Professional Documents
Culture Documents
to accompany
Fiorina • Peterson
Tom Caiazzo
Collin County Community College
All rights reserved. Printed in the United States of America. Instructors may reproduce portions of this book for
classroom use only. All other reproductions are strictly prohibited without prior permission of the publisher, except
in the case of brief quotations embodied in critical articles and reviews.
ISBN: 0-321-10861-2
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10-DPC–05 04 03 02
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER 1 THE NEW AMERICAN DEMOCRACY 1
OVERVIEW
The United States has more elections than any other government. Thus, the United States
leans more towards the popular form of representative democracy rather than the
responsible form.
With so many elections at different times, it would seem that there is a continuous
permanent campaign going on in America. The mass media and polls contribute to this
trend. Still, most Americans don't vote most of the time and even fewer contribute to
campaigns or work in party organizations.
When the majority of voters are united and determined, they can usually overcome the
advantages of the few that regularly participate in politics. Any discussion of reforming
American government should take into account that the trend toward the popular form of
representative democracy may be part of the problem instead of the solution.
LEARNING OBJECTIVES
3. Discuss the various types of elections in America and why turnout varies among them.
5. Elaborate on the effects of primary and poll proliferation on the American political
system.
1
7. Discuss the benefits of an electoral democracy.
8. Compare and contrast voting and electoral patterns in the United States with other
democracies.
KEY TERMS
aristocracy oligarchy
constituency popular democracy
democracy permanent campaign
direct democracy popular mandate
electoral incentive primary election
general election recall election
government referendum
initiative representative democracy
local election responsible democracy
national election single-issue voter
non partisan election state election
OUTLINE
I. Elections in America
The United States has more elections that select more officials for public offices than
any other country on earth.
Elections for national officials are held every two years, with all 435 members of the
U.S. House and one-third of the U.S. Senate up for election. There are also numerous
elections for state officials and local officials (including school board members). In
fact, in 37 states, such as President George W. Bush's home state of Texas, even
judges are elected.
Since many of these half-million elected officials had to first win a party's
nomination, there are even more elections. In addition some states, like California
and Colorado, allow voters to vote on laws and amend their state constitutions.
2
II. Government and Politics
In spite of all the voting opportunities Americans have, their governments frustrate
many.
Citizens believe that government costs too much, delivers too little, and wastes their
tax dollars.
Since government has so much power, it is natural and healthy for Americans to have
some suspicion of it.
Ultimately, government is neutral. It can be used for good or for evil. Often it is a
mixture of both. After all, we have a government because men often act out of selfish
motives. As James Madison put it, "If men were angels, no government would be
necessary. "Government is one solution to the inevitability of conflict among people
living in the same community.
There are several names for government by one person: autocracy, monarchy, and
despotism, just to name a few.
Whether or not government by one person is viewed as good or bad depends a great
deal on the ruler’s motives. Those who rule in the interest of the citizens of the
country are viewed as good, while those who rule with merely there own interests in
mind are viewed as bad. Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and Iraq are some countries today that
have the latter form of government.
If the maxim "power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely" is based on
fact, citizens would have to totally trust one person before placing all governing
power in his/her hands.
While aristocracies are rare today, several oligarchies exist. China is one example.
Although different groups in an oligarchy can serve as a check on each other
(unlike an aristocracy), the centralization of power in such governments still
makes them subject to the high probability of corruption.
Government by the many is called democracy. It takes different forms. One form,
direct democracy, is government by all of the people. In another form,
representative or indirect democracy, citizens elect representatives who make
governing decisions in the name of the people in free and open elections. In the
popular model of representative democracy, the voters are aware of the issues,
vote prospectively, and thus issue mandates to those winning the elections.
Every real world democracy has both popular and responsible elements. Yet, each
tends to resemble one model more than the other.
Britain is a good example of the responsible model. The United States resembles
a popular model, even though the framers included elements of the responsible
model in the Constitution of 1787. Because they feared majority tyranny, the
framers included checks in the Constitution to contain majorities. Furthermore,
each national office was assigned a separate constituency.
The new American democracy is marked by the presence of what has been called
the permanent campaign; a situation where the next election campaign begins as
soon as the last one has ended. At least five factors have contributed to the
permanent campaign: the separation of election days, the decay of party
organizations, the proliferation of primary elections, developments in mass
communications, and advances in polling techniques.
B. Separation of Elections
A century ago, most officials were elected on the same day, but the trend in the
past half century has been to separate election days. Most Americans now turn
out to vote for president at one general election, for governor at another, and for
mayor at still another.
In addition, there are primary elections and initiative and referendum elections. It
seems as if there is always an election of some kind approaching.
Generally speaking, the Republican Party leans to the right of the ideological
spectrum (conservative) while the Democratic Party leans to the left of the
ideological spectrum (liberal).
In the past these parties were so powerful that their organizations were called
machines. Today, they can no longer deliver the vote for candidates. Campaigns
have become candidate-centered rather than party-centered.
D. Spread of Primaries
5
In most countries, and in the early history of the United States, candidates for
office were nominated by party leaders. This system was replaced with primaries,
which are elections for selecting a party's nominee for office.
After 1968 presidential primaries (for selecting delegates to the party's national
conventions) took on a new importance due to their proliferation.
Since all primaries occur before the general election, they shorten the interval
between one election and the next.
E. Mass Communications
Better communications have obliterated the distance that once separated elected
officials from the voting public.
A final explanation for the shift toward a more popular democracy is the advent of
polling. While politicians since the early years of the republic have been
concerned with public opinion, advances in polling have taken the guess-work out
6
of what the voters are thinking. The media also spend a great deal of time
discussing public opinion.
H. Money
A. Voter Participation
Groups who turn-out to vote the most (such as older voters) seem to be more
successful in getting the government to adopt policies they want.
B. Primaries
Turnout for primary elections is less than turnout for general elections.
7
Those who vote in primaries are usually more involved, more committed, and
more extreme in their issue positions than citizens who don't vote. This causes
ideological differences between presidential candidates, which are accentuated
during primaries.
C. Campaign Resources
While contributors and single-issue groups may typically have more political
influence than others, when the majority is united and determined, the majority
often gets its way.
Even when not united and determined, the public still has latent power due to the
fact that politicians know that any issue could suddenly be highlighted by the
press, causing the public to respond. They also know that challengers (those who
may run against them in an upcoming election) will be informing the public of
their actions.
In short, since leaders are never sure which potential issue will explode, they tend
to be cautious in handling all of them.
VII. Reform?
Since politicians are always cautious about what the public thinks, popular
influence on government may be part of the problem, not the solution.
8
First and foremost, politicians want to get elected and then reelected. The
simplest way to do this would seem to be to keep constituents happy. Since
national politicians represent so many diverse constituents, the result is often what
is currently called gridlock.
Thus, reforms that shift American politics in a still more popular direction may
worsen problems rather than improve them.
Thus, a few reformers recommend moving back toward a more responsible, less
popular democracy.
One irony of the new American democracy is that while citizens have more
opportunities than ever before to influence their government, Americans have
been growing increasingly unhappy with it.
Even when things don't seem that bad, Americans stay frustrated. One
explanation might be found in the maxim, "the best is the enemy of the good." In
other words, the wish for perfection in government and politics often makes
people unhappy with their government and their leaders.
If American politics is so bad, why are so many other countries copying our
system, and why do we have to guard the borders to keep people out?
Tyranny still exists in the world. While Americans should not think that their
government is blameless because it is not tyrannical, they should be more careful
about the standards used in evaluating their political system.
Only when comparing the United States with other countries do we see that
American democracy, for all its faults, has extraordinary capacities as well.
Comparatively, Americans can vote more, speak out more, and encounter a
government that discriminates less and protects them better against foreign
aggression.
This does not mean that America cannot learn from other countries. But
comparative analyses suggest that not much would be gained by substituting the
institutions of any other country for the ones that the United States now has.
9
IDEAS FOR LECTURES OR DISCUSSION
1. The authors refer to Aristotle without really giving his full typology of governments.
This would make an interesting chalkboard/PowerPoint presentation to discuss.
