to turn over all unexpended funds to Treasury at end of fiscal year o Culture norm that people should not profit from public service o Additional effort doesn’t produce additional earnings at a certain point – no incentives because cant capture surplus Acquiring and using the factors of production o Complexities in hiring, purchasing, contracting and budgeting Charles Peters: Why Bad News Doesn’t Travel Up Challenger explosion – failure of communication in hierarchy of NASA Subordinates keep info from top because: o Fear – think careers lower down will suffer o Felt it was their job to deal with it – autonomy Case of NASA o Pressure of schedule, pressure from press Issues of firing whistleblowers, tendencies not to want to know the info What to do: o Institutionalizing whistleblowing; knowledge of this tendency in bureaucracies Paul Light – The True Size of Government Federal government much bigger than it was 30 years ago – by counting all people who deliver goods and services for Washington The shadow of government = private, nonprofit, state and local partners o Result of contracting out and dealing with personnel ceilings, hiring limits and doing more with less o Under pressure to create smaller government Govt couldn’t do its job without this shadow o Best jobs to be found outside govt. in private sector Merit system on one hand and not for shadow More federal government relies on third parties to deliver public services, the more those third parties must recognize the public obligations of their private or nonprofit service Wilson Ch. 15 Government by proxy = Washington pays state and local governments and private groups to staff and administer federal programs Discretionary authority – extent that appointed bureaucrats can choose course of action and make policies that are not spelled out in advance by laws Competitive service: the government offices to which people are appointed on the basis of merit, as ascertained by written exams Name request job – a job that is filled by a person whom an agency has already identified Iron triangle = a close relationship between an agency, a congressional committee and an interest group Wilson Ch. 16 Judicial review: the power of courts to declare laws unconstitutional Judicial restraint: the view that judges should decide cases strictly on the basis of the language of the laws and constitution Activist approach: the view that judges should discern the general principles underlying laws or the constitution and apply them in modern circumstances PART IV READINGS Cigler 3.6-3.10 Stuart Taylor Jr. Balancing post 9-11 security and liberty Patriot Act – Oct 2001 Stubborn adherence to civil liberties status quao more damaging in the long run Four methods of dealing with al Qaeda = infiltrating with informants, learning with wire tapping, detaining and interrogating = all but first is restricted by supreme court *New laws would make power more useful/flexible while setting boundaries for overuse and abuse Foreign intelligence security act (FISA) in 1978 – barred searches of foreigners without a warrant o Should be amended – lower burden of proof, etc. Argues against Miranda rights – fifth amendment only says not to be a witness against self – argues it is over interpreted o Should create a public safety exception to Miranda Abuse of detention – need laws to extend it to curb abuses Brown versus Board of Education 1954, 1955 Case consolidated four suits from Kansas, South Carolina, Virginia and Deleware Opinion of the court = Chief Justice Warren o Cases claimed unequal protection under 14th amendment, denied because separate but equal clause in Plessy Argues – segregation on racial basis, even if same facilities, deprives minorities of equal education opportunities = is inherently unequal Separation generates feeling of inferiority = argued on psychological and sociological grounds which isn’t the strongest grounds for law Reread case in 1955 – opinion by warren again o Deals with manner of carrying it out/incorporating it o Try to vest it at local level o Prompt and reasonable start toward compliance with all deliberative speed Gerald Rosenberg Argues Brown symbolic victory, but produced little change, given more influence than merits In decade after 99/100 black students still segregation Civil Rights act title VI cut off funding to segregated schools o Actions of congress and executive that led to deseg. Indirect effects argument = that Brown spurred indirect change = little to no evidence; congress responded to civil rights movement and executive responded to the threat of violence o Civil rights groups wary of litigative change No political pressure to implement it, but lots to resist Maybe evidence Brown produced resistance to change = wave of racism Brown credits supreme court with power and influence it lacks Celebrate Brown because symbol of US constitutional commitment to nonsegregated society; serves as ideological function assuring Americans they have lived up to their principles – leads to self satisfaction and unwillingness to evaluate practice, encourage finding a legal solution for military and cultural problems Peter H. Schuck Bakke case in 1978 – numerical quotas in affirmative action unconstitutional o Endorsed in higher education, but limited generally Because of triumph of non-discrimination