JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY
Political Science 190.394
Spring, 2007
Final Examination
Instructions:
This exam is to be completed within four hours. You are required to answer one
question in Part One and two questions in Part Two. There is more than enough time to
write thoughtful answers and you should spend some time organizing your essays. You
may use any and all material you wish. This exam is completely open-book.
Given that the exam is a take-home exam, once you open the attachment with the
exam please be careful not to consult with anyone and to observe the four hour time limit.
There is no curve and thus I have no set quotas for grading. But fairness, nonetheless,
requires that you do the exam by yourself and within the time limit. I prefer that you
word process this exam. But you may choose to do it in your own handwriting. In either
case, place your name clearly on the exam, identify the questions you are answering by
Part and Number, and number the pages. If you choose to do the exam in your own
handwriting, write as clearly as possible and on only one side of a page. Use of a blue
book is optional.
Due date is Friday, May 4th by 4pm. If you word process the exam or do it in your own
handwriting, place the completed exam in my mailbox in the Political Science Office in
Mergenthaler (338) or under my office door in Mergenthaler (331). In either case put the
exam in an envelope of some kind or at least staple the pages. If you word process the
exam, please also email me a copy (jcooper@jhu.edu).
Part One
(120 minutes)
Answer only one question:
1. Assess the growth of presidential power in the United States and the challenges it
poses. In what important ways have the role and power of the President in the legislative
and administrative systems expanded since the 1930’s. What explains the expansion and
what mechanisms, doctrines, and strategies have Presidents relied upon to increase their
power? What limits on presidential power still exist? Would you agree with Tulis that
what has emerged is a “second presidency” that overlaps the one created by the Framers
or would you argue that the role and power of the presidency now pose a dangerous
threat to the intent and institutional design of the Framers? In either event does the
growth of presidential power need to be halted or reversed? If not, why not? If so, how
feasible is reform?
2. The processes of representative government in the United States are now marked by
both polarized parties and plebiscitary politics. How serious a challenge do these factors
pose to the validity of the deliberative and bargaining lenses as frameworks for
understanding and assessing decision making at the electoral and legislative levels of
government? Do contemporary theorists who apply a public deliberative lens provide a
superior framework for analyzing and evaluating representative government in the United
States? Overall, given the character of modern politics, which lens or mix of lenses
provides the best framework?
3. What are the defining characteristics of the modern party system? How do they differ
from the defining characteristics of the party system that preceded it? What explains the
emergence of a new type or form of party system in the 1960’s? How have the conduct
and outcomes of modern presidential and congressional elections changed as a result?
What are the consequences for representative government in the United States?
Part Two
(120 Minutes)
Answer two questions:
1. Compare and contrast the character and operation of the House and Senate since 1995.
What similarities and differences exist in the roles of party leaders, committees, and
ordinary members? What explains the similarities? What explains the differences? What
impacts does the character of the modern Congress have on the quality and effectiveness
of representative government in the United States?
2. In contrast to the first half of the twentieth century, divided government rather than
unified government has characterized American politics since 1969. In what ways does
divided government interact with polarized politics, message politics, and the president’s
veto power to shape conduct of politics, the power of the President, and the degree of
stalemate in modern American politics? Overall, how serious a problem is divided
government for the success of representative government in the United States.
3. Assess the character and success of major efforts at reform in electoral and legislative
politics since the 1960’s. In doing so, focus on the reform of the presidential nominating
process after the 1968 election, the congressional reforms of the 1970’s, and the
campaign finance reforms of the 1990’s. In each case what motivated reform, why did it
succeed, and what changes occurred as a result of reform? Overall, have these reforms
improved the operation and performance of representative government in the United
States?
4. Analyze the development and current role of the Office of Management and Budget.
How and why did its role change in the period from 1933 to 1970, as compared to the
period from 1921-1933, and since 1970, as compared to the period from 1933-1970? In
what important ways does OMB now serve as an instrument of presidential power in both
the legislative and administrative processes?
5. Compare and contrast three of the following:
a. The views of Jacobs and Shapiro and Morris Fiorina on the role of the public in
electoral decision making.
b. The views of Diane Heith and Hugh Heclo on the degree to which “a permanent
campaign” characterizes politics between elections.
c. The views of Arthur Maass and James Sundquist on the proper role of Congress in
policy decision-making
d. The views of Theodore Lowi and John Aldrich on the consequences of the collapse of
the traditional party system in the 1960’s.
e. The views of Terry Moe and Matthew Dickinson on the consequences of centralizing
and politicizing the executive branch.