Perverted Non-Perverted
(Rulers think only of themselves.) (Rulers make decisions based on the good of all.)
Furthermore, what the framers expected was more along the lines of what
Aristotle called a polity. (That word does not appear much anymore except in
some political literature.)
These points can be tied in with the discussion in this chapter over the differences
between the two types of representative democracy: popular and responsible.
10
2. The Federalist Papers could also be used in connection with this chapter.
The authors point out the differences between responsible and popular
representative democracy. The framers (as revealed in the Federalist Papers) had
definite opinions on this subject. Below are a few quotes to demonstrate their
thinking. (Refer to the full essays to complete the thinking of the framers.)
(A) "To secure the public good and private rights against the danger of such a faction,
and at the same time to preserve the spirit and the form of popular government, is then
the great object to which our inquiries are directed."
(B) "A republic, by which I mean a government in which the scheme of representation
takes place, opens a different prospect and promises the cure for which we are seeking."
Here we see the framer’s belief in representative government as a cure for the
problems that had beset direct democracies in the past.
Here, clearly, we see the framers coming down on the side of the responsible
model of representative democracy. The rulers are to "refine and enlarge the
public views," not give the majority exactly what it wants. As Publius states in
another essay, "...the people commonly intend [notice the emphasis] the public
good....But their good sense would despise the adulator who should pretend that
they always reason right about the means of promoting it." (Federalist 71)
(C) Publius takes a strong stand for responsible representative democracy in Federalist
10 stating, "Under [a representative democracy] it may well happen that the public voice,
pronounced by the representatives of the people, will be more consonant to the public
good than if pronounced by the people themselves convened for the purpose."
11
This is not how moderns think, but Publius clearly thinks that representatives may
be better able to make decisions for the good of all than the majority of citizens
acting on their own.
Of course in the next sentence Publius is quick to point out, "On the other hand,
the effect may be inverted." While representative democracy might provide a
cure for the problems of direct democracy, it also provides an opportunity for
rulers (and government) to ignore the public's wishes and not respect the rights of
citizens.
This was the problem faced by the framers--how to reconcile their faith in
representative democracy with their lack of faith in people holding positions of
power.
(D) "The republican principle demands that the deliberate sense of the community
should govern the conduct of those to whom they entrust the management of their affairs;
but it does not require an unqualified complaisance to every sudden breeze of passion, or
to every transient impulse which the people may receive from the arts of men, who flatter
their prejudices to betray their interests." (Federalist 71)
These quotes would indicate that the framers came down on the side of
responsible representative democracy rather than popular representative
democracy. Thus, any discussion of reforming American government today
would, from the framers point of view, not be in favor of making the government
more popular.
Of course the framers did believe that in the end, the people should be able to
decide governing policies. They merely took steps to bias the system of
governance in favor of deliberate rule. Hence the need for things like checks in
the Constitution. But as the authors of the text state, when the American public is
united and determined, it usually prevails (as the framers would have intended).
12
LISTING OF TRANSPARENCIES
Each transparency listed is followed by the Text Figure (or Table) number, followed by
the text page.
13
14
CHAPTER TWO
OVERVIEW
The Constitution was written to rectify difficulties the country experienced under the
Articles of Confederation. It granted Congress greater powers, established an
independent executive, and created the Supreme Court. Incorporated into the
Constitution were ideas of Thomas Hobbes and John Locke: consent of the governed and
separation of powers. The Connecticut Compromise resolved the issue of bicameralism
in Congress.
When disputes arose over selecting the president, the delegates settled for the electoral
college.
Ratification of the Constitution was done in special state conventions. Those arguing for
ratification were called Federalists. Those opposed to ratification, Antifederalists,
demanded a Bill of Rights, which was promised after the Constitution went into effect.
Anticipating the need for changes, the framers included an amending procedure.
LEARNING OBJECTIVES
1. Explain what procedures were used to ratify the Constitution and who the Federalists
and Antifederalists were.
6. Review key philosophical contributions of Locke and Hobbes and how American
political thinking was reflected by the Declaration of Independence. Also, review Whig
political theories.
15
7. Delineate the key provisions of the Articles of Confederation, the key decisions and
compromises made by delegates to the Constitutional Convention of 1787, and the nature
of the ratification debate between the Federalists and Antifederalists.
8. Delineate and explain the main flaws and accomplishments found in the U.S.
Constitution.
9. Review the means by which the Constitution can be amended and be sure to explain
why so many proposed amendments are never ratified.
KEY TERMS
16
OUTLINE
The framers stipulated that the Constitution would not go into effect until it was
ratified in nine states in special ratifying conventions.
As outlined in Article VII, the Constitution was approved by the necessary nine
states in 1788. George Washington was elected president in 1789, and by 1790
all of the original 13 states had ratified the Constitution.
When the British began colonization of what is now North America, they believed
rulers had a right to rule due to God's will.
Yet the Pilgrims who sailed to a British colony aboard the Mayflower in 1620
rejected the notion of rule by divine right. Thus, before leaving their ship, they
agreed to be governed by consent (Mayflower Compact).
Governors could veto laws passed by the legislature, but their power was
primarily due to the ability to appoint those sympathetic to them to government
positions.
Legislatures countered this influence through control of taxes and the salaries of
governors and appointees of the governor.
17
B. Voting Qualifications
Colonists did not allow women, slaves, indentured servants, or aliens to vote.
Furthermore, property restrictions for voting in some colonies disenfranchised
one-fourth to half of the male population.
When the British took steps to punish the colonists for these acts, the colonists
responded in 1774 by calling the First Continental Congress.
Those colonists who took the lead in opposing the British, known as Patriots,
fired upon British soldiers in 1775 in what became known as the shots heard
round the world. Fighting erupted throughout the colonies.
18
B. American Political Thinking
Three primary views epitomized the political thinking of Americans at this time:
(1) consent of the governed, (2) separated power, and (3) rights and
representation.
2. Separated Power
Forty years later, John Locke provided a justification for separation of powers
(legislative, executive, and judicial).
A group of British citizens who opposed British patronage and corruption were
called Whigs. One of the more prominent was James Harrington, who wrote
about the importance of representation and the rights of qualified voters.
19
VI. The Articles of Confederation (1781-1789)
The national government created by the Articles was weak, principally because
states remained sovereign and Congress had very few significant powers,
especially those that deal with fiscal issues.
What powers it did have the states also had. The Articles created only one
national institution: a Congress in which each state had one vote.
Problems caused by different state currencies, state disputes over trade, incidents
of domestic unrest (like Shay’s Rebellion) and threats from foreign countries
caused men like James Madison to call for a new national constitution.
When attendance was too poor at the Annapolis Convention for any reforms to be
proposed, the call went out for a convention in Philadelphia to meet in May of
1787. Every state but Rhode Island sent delegates to the convention.
Most of the delegates attending agreed that the national government needed to be
strengthened.
Two major factors divided the delegates: small states vs. large states and northern
states vs.southern states.
The delegates chose as the basis for their initial discussions the Virginia Plan, the
constitutional proposal supported by delegates from large states.
20
It called for a Congress composed of a House (elected by voters) and a Senate
(elected by state legislatures). Representatives in both houses would vary from
state to state based on a state's population. It also called for Congress to elect an
independent executive and the creation of an independent Supreme Court.
The smaller states countered with their own proposal: the New Jersey Plan. Like
the Virginia Plan, it called for three independent branches (Congress, President,
and Judiciary), but it would retain the single house in the Congress with each state
having one vote.
To settle the differences between these two proposals, the delegates approved the
Connecticut Compromise. Congress would be composed of two houses. In the
House of Representatives, state representation would be based on population. In
the Senate, every state would have an equal vote.
A. Congress
The delegates granted several significant powers to Congress. Voters would elect
representatives to the House for two year terms and state legislatures would elect
Senators to six year terms. They refused to place any term limits on either
Representatives or Senators.
B. The Executive
The delegates created a position for a president who must frequently act in
concert with Congress or the Senate to exercise powers.