principle, black’s social gains, evidence of consequence of preferences and new demographic realities = affirm action Difference between preference (equal outcomes) and nondiscrimination (equality of opportunity) Black-white gap closing Issue of other racial groups or mixed racial groups (one drop rule) Alternatives = propose treating government, legal mandated preference differently than private, voluntary ones – support latter, ban former because public law should not perpetuate distributive use of race o But must have transparency and protection of minor rights o Trigger market, reputations and informal mechanisms Joint Statement of Constitutional Law Scholars – U of Michigan Reaffirming Diversity In 1978 Bakke versus California = race can be considered in administrative policies In 2003 Grutter versus Bollinger – upheld constitutionality of higher education affirmative policies at U or M In Gratz versus Bollinger – court held U of M undergrad policy put limitations because was inflexible (quotas) Student body diversity a compelling interest Should be a plus factor versus a quota Cigler Ch 14 Deborah Stone – Stories Stories of decline and stories of control o Story of decline = beginning good, then decline, crisis if nothing is done; variation is stymied: story things bad, then got better thanks to hero, but bad again because hero is being interfered (regulation, etc.); another variation is change-is-only-an-illusion o Story of control = sit bad, always thought out of our control but here is what we actually can do (ex. Environmental); a variation is conspiracy variant: idea that the solution was hidden from us (Nader); or blamethe-victim (welfare moms); all assume a choice Pietro Nivola – New Pork Barrel New pork reflects kind of politics that benefit organization interest but not society at large Takes form of unfunded mandates and regulatory programs and public facilitation of private lawsuits Regulatory pork barrel – scope broader than the old version of pork o Can use rights argument = right to clean water, etc. Old pork at least fiscally visible, new murky Productivity and income would have gone up fast without new pork Need more fine tuning, expand CBO to look at societal gains/losses, issue of legal benefiting Eric Cohen In 2003 – medicare D – subsidies for prescription drugs Medicare Modernization Act (MMA) 2003 = includes Medicare D In 2006 = doughnut hole Conservatives – fear waste/inefficiency, cripples pharmaceutical industry, lakes away resources for other sectors Liberals = only government run can ensure coverage for all seniors, pharmaceutical companies too profitable/manipulation, see HC as a right Prescription coverage less of a problem than painted – more political the medicare crisis permanent Ivo H Daalder and James Lindsay The Bush revaluation = unilateralism and should use strength to change status quo o Ad hoc coalition of the willing (multilateralism a la carte) Did not begin with 9/11 but on campaign trail Most give credit to neocons in administrations, led by secretary of defense Wolfowitz o Issue most weren’t neocons (Cheney and Rumsfeld) o Also underestimates Bush Issues with revolution = arrogance born of power, not principle; second wrong that America unbound is key to US security o Others didn’t follow American lead Paul Pillar Iraq war – breakdown between intelligence gathering and policymaking FINISH!! Public Policy: Gillon: American Exceptionalism and Unintended Consequences Chaos theory In 1960s LBJ social projects – war on poverty conservatives argue “trapped” poor in welfare trap Race relations – Brown versus Board – spawned affirmative action and reacial gerrymandering Vietnam war – promote democracy and US image backfire Unintended consequences of liberal social legislature in 1960s – souring of public mood of growing public cynicism Unintended consequence – key conservative theme Social legislative tripped up by the invisible foot Issues with indiction of government activism 1) Compromising/negative of legislative crafting leaves bills vague – hard to figure out intent (legal textualism – judges should limit selves to interpretation only the intent captured in actual language of the law) 2) Unintended consequences not always bad – GI bill, WIC, internet, medical research 3) Fail to recognition that government that government can play a positive role and ignores that laws sometimes perform as intended – social security, civil rights act, pollution control; unintended consequences when occur, exit on margins usually and don’t undermine principal goal 4) Unintended consequences can plague any attempt to challenge status quo – liberals or conservatives – false belief created good government by tearing it down – ex. Deregulation, especially banking deregulation failure Heart of problem of unintended consequences is a paradox – citizens look to DC for solutions to complex problems but reluctant to give govt power needs to address them Fear public power as threat to liberty – rooted in revolution tradition and shown in separation of powers – operationally liberal but philosophically conservative = push and pull Respond to push and pull by constructing a haphazard administrative state that struggles to satisfy demands = iron triangle, incoherent organization, sub govt; fragmented power Issues = faith in ability to