The House can impeach the president for committing high crimes and
misdemeanors, and the Senate can acquit or convict and remove an impeached
president.
21
C. The Electoral College
When large and small states differed over how to elect the president, the delegates
compromised and created the electoral college. The number of electoral votes a
state has is based on its total representation in Congress. Each state can decide
how electors are chosen.
The delegates created a Supreme Court, appointed by the president (with consent
of the Senate) for an unspecified term ("good behavior"). Refusing to create
lower federal courts, the delegates gave this power to Congress. Congress created
lower federal courts in 1789.
The delegates also specified that the Constitution was the supreme law of the land
which all judges (federal and state) are bound by oath to uphold.
The delegates refused to ban slavery but did put a 20 year limit on continuing the
slave trade. A compromise was reached on the subject of how to count slaves for
purposes of representation in the House of Representatives: Each slave would
count as three-fifths of a non-slave (the three-fifth's compromise). In exchange
for this, Southern states agreed to grant Congress the authority to tax imports.
They also included the Fugutive Slave clause (Article 4) and the 1808 slave trade
clause (Article I) to appease any southern dissent.
Thinking that protection of rights would be a state responsibility, the delegates did
not include a Bill of Rights. To alleviate criticism for this, the Federalists
promised to add a Bill of Rights to the Constitution if states ratified it.
22
The Federalists answered these concerns in a series of newspaper articles, now
known as the Federalist Papers.
The authors of those essays thought the threat of tyranny could come from outside
or within the country. This threat explained why the Framers instituted a set of
checks and balances, dividing power between the nations and states and a
bicameral Congress.
Realizing the Constitution would need to be changed, the framers provided for a
method of formal amending. Of the four different methods, the most frequently
used is for Congress to propose (two-thirds vote) and state legislatures to ratify
(three-fourths of states).
This procedure is so difficult that only 27 amendments have been ratified (with
the Bill of Rights containing 10 amendments added in 1791). The most frequent
type of amendment is those expanding the right to vote.
The debate over the Constitution endured far beyond the ratification
period. Modern historians debate the framer’s intent in designing the
Constitution as they did. In his book "The Economic Interpretation of
the U.S. Constitution, Charles Beard argues that the framers were
motivated by a desire to help the powerful and wealthy. In contrast,
Bailyn and Wood see the framers as motivated by the ideals of the
Whigs. Some classroom dialgue should be exercised here.
A. A Step Backward?
23
B. Achievements
The Framers did draft a document that contributed to the solution of two
of the immediate problems facing the United States. First, it created a
unified nation capable of defending its member states and citizens.
Second, it facilitated the country's economic development by outlawing
state currencies and eliminating state tariffs.
The framers' refusal to ban slavery allowed that institution, and all of
its problems, to continue, but it is hard to see how they could have
prohibited slavery and also gained ratification for the document.
Please see John Hope Franklin's book: "From Slavery to Freedom"
about the impact of slavery. The discussion of Reparations for
African-Americans can also be discussed.
24
IDEAS FOR LECTURES OR DISCUSSION
Students do not always perceive the different purposes served by the Declaration
of Independence and the U.S. Constitution. They often confuse the two, thinking,
for example, that the Constitution of 1787 stated "all men are created equal” or
recognizes inalienable rights.
The two documents served different purposes, and because of this there are
striking contrasts between them.
The one word that summarizes the purposes of the Constitution is “stability.”
[Note: This is typically the approach taken by history texts, but there is an
alternative view. See, for example, Martin Diamond's persuasive text, “The
Founding of the Democratic Republic”] As the students learn when reading
Chapter Two of the text, the Constitution was a reaction to the failures of the
Articles of Confederation. The Convention was called because of such actions in
the states as Shay’s Rebellion. In short, citizens were concerned with stability.
Below are some additional specific contrasts between the two documents:
Equality:
25
Natural Rights:
Democracy:
The democratic aspect of the Declaration comes primarily from the reference to
legitimate government originating from the consent of the governed (and the
entire historical context, seen specifically in the long list of complaints against the
British).
The undemocratic aspects of the Constitution include filters for electing the
president (the electoral college) and the Senate (state legislatures, until ratification
of the 17th Amendment in 1913). Furthermore, all federal judges are appointed.
Also, a majority of Congress cannot propose an amendment to the Constitution.
Nor may a majority of Americans ratify an amendment.
26
In fact, if the Constitution is a democratic document today, it is because
Americans have seen fit to amend it. Here is a list of amendments that have made
the Constitution, so the argument goes, more democratic:
Revolution:
A final contrast between the two documents is the right of revolution. The
Declaration specifically recognizes the right, while the Constitution makes no
reference to it. (In Article III, the Constitution gives Congress authority to punish
those found guilty of treason.)
2. What's NOT in the Constitution (and the Importance of the Federalist Papers)
Most texts, including this one, inform students what is in the Constitution in the
chapter on the Constitution. For a good change of pace, this can be taught using a
unique (and hence, one hopes, more stimulating) technique. Use a class session to
discuss what is NOT in the Constitution. This is also a good time to introduce
them to some specifics in the Federalist Papers. [Note: It can also be a good time
to talk about methods of constitutional interpretation, although it would also be
appropriate to discuss that during the chapter on the judiciary.]
Constitutional Principles:
If students are asked (and it can be both fun and stimulating to ask this in class)
what are the basic ideas or principles of the U.S. Constitution, they will often
name the things they learned in secondary school: democracy, separation of
powers, checks and balances, judicial review, and federalism. None of these
things are in the U.S. Constitution (not in the document as written in 1787 nor in
any amendments).
27
This is not to say that these ideas are not expressed in the document or permeate
the document, but it is somewhat odd that the things we think of as most
important to the Constitution are not to be explicitly found there.
And, of course, explicit is the key word here. These are ideas that can be found in
the Constitution, they just are not explicit. How do we, for sure, know they are
there. The answer for that can be found in the Federalist Papers.
Federalist 10:
Simply put and from a procedural point of view, democracy is rule by simple
majority. Although our framers are accused of creating a republic rather than a
democracy, sometimes they used the words interchangeably. Madison did this in
one section of Federalist 10.
After introducing the reader to the problem of factions, Madison states that
factions cannot be prevented but their effects can be controlled. Factions can be
either a majority faction or a minority faction. Under the Constitution, the latter
are not a problem. Why? Madison states, "If a faction consists of less than a
majority, relief is supplied by the republican principle."
Democracy or Republic?:
In other words, here republican is used as synonymous with simple majority rule.
If a sinister faction consists of a numerical minority, simple majority rule will
defeat it. The majority will prevent it from imposing its will on the rest of
society. This is democracy, as Madison saw it, and it will operate under the U.S.
Constitution in spite of the fact that the word “democracy” does not appear in that
document.
Separation of Powers:
The words "separation of powers" and "checks and balances" do not appear in the
Constitution. (Some state constitutions do have entire Articles devoted to
explicitly recognizing these concepts).
These two concepts are central to understanding the Constitution, both how it
works and what motivated the framers in designing it. Federalist Papers 47-51 are
devoted to these two concepts and an entire lecture could be spent on what is said
there about them. Here are some highlights.
28
The classic quote in support of separation of powers appears in Federalist 47.
"The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same
hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self-appointed, or
elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny."
How does one keep the departments separate? That is a problem, because power,
in the framer’s point of view, is encroaching. The branch to be feared the most is
Congress. In describing the legislative branch in Federalist 48, Madison describes
it as "everywhere extending the sphere of its activity and drawing all power into
its impetuous vortex."
Paradoxically, the framer’s design for keeping the departments separate was by
uniting them. Give each a bit of the powers of the other. In Madison's words,
"unless these departments be so far connected and blended as to give to each a
constitutional control over the others [what we call "checks and balances"], the
degree of separation can never in practice be duly maintained."
In Federalist Papers 49 and 50, Madison critiques two of Jefferson's ideas for
keeping the departments separate. In both cases, Madison rejects the ideas as
unworkable (relying instead on checks and balances).
Madison concludes the series in the often-quoted Federalist 51. Having rejected
Jefferson's notion of occasional or periodical conventions to correct imbalances
among the three departments, he states:
“But the great security against a gradual concentration of the several powers in
the same department consists in giving to those who administer each department
the necessary constitutional means and personal motives to resist encroachments
of the other.”
29
What is the fuel that drives the system? Madison states, "Ambition must be made
to counteract ambition." Here and throughout the Federalist Papers, students can
see the concept of separation of powers and checks and balances.
Judicial Review:
The theory of judicial review is discussed in Federalist 78. [The framer’s belief in
judicial review, although not used by that name, can be seen in Madison's Notes
of the Constitutional Convention; see Farrand's edition.] In this Essay, Hamilton
asserts that the Constitution is a fundamental law.
Early on in the essay Hamilton notes that the Constitution is a limit on what the
government may do (by specifying the powers of government). It also contains
specific limits on what the government can and cannot do. For example, ex post
facto laws are prohibited.
Federalism:
The framers there were aware of only two ways of establishing the legal
relationship between the central government and the states: confederation (as in
Articles of Confederation) and national (or what today is called unitary). Yet they
rejected these two types and created a third: federalism.
In Federalist 51, Madison notes that federalism provides the citizens of the United
States with a double security. There are two levels of government (national and
states) to which to appeal, and each level is subdivided into different branches.
This fragmentation of government helps prevent tyranny. "The different
governments will control each other, at the same time that each will be controlled
by itself."
At the same time, federalism helps prevent tyranny of the majority by permitting
the creation of a large republic.
30
LIST OF TRANSPARENCIES
Each transparency listed is followed by the Text Figure (or Table) number, followed by
the text page.
31
32
CHAPTER THREE
OVERVIEW
The framers combined elements of a confederation and national (now called unitary)
system when drafting the Constitution: It is called federalism. Questions over this dual
sovereignty have been litigated a great deal. The Supreme Court has interpreted three
clauses in particular in such a way as to expand national powers: the necessary and
proper, the commerce, and the spending clauses.
In the 1960s, a new era of federalism began: cooperative (marble-cake) federalism. One
aspect of this was the national government giving state and local governments money in
the form of categorical grants. In recent years, Republicans have advocated shifting the
emphasis of federalism to block grants. Despite the expansion of federal power, state and
local governments remain vital components of the federal system.
LEARNING OBJECTIVES
1. Explain the difference between cooperative federalism and the earlier concept of dual
sovereignty.
2. Discuss why the debate over the power relationships in a federal union have been a
pervasive and persistent issue in American politics.
3. Define and/or explain the following: necessary and proper clause, nullification,
commerce clause, spending clause, categorical and block grants, devolution, and
implementation.
4. Explain what problems exist with the implementation of grants in the political system.
6. Discuss the political relationship between states and their local governments.
33
7. Review the nature of state and local elections as well as why turnout is lower in these
elections when compared to presidential elections.
KEY TERMS
OUTLINE
For several reasons, federalism has long been thought ideally suited to U.S.
conditions. Federalism has become more popular in countries undergoing major
political change.
34
A. The Contemporary Debate
Republicans tend to advocate more power being exercised by state and local
governments, while Democrats tend to favor the national level. In recent times,
this debate has focused on the desirability of unfunded mandates (the imposition
of federal regulations on state and local governments without appropriating
enough money to cover their cost).
After Republicans took control of both houses of Congress in 1995, they followed
up on their platform of devolution and passed a federal law banning any new law
that was not adequately funded (and reduced the size and scope of many federal
programs). This trend continues today.
35
The Supreme Court has played an important role in this struggle. Through the
exercise of judicial review, it can declare state or national laws unconstitutional.
Elections also impact the balance of power. Who wins control of Congress can
determine the kinds of federal laws that are passed (having an impact on
federalism).
A. Dual Sovereignty
Contrary to Thomas Hobbes’ political theory, the framers believed that creating
two sovereigns (national and state) could help prevent tyranny of the majority and
help protect individual liberty.
So strong was the notion of dual sovereignty in the early years of the republic,
some states believed they could nullify national laws that threatened state or
individual liberties.
The Supreme Court rejected the notion of states nullifying national laws in the
1819 case of McCulloch vs. Maryland. But the nullification issue reappeared
over tariffs in the 1830s and later over slavery. When President Lincoln opposed
the spread of slavery in the western territories, southern states asserted they had a
right to secede.
Moreover, the outcome of the Civil War decided once and for all whatever
individual sovereignty meant, it did not mean that state legislatures could declare
decisions of the national government null and void.
The following three clauses have provided much of the basis for the expansion of
federal power.
36
Chief Justice John Marshall expanded the powers of Congress by broadly
interpreting the words "necessary and proper" (hence, the clause has been called
the elastic clause).
A recent decision by the Supreme Court (New York vs. U.S., 1991) indicated that
the clause did not give Congress any power it claimed. The Court ruled that
Congress could not order states or local governments to bury its nuclear waste.
B. Commerce Clause
The meaning of the constitutional phrase giving Congress the power to regulate
commerce among the states has been hotly debated. In the latter portion of the
eighteenth century, the Supreme Court defined commerce in such a way that
Congress' powers were limited. For example, the Court exempted manufacturing
from congressional regulation. It also would not permit regulation of intrastate
commerce that affected interstate commerce.
In the 1930s, the Court reversed many of these earlier commerce decisions. The
result was that Congress' power was greatly expanded. Some thought there was
nothing Congress could not regulate in the name of regulating commerce.
A recent decision of the Supreme Court indicated there are limits to this broad
authority. As an exercise of its power to regulate commerce, Congress passed a
federal law making it a crime to possess a gun within 1,000 feet of a public
school. The Court ruled that Congress lacked the authority, in the name of
regulating commerce, to pass the law, declaring it unconstitutional.
C. Spending Clause
The spending clause grants Congress the power to collect taxes to "provide for
the...general welfare." The Supreme Court, at least since the 1930s, has also
interpreted this clause in such a way that Congress' authority is vast.
The Court has also upheld Congress attaching reasonable regulations to money it
allocates to state and local governments. It is this authority that has resulted in the
theory and practice of cooperative federalism.
37
The notion of cooperative federalism, also known as "marble-cake" federalism,
stands for the idea that all levels of government could and should perform all
governmental functions together (hence, the marble cake analogy). The
governments work together to provide the most efficient method. It’s a more
interactive relationship
This idea was endorsed strongly in the 1960s with the passage of numerous
intergovernmental grants, such as the LBJ led Great Society programs
A. Categorical Grants
B. Problems of Implementation
C. Block Grants
First, during the Nixon administration, Congress passed general revenue sharing
(not replacing, but supplementing categorical grants).
38
One criticism of these grant programs is that wealthier states get as much aid as
poorer states.
One argument in favor of federal grants is that they are necessary to maintain
properly funded social programs.
V. Local Government
Local governments maintain roads, take care of the parks, provide police, fire, and
sanitation services, run the schools, and do many other things. The recent
devolution of responsibilities to state and local governments means that they play
an even more important role.
There are nearly 70,000 units of local government. In most states, the basic unit
of local government is the county. The number of municipal governments has
also increased in recent years. Finally, there are nearly 30,000 special districts.
B. Local Elections
Most local governments are run by elected officials, though special-district heads
are often appointed. Turnout in local elections is low, partially due to the fact that
local politics is generally less contentious (except in big cities).
Americans have more trust in their local governments than in the federal
government.
One explanation is that voters can move to a better local if they are displeased.
Local governments also serve as laboratories of democracy, and their wide variety
gives people a choice.
39
Local governments also find themselves competing with one another to attract
businesses.
The basic design of most state governments bears a strong similarity to that of the
national government.
A. State Elections
Most state officers are held by Republicans or Democrats. The traditional pattern
of Democrats being strong in the South and Republicans being strong in the
North has broken down in recent years. The most recent pattern is for Democrats
to dominate the state legislature and Republicans to control the governor's office.