solve social problem – populist impulse, moral indignation about gaps between American ideals and practice o Pressure legislative for quick/easy answers Ex. Post Watergate legislative – war powers act, etc. were effective; others backfired Skocpol/Campbell – State Formation and Social Policy Avoid paternalists, welfare state – insurance for the good of the bread winning industrial workers; instead maternalists welfare state – female dominated public agencies for good of women/children Theories 1) Logic of industrialism – nation states respond to growth of cities/industries by creating public measures to help cope – issue with theory = urbanization/industrialization cant explain timing 2) National values – industrial school and national values to explain variation = laissez faire liberal values = cant explain US civil war benefits and benefits for mother/kids o Also social security was less in accord with values than government commit to full employment would have been Approaches looking at political contributions 1) Welfare capitalism – business preceded public sector in evolving policies for stabilizing/planning employment – issue because business groups opposed social security 2) Political class struggle – points to weakness of working class organize, lack of labor based party – argues capitalists able to prevent government from reshaping labor markets or interfere with private business Look at state formation Tudor polity – coined by Huntington – fusion of functions and division of powers in US Dominance of party system and federalism Participatory localism – because no dominant church or bureaucracy During bureaucratized/professionalization of US, progressive didn’t want to support universal old age/working insurance because reinforce party patronage US institutions and social groups o No working class party FINISH! Politics After 9/11 Rudalevige: Tidal Wave Sept 11 a tidal wave in building up presidential power Only one dissenting vote to allow Bush all necessary and appropriate force – WPR National security strategy of US – preemption Legal argument for Iraq = executive commander in chief, September 14 resolution, and resolution from first gulf war Last two are on shaky legal ground Intelligence community – renewed freedom of covert action In 1942 – supreme court case Ex Parte QUirin – non-military enemy combatants from WWII War and spending powers were expanded by presidential fiat and congressional delegation – prosecution of the war followed a similar pattern Presidents broad claims of inherent authority to designate even American citizens as enemy combatants and thus no habeas corpus Created Department of Homeland security Nov 2002 – president has great powers over this, limited congressional oversight Patriot act – created a host of new federal crimes and enhanced penalties for others; extended government surveillance powers as well FISA wall – between counterintelligence and criminal cases Many worried FISA procedures being used in patriot act evaded Fourth Amendment protections of unreasonable searches Neither FBI or CIA had much interest in sharing information – bureaucratic culture Domestic security enhancement act (dubbed patriot II) 2003 = would have provided for greatly expanded wiretapping in criminal investigations of citizens as well as aliens Claim that US citizens could voluntarily lose citizenship by serving in a hostile terrorist organization Not enacted! Bush claimed right to designate enemy combatants – didn’t have to be charged with specific crimes or represented by an attorney; could be held indefinitely without trial Challenged by Hamdi case and by Padilla case o Set aside Padilla case because of technical grounds; dealt with Hamdi; 8 justices agreed that the administration overstepped its constitutional bounds o Dissenting – Scalia wrote the authorization for Use of Miltiary Force on sept 14 authrotized congressional delegation on habeas corpus Credibility gap emerged Louis Fisher: The War Power Presidential war powers increase as they look to UN and NATO rather than Congress President commands troops, but congress provides them; congress declares war and president wages it Article I, section II – president commander in chief of the army, navy and militia Federalist 69 Hamilton = supreme command and direction of the military and naval force Two values = executive discretion and legislative limits Only five wars have been declared; can also authorize wars as did with Iraq in 1991 and 2002 Gubernaculum – emergency or extraordinary powers available to the executive = executive prerogative and inherent presidential powers argument Lincoln – more important to preserve that observe constitution in Civil War; suspended habeas corpus in Merryman case Roosevelt in WWII – case of Korematsu (1944) – Japanese detention centers Truman in Youngstown Steel versus Sawyer 1952; Idea of defensive wars Idea of shrinking globe been part of conceptual shift of enlargement of presidential powers War Powers today: President to act unilaterally for 90 days but congressional approval is required after that Crenson and Ginsberg: Making the president Imperial Dye: Institutional Elites in America Domhoff: Class and Power in America Lipset: Double Edged Sword Polsby: Constitutional Angst Ginsberg and Shefter: Electroal Decay and Institutional Conflict