The size and range of state responsibilities have grown dramatically in recent
decades.
The amount that states and their local governments spend on government services
varies considerably. The differences depend on the wealth of a state as well as
elections. Wealthier states spend more on public services. States having more
Democrats in their legislature spend more on social services.
40
Once the U.S. Supreme Court in the 1960s ordered states to
reapportion, turnover rose significantly, and every 10 years,
reapportionment becomes a major battle in the states.
In the 1980s and 1990s, many states resumed the active roles
they had played in the nineteenth century in economic
development. Thus, states passed tax incentives for businesses
and pursued international avenues of trade.
1. The word federalism does not appear in the Constitution. How is it manifest in that
document? It was this question that James Madison (writing as Publius) addressed in
Federalist 39.
To understand Madison's answers, one has to become familiar with the language
he used. He, along with the other framers, were aware of two methods of
arranging the two levels of government (nation-state). First was confederation,
which they also called confederal or just federal. This was the form presently in
operation (Articles of Confederation) when the framers were drafting the
Constitution. The other form was called national or consolidation. It was the
equivalent to what is called today a unitary system.
41
Madison looked to five components of the Constitution to answer the question,
"Did the framers create a federal (confederation) system or a national (unitary)
system?"
A. Ratification
Since the Constitution was ratified by states rather than adding up votes for and
against the Constitution nationwide, it exemplified a federal system.
Here Madison examines the House of Representatives, the Senate, and the
presidency.
(a) The number of Representatives a state had was determined by its population.
This made a Representative a national officer.
(b) Each state has an equal number of Senators. People aren't being represented in
the Senate, states are. This made the Senate characteristic of a federation.
(c) The source of the president's power was the electoral college. Since it was based
on a state's representation in Congress (House and Senate), it had characteristics of
both a federal and a national system.
C. Operation of Government
42
D. Extent of Powers
E. Amending
2. The text makes reference to some Supreme Court cases impacting federalism. Below
is a brief synopsis of major Supreme Court decisions affecting federalism including
several that do not appear in the text.
Martin vs. Hunter's Lessee (1816): The Marshall Court ruled that state court
decisions in civil cases could be appealed to the federal courts.
McCulloch vs. Maryland (1819): The Marshall Court ruled that the necessary and
proper clause meant Congress had implied powers that were appropriate to
exercising the enumerated powers (rather than Jefferson's more strict notion of
indispensable to exercising enumerated powers).
Cohens vs. Virginia (1821): The Marshall Court ruled that decisions of state
courts in criminal cases could be appealed to the federal courts.
Gibbons v. Ogden (1824): The Marshall Court ruled that Congress' power to
regulate commerce among the states was broad enough to include all aspects of
economic activity.
43
Dred Scott vs. Sandford (1857): The Taney Court ruled that States had reserved
powers that kept Congress from interfering with the states authority to recognize
slavery (an early statement for dual federalism).
Hammer v. Dagenhart (1918): The Court ruled that Congress could not indirectly
regulate child labor by prohibiting items manufactured by children from interstate
commerce (following the doctrine of dual federalism).
National Labor Relations Board vs. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corporation (1937):
This is the "switch in time that saved nine" case in which the Court reversed itself
and rejected its earlier dual federalism position and began recognizing that
Congress could regulate intrastate commercial activities if they affected interstate
commerce.
Wickard vs. Filburn (1942): The Court upheld the New Deal legislation known as
the Agriculture Adjustment Act. Even miniscule economic activity (planting of
11 acres of wheat) could be regulated by Congress because of the cumulative
affects on interstate commerce.
Heart of Atlanta Motel vs. United States (1964): The Court upheld the 1964 Civil
Rights Act that prohibited certain public accommodations (public hotels, motels,
and restaurants) from refusing to serve people on the basis of race. The Congress
based its authority to pass this portion of the law on its power to regulate
commerce among the states. Evidence was presented to Congress that showed
that blacks would not travel (across state lines) as much if they could be denied
service in public accommodations.
Garcia vs. San Antonio Metropolitan Transit Authority (1985): The Court
overruled its Usery decision from just nine years earlier. Both cases dealt with
intergovernmental immunity. In Garcia, the city of San Antonio unsuccessfully
argued that it was immune from the federal Fair Labor Standards Act since mass
transit was a traditional state function (which, based on Usery would have made it
exempt). The Court threw out its traditional-nontraditional standard, stating that
in future cases it would leave such decisions to the political process (since the
framers had designed federalism into the political process).
44
New York vs. U.S. (1992): The Court ruled that while Congress can issue
conditions or regulations that States must follow in order to get federal grants,
Congress cannot merely issue an order to states. In this case Congress had
ordered states, in some cases, to dispose of nuclear waste.
U.S. vs. Lopez (1995): The Court ruled that Congress could not prohibit guns
within a 1,000 foot radius of public schools on the grounds that it was regulating
interstate commerce.
Jones vs. United States (2000) A homeowner cannot rely on a federal law, which
makes it a federal crime to "maliciously damage or destroy by means of fire or an
explosive, any building...used in interstate or foreign commerce or in any
activity affecting interstate or foreign commerce, if the residence is not a
commercial enterprise [even if the home is insured by a company that operates
nationally or natural gas from other states]."
LIST OF TRANSPARENCIES
Each transparency listed is followed by the Text Figure (or Table) number, followed by
the text page.
45
46
CHAPTER FOUR
OVERVIEW
Although America has historically been ethnically, racially, and religiously diverse, it has
also shown surprising consensus on core political beliefs. The political beliefs originate
from an acceptance of classical liberalism that emphasizes the rights and liberties of
individuals (individualism). Americans tend to believe in individual responsibility and
hard work; hence their dislike for welfare. In spite of the waves of immigrants over the
years, the core beliefs of Americans have not changed much. In fact, recent scholarship
suggests that immigrants strengthen rather than weaken the spirit of individualism in
America.
KEY TERMS
OUTLINE
Americans are, and always have been, more ethnically and religiously diverse
than the citizens of other democracies.
Yet American political views are very homogeneous. That is, Americans tend to
agree on fundamentals and share basic assumptions about how a good society
should be organized.
47
II. Social Diversity
North America was settled by a diverse people. British, Dutch, Swedes, French,
and the Spanish all settled here. Different Christian churches from Northern
Europe, these groups often fought bitterly.
After ratification of the Constitution, the United States maintained the states'
existing policy of free immigration. The more rapidly the territory could be
populated, the more rapidly economic development would follow.
Immigration increased considerably in the 1860s and continued at a high rate until
World War I. In the Midwestern battleground states and much of the East, the
Republicans had their base in the native stock, Protestant communities, while the
Democrats had their deepest roots in the immigrant Catholic communities.
Another non-European group to assume a place in the United States was the
Chinese. At first they were viewed positively, but then a virulent backlash set in.
48
In the 1920s, laws were passed decreasing the number of immigrants and
restricting them to mostly northern and western Europe. By 1930, the era of the
open door had effectively ended. By this time more than 35 million people had
left their homes to come to America.
Immigration again became an issue in the early 1990s. In 1994, California passed
an initiative denying state services to illegal immigrants and their children. There
are several economic reasons for why many Americans are concerned about
immigration today.
Unlike times past, immigrants today are not entering a rapidly expanding
economy. This makes American workers more nervous.
States and cities vary as to how much of the burdens or benefits accompanying
immigration they experience. The same can be said for the different levels of
government.
Due to the restrictions of the 1965 law, a higher proportion of immigrants today
are older. Thus, a higher proportion are not working (or paying taxes) but still in
need of government services.
49
III. Philosophical Unity
Classical liberalism, with its starting point the individual (instead of the state),
emphasized basic human rights, equality under the law, and limited government.
It provided the philosophical foundation for the American constitutional order.
(In contrast, some historians think the influence of civic republicanism on
America's founding deserves more attention.)
A. American Individualism
One strong belief shared by many Americans is that individuals are responsible
for their own welfare.
This belief is buttressed by two other beliefs: One, Americans are suspicious of
government power and dubious about government competence; two, Americans
believe that hard work and perseverance pay off. Even the poor tend to support
these beliefs.
Most Americans do not regard economic and social inequality as justification for
government action.
50
IV. Religion and American Individualism: Contradiction or Complement?
Why hasn't the ethnic, racial, and religious diversity in American eradicated the
core beliefs and values of its political culture?
It has been argued by some that individualism in America took root and survived
because of the lack of a feudal tradition in America. In addition, there was plenty
of land-making it easy for people to exercise their individualism. Others question
this explanation given the fact that the frontier was closed by 1890 and given the
great influx of immigrants (who lacked the core value of individualism).
B. Newer Explanations
A recent explanation for the basic belief in individualism is that the governing
institutions in America (separation of powers and checks and balances for
example) often result in gridlock. This has been true since the founding, so
Americans have learned that you must rely on yourself rather than government to
get things done.
51
Another explanation is that the kind of people (only about 1percent) who made
the decision to immigrate to America were predisposed to believe in
individualism. In other words, they did not become individualistic by living in
America, they came to America because they were individualistic.
The following questions are taken from the Immigration and Naturalization
Service's examination which immigrants must pass before being nationalized U.S.
citizens. The test is a pool of 100 questions, with I.N.S. district offices given
discretion as to how many applicants must answer. The entire 100 questions were
published in the November 17, 1997, issue of The Washington Post (p. C3). The
answers appear on p. C4.
It might be a good idea to ask these questions during the first or second class
session and then tabulate the answers for discussion of this chapter. One subject
that could be debated is the appropriateness of the questions. In fact, according to
the Post article, I.N.S. officials know the test could be improved and invite
suggestions. Students could be asked what questions should appear on the test.
Here are one-third of the questions (along with answers) from the test. An
attempt has been made to include not just what might be considered the best
questions, but also some that represent what some might call trivial. Again, you
and your students can be the judge. [Question 21 is covered in the chapter
(students might have a different opinion). Also of special interest is the answer to
question 31.]
white
England
52
4. Who elects the president of the United States?
amendment
27
Congress
to make laws
435
to interpret laws
the Constitution
[Note: The Constitution (Article VI) states that the Constitution, laws passed by Congress
in pursuance thereof, and treaties are the supreme law of the land - the supremacy clause]
53
13. What is the Bill of Rights?
14. Who becomes president of the United States if the president and the vice president
should die?
Patrick Henry
Alaska
18. According to the Constitution, a person must meet certain requirements in order to be
eligible to become president. Name one of these requirements.
S/hemust be a natural born citizen of the United States.; must be at least 35 years
old by the time he or she will serve and; must have lived in the United States for
at least 14 years.
The Supreme Court also ruled for the 2000 election that one doesn't even have to
be a registered voter to run for office.
Thomas Jefferson
54
21. What is the basic belief of the Declaration of Independence?
24. What were the 13 original states of the United States called?
colonies
Congress
1787
28. Whose rights are guaranteed by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights?
the Preamble
55
31. In what month is the new president inaugurated?
LIST OF TRANSPARENCIES
Each transparency listed is followed by the Text Figure (or Table) number, followed by
the text page.
T8 The Population of the United States Is Becoming Less European in Its Origins, 4.1,
110
56
CHAPTER FIVE
Public Opinion
OVERVIEW
Public opinion is a basic element of democracy. Citizens acquire their opinions from a
variety of sources. Accurately measuring public opinion can be very difficult. Many
measurement problems stem from how questions in polls are worded or framed. Another
problem is that many Americans are informed, or misinformed, or hold inconsistent
opinions on issues. Politicians who try to be guided by public opinion will find it is
difficult to do so. In spite of this, public policy often does follow public opinion.
LEARNING OBJECTIVES
1. Explain how public opinion can change fairly quickly, using examples such as former
President George Bush’s popularity after the Gulf War and his subsequent drop in the
polls that led to his reelection defeat in 1992.
3. Explain the characteristics of public opinion and why public opinion is often
uninformed, unconnected, and inconsistent.
4. Discuss the relationship between public policy and public opinion, as illustrated by the
case studies dealing with health care and abortion. Be sure to explain why public opinion
can change and why it is so difficult to know the true nature of public opinion.
57
KEY TERMS
OUTLINE
A. Socialization
Socialization is the ways in which people learn beliefs and values. Sometimes the
learning takes place as a result of explicit teaching, and sometimes it results from
the less conscious observation or imitation of others.
B. Interests
Some of the opinions people hold are based on their personal interests or the
interests of others like them.
Different life experiences give rise to different views on issues that become
matters of public-policy debate.
C. Education
58
D. The Media
Sometimes the media shape’s public opinion and sometimes they do not. One
study found that television and newspaper exposure during a presidential
campaign had only marginal effects on preexisting views.
A. Survey Research
59
A. The Holocaust Poll Fiasco
The lesson of the Holocaust poll is that while sample size may
be large enough and there may be no selection bias, a poll may
still produce faulty results due to other factors (like the wording
of questions).
Public opinion is not an objective quantity like body weight or temperature that
can be measured with a simple physical instrument.
On many issues, people have little or no information. Most people most of the
time pay little attention to politics. Far more Americans watch sitcoms like
“Seinfeld” than watch Ted Koppel's “Nightline.”
Most people have little time for politics. The effort required to stay informed
competes with family life, work, recreation and relaxation. Those who do
criticize citizens for the lack of attention they pay to politics are those that have
the luxury to stay informed with minimal effort.
Some people, however, are informed not because of any benefit but just because
they either think it is part of being a good citizen to be informed or find politics or
political issues interesting.
60
B. Public Opinion Is Not Ideological
Even when people have reasonably firm views on issues, those views often are
surprisingly unconnected to each other. This is another way of saying that the
American people are not very ideological.
In recent decades, the American people have never delivered a clear mandate
either for the Republicans to cut and retrench or for the Democrats to tax and
expand.
61
Several reasons explain why Americans hold such inconsistent opinions. Often,
such thinking would appear to be due to lack of information or misinformation.
The uncertainty surrounding the true state of public opinion makes government by
public opinion poll immensely difficult, even if that were what everyone wanted.
A. Public Policy and Public Opinion: The 1994 Health Care Debacle
In 1992, it seemed that national health insurance was an idea whose time had
come.
By 1994, Republicans had won control of Congress for the first time in 40 years
and national health insurance was dead. What happened?
Public opinion had not really changed; rather, many people in and out of politics
misinterpreted what the public wanted or what it would accept.
Unlike their views on national health care, Americans have stable views about
abortion. Large majorities support abortion (1) to save the life of the mother, (2)
when pregnancy results from rape and (3) when there is a strong chance of a
serious defect in the baby.
As is often the case, the apparent inconsistency in the public's attitude toward
abortion could be attributed to different wording of the questions used to measure
it. Often, poll results are a matter of how a question is framed.
Unlike the view of elites on both sides of the abortion issue, average Americans
reject taking an extreme position on abortion.
62
C. Following Public Opinion
Given the problems of measuring public opinion and the low levels of
information, or even misinformation, the average American has about many
issues, public officials who try to follow public opinion may find it difficult.
Given all the problems with measuring public opinion and the low levels of
information (or high levels of misinformation) that Americans have about many
issues, this should not lead one to conclude that public opinion shouldn't matter.
The public can, and does, make informed judgments. Researchers have shown
that viewed collectively, the public is reasonably rational.
Also, American public policy follows public opinion. For those advocating a
responsible democracy (as designed by the Framers), this is not comforting.
Although the authors of the text mention sampling error, there is not much
discussion about it. Since students will constantly be exposed to polls, a good
topic to flesh out in this chapter is margin of error.
63
A. Scientific Polling:
What makes a poll scientific? Almost every aspect of taking a poll involves
matters that can be done scientifically or not. For example, this chapter highlights
the science (or, actually, the lack of) of writing good questions so that the truth is
revealed. A more fundamental aspect of polling in terms of whether or not it is
scientific is how a sample is selected.
From this point of view, a poll is scientific if every person in the population is
given an equal chance of being selected in the sample. By population, pollsters
do not mean all people in a country, state, etc., but that group of people about
whom the pollster is trying to get information. Thus, a population could be the
student body at a university.
So, when newspapers report that 55% of Americans approve of how Clinton is
handling his job as president, and the poll has a margin of error of plus or minus
three, this means that most Americans approve of the Clinton presidency. One
could be confident that Clinton's approval rating falls between a high of 58% and
a low of 52%. Either way, however, most Americans approve of the president.
A classic case of a poll lacking a scientific sample was the Literary Digest poll
conducted during the 1936 presidential election. The Digest was a magazine that
polled over 2 million people (compared to Gallup's typical 1,200) and proceeded
to predict that Alf Landon, the Republican nominee for President, would defeat
Franklin Roosevelt, the Democratic nominee. Roosevelt defeated Landon in a
landslide. Although the Digest's sample size was one of the largest ever, it had
erred in the selection of the sample. Because it polled from lists of people who
had automobiles and phones, it got a biased sample of mostly well-to-do
Republicans.
64
Several caveats need to be added. First, in five cases out of 100, the results could
be incorrect. That is unlikely, but possible. Next, the results only apply to when
the poll was taken. Public opinion is not always stable. On some issues (like
presidential approval), it changes frequently and in dramatic fashion.
Polling has come a long way since the Literary Digest debacle. Not only have
polling organizations fine tuned the methods of polling, more information is given
to voters about how polls were conducted. Twenty-five years ago if poll results
were given on television or in a newspaper, there would have been no mention of
the poll's margin of error. Now, such reporting is routine. Still, there is one
aspect of polling that gets ignored.
Often poll data includes not just the overall results of the poll (the number
approving or disapproving of the president) but will break the data into
subgroups. For example, it is common, since the Reagan presidency, to report on
the gender gap: how men and women differ in their presidential approval ratings.
This is when interpreting a poll gets tricky. Suppose NBC reports the following
poll results (of the typical sample size of 1,200 with a plus or minus 3percent
margin of error).
65
RATING PRESIDENT CLINTON
Men Women
Favorable 48 52
Unfavorable 52 48
No.
At first glance, of course it looks like men and women do differ. But, one has to
apply the margin of error to see if the findings are within the rage of being
"probably" correct. The tendency is to assume since NBC reported that the
margin of error for the poll was 3 percentage points, then the data reported here is
within that. But, this is data about two sub-groups, hence the margin of error is
different.
If we assume that there were approximately 600 men and 600 women, (caution:
we don't know for sure unless NBC tells us) in the sample, then the margin of
error for a group of 600 is 4 percentage points. Applying that margin of error to
the data reported on gender differences, it is too close to call to make any
observations about gender differences and presidential approval ratings of
Clinton!
Notice, the margin of error only increased 1 percent for the subgroup in this
example. Had the example been differences reported by race, some of the racial
groups would be so small, that the margin of error would be extremely high.
Unfortunately, this problem is seldom highlighted when poll results are reported.
This chapter did not discuss to a great extent the important role of family in
political socialization. A good exercise would be to ask students to conduct a poll
on this subject.
66
At each step along the way in this project, you can supply the students with
material, or have them (perhaps in groups) develop their own materials (which
could be submitted for a grade).
QUESTIONNAIRE:
First, you need a questionnaire. You will want questions like the following:
You may, in addition, want the students to add questions or note other things when
conducting the poll. Gender would be a natural one since you may hypothesize that
females, will associate more with their mothers and males with their fathers.
SAMPLE:
Next, you will need to select a sample. This can be the most involved portion of the
project. If you don't want to emphasize how a sample should be selected, you may just
tell each student to interview, any way they can, their share of students. (If you have a
class of 40, then each student could interview 30 students to get a total of 1,200.) If you
want to emphasize sample selection, you could ask students to devise a means of random
selection of 1,200 students (from the campus directory or registrar's enrollment lists).
INTERVIEWS:
Personal interviewing is (when done properly) the most accurate way to get polling data.
Most pollsters today use telephone interviews. You decide.
67
COMPILING THE DATA:
Some students (perhaps those who did not want to do the interviewing) should be
assigned the task (assuming you don't want to do it yourself) of compiling the data. This
usually takes close supervision as any misstep can result in erroneous reporting. The idea
is to get the information in Tables so that the class (again, as a whole or in groups) can
analyze it.
RESULTS:
Studies by Jennings and Niemi indicate that 59 percent of young people identified with
the same party as their parents.
LIST OF TRANSPARENCIES:
Each transparency listed is followed by the Text Figure (or Table) number, followed by
the text page.
68
CHAPTER SIX
Individual Participation
OVERVIEW
LEARNING OBJECTIVES
1. State what typical turnout is for presidential, congressional, state and local elections in
America. Also, explain why turnout is lower in America when compared to other
democracies.
2. Review those historical factors that have accounted for variation in American voter
turnout in both the nineteenth and twentieth centuries.
3. Summarize those key pieces of legislation and constitutional amendments that have
expanded suffrage throughout American history.
4. Specify those factors that initiated a decline in turnout from 1960 to 1992.
5. Explain in detail how individual motivations and outside mobilization affect voting
turnout.
6. Summarize and explain the roles of personal benefits, declining mobilization, and
declining social connectedness in determining voter turnout.
7. Identify the personal characteristics, attitudes, and background of the voter and
nonvoter.
8. Summarize and critically evaluate the three arguments that assert low turnout is a
problem and the three arguments that assert low turnout is not a problem.
69
KEY TERMS
OUTLINE
In 1824, six of the 24 states had not provided for popular election of presidential
electors. Having lost the presidency in 1824, Andrew Jackson took his election to
the people. The result was that by the 1828 presidential election only two states
still did not elect presidential electors and three times as many men voted for
electors as had voted in 1824.
Just prior to the Civil War, voting was restricted in most states to white males
who owned property. By 1860, all adult white male citizens had the franchise.
The 15th Amendment (1870) extended the franchise to black males. The 19th
(1920) gave women the right to vote in all states.
The evolution of voting rights in America reflects the decision made at the
Constitutional Convention to not specify voting requirements, but to leave them
for each state to establish.
Today, every law-abiding, mentally competent citizen over the age of 18 has the
right to vote in the United States.
70
II. Why People Participate: Costs and Benefits
One broad factor has been called individual motivations. This means that people
weigh the costs (economic, psychological, etc.) and benefits (mostly
psychological today) of voting.
If you vote, you bear the costs of voting no matter what the outcome, but the odds
of your vote making the difference in national elections is quite slim. Thus,
unless a voter has a strong sense of duty, or takes considerable satisfaction in
expressing a preference, the personal benefits of voting generally do not exceed
the costs.
What explains why Americans vote less than citizens in other democracies?
71
A. Personal Costs and Benefits: Registration
American voters also have less help (than citizens in other democracies) in
overcoming the costs of voting. Political parties have declined as mobilizing
agents. Organizations are plentiful in the United States but they are not as deeply
rooted here as in other countries.
Although Americans vote at lower levels than citizens in other democracies, they
are more likely to work in campaigns, contribute money, and attend political meetings.
Turnout is not only lower when compared with other democracies, it has fallen in
the United States during the past generation.
72
Research has shown that the decline was not due to falling trust in government.
More puzzling is that while turnout has declined; several factors associated with
increasing turnout have gone up. Legal reforms making it easier to vote and
socioeconomic changes.
Part of the explanation is the fact that Americans don't believe that government is
as responsive as in times past. Thus, voters do not see as much riding on their
decisions as they once did.
B. Declining Mobilization
Highly educated people vote more than those with little formal education. The
wealthy are far more likely to vote than the poor. The older a person gets, the
greater the tendency to vote (till very old age).
73
VI. Is Low Turnout a Problem?
2. If turnout were encouraged, those less informed, about less interested in, and
less concerned about politics would be voting.
1. Low turnout produces election results that are unrepresentative (voters are more
Republican and more conservative) of the entire electorate, resulting, ultimately, in
biased public policy.
Nonvoters don't vote because mainstream politicians (backed by the two major
parties) do not address the real issues that concern nonvoters (like jobs, health care,
housing, the income distribution, and education).
74
IDEAS FOR LECTURES OR DISCUSSION
1. Here are data released by the Federal Election Commission on the 1996 presidential
election. This could be used as a handout for class discussion. There are several things
to look for here. One would be how the actual data fits with the discussion about turnout
in the chapter. How many assertions made in the chapter are confirmed by the actual
data? How many assertions are not confirmed by the data? Also, what seems to be the
relationship between the number of people registered in a state and turnout (something
discussed a great deal in the chapter)?
% VAP % VAP
State Registered TURNOUT
================== ========== =======
Alabama 76.7 47.6
Alaska 97.6 56.8
Arizona 71.3 44.6
Arkansas 73.1 47.2
California 68.6 43.9
Colorado 81.9 52.7
Connecticut 75.8 56.1
Delaware 76.9 49.4
District of Columbia 85.6 44.0
Florida 73.1 48.0
Georgia 70.3 42.4
Hawaii 61.2 40.4
Idaho 81.6 57.0
Illinois 76.1 49.2
Indiana 79.7 48.8
Iowa 83.0 57.7
Kansas 75.7 56.0
Kentucky 81.8 47.4
Louisiana 81.7 56.9
Maine 05.9 71.9
Maryland 67.7 46.6
75
% VAP % VAP
State Registered TURNOUT
================== ========== =======
Massachusetts 74.4 54.9
Michigan 94.4 54.4
Minnesota 89.6 64.0
Mississippi 87.2 45.4
Missouri 83.6 54.0
Montana 90.0 62.0
Nebraska 83.8 55.9
Nevada 64.2 38.3
New Hampshire 86.6 57.3
New Jersey 71.6 50.9
New Mexico 69.5 45.4
New York 74.9 47.4
North Carolina 78.2 45.5
North Dakota N/A 55.9
Ohio 82.4 54.3
Oklahoma 81.5 49.7
Oregon 81.3 57.1
Pennsylvania 74.0 49.0
Rhode Island 80.2 51.9
South Carolina 65.4 41.5
South Dakota 85.9 60.5
Tennessee 70.6 46.9
Texas 77.5 41.2
Utah 78.8 49.9
Vermont 86.5 58.0
Virginia 65.3 47.5
Washington 74.8 54.7
West Virginia 68.5 44.9
Wisconsin N/A 57.4
Wyoming 67.6 59.4
UNITED STATES 74.4 49.0
=================== ========== =======
1996 VAP refers to the total Voting Age Population of the state as reported by the Bureau
of Census. Please note that the VAP includes all persons over the age of 18, including a
significant number of people not able to vote in U.S. elections.
76
N/A means Not Applicable. North Dakota has no voter registration and Wisconsin has
election-day registration at the polls.
1787 - Under the Constitution, the only national officials elected by the voters
were members of the House of Representatives. The Constitution did not specify
qualifications for voting, leaving each state to set them. The one stipulation was
"...the Electors [voters] in each State shall have the Qualifications requisite for
Electors of the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature," (Article I,
Section 2).
1789 - In the first presidential election, five state legislatures selected the electors
and four states allowed the people to elect the electors. (Massachusetts used
popular election and appointment by the governor; New York voted too late for
its vote to count; and two states--North Carolina and Rhode Island--had not
ratified the Constitution yet.)
1804 - The 12th Amendment was ratified. It was prompted by the tie between
presidential candidates Jefferson and Burr in 1800. Among other things, the
Amendment stipulate that electors must specify when casting their two votes
which one is for president and which is for vice president.
1860 – This was the last year a state (of the original 13) allowed the state
legislature to elect presidential electors.
77
1870 – The 15th Amendment was ratified extending the right to vote to blacks.
1876 – This was the last year any state allowed the state legislature to elect
presidential electors.
1888 - For the only time in American history, due solely to the mechanics of the
electoral college, the presidential candidate receiving the most popular votes
nationwide (Grover Cleveland - D) lost to the electoral vote winner (Benjamin
Harrison - R).
This chapter points out the lack of political information the typical voter
possesses. It then spends a great deal of time going over whether or not
increasing turnout would be a good thing or not.
What it does not discuss is the difference between prospective and retrospective
voting. The difference in these could add an additional perspective to the turnout
issue.
Prospective Voting:
Elections- During the campaign, voters become informed about the different
candidates. They would do this because of their interest in the outcome of the
election. To become informed, voters read newspapers, magazines, watch
television programs covering the campaigns, and talk to family, friends and
coworkers about the candidates and the issues dominating the campaign.
At some point, each voter determines which candidate's discussion of what they
will do when elected is most agreeable to the voter's own wishes. Then the voter
knows for whom to vote.
Once elected, if the president does not do what was promised during the
campaign, the voter looks for an alternative candidate to support in the next
election.
78
If campaigns worked this way, the exercise of voting would be quite rational. But
elections for president in the United States do not work this way.
The reason campaigns don't work this way is that most Americans are not that
interested in politics. Since they aren’t interested, logically they don't take the
time to study candidates during the campaigns- as portrayed in the prospective (or
rational voter) model. So, not being interested, they lack the knowledge to vote
prospectively. Does this mean American voters are irrational? In contrast, what
is better: an uneducated vote or no vote at all?
Retrospective Voting:
As alluded to in this chapter, one thing Americans can rely on for voting (because
it does not take much effort to do so) is how they feel about the past president (or
past four year term).
In 1980, when Ronald Reagan, at the end of his presidential debate with President
Jimmy Carter, asked, "Are you better off than four years ago," he was appealing
to the voter's ability and tendency to engage in retrospective voting.
Evidence indicates that this is exactly what voters did in 1980. In spite of the fact
that the election was often referred to as the Reagan Revolution, voters were not
endorsing Reagan's "vision" of the future. For every voter that voted for Reagan
because they believed in his conservative philosophy, three voters voted for him
because they wanted a change (i.e., voters no longer wanted Carter as president).
This is a perfect example of retrospective voting.
Voters are capable of reflecting on the past four years and deciding (rationally) if
they did or didn't like them (which they didn't when Carter ran for reelection in
1980). If they didn’t like the past four years, they vote for the other major
candidate (Reagan in 1980). If they liked the past four years, they reelect the
president (as they did in 1984).
79
LIST OF TRANSPARENCIES
Each transparency listed is followed by the Text Figure (or Table) number, followed by
the text page.
T10 The Right to Vote in the United States Has Been Steadily Expanded, 6.1, 173
80
CHAPTER SEVEN
Interest Group Participation in American Democracy
OVERVIEW
Group characteristics and their situations lead them to adopt a variety of political
strategies: lobbying (traditional and grassroots), electioneering, political protests, and
influencing the courts.
It is difficult to say how effective interest groups are. For every success story, there is a
story of group ineffectiveness. Some are concerned about the effectiveness of groups:
they do not represent all interests, the common good gets little attention, and they help
create a politics of extremes.
LEARNING OBJECTIVES
1. Explain how the Home School Legal Defense Association forced Congress to
eliminate the Miller Amendment, which would have required teacher certification in
specific subject areas.
2. Review the historical evolution of interest groups in America, noting which social,
economic, and political forces were prominent in group formation and proliferation.
4. Explain how interest groups are both formed and maintained. Be sure to include the
types of incentives that people have as motives for joining an interest group.
5. Discuss the implications of the free-rider problem for interest groups and the methods
by which groups try to overcome this problem.
6. Explain and define lobbying, grassroots lobbying, political action committees (PACs)
direct mail, direct action, amicus curiae, subgovernments, and issue networks.
81
7. Review how interest groups are evaluated. Be sure to explain pluralism and why it is
out of fashion today.
KEY TERMS
OUTLINE
Group formation has occurred in waves. Before the Civil War, there were few
national organizations. The first two decades following the Civil War saw the
birth of national agricultural associations and trade unions.
Another wave of group organization occurred during the Progressive Era (c. 1890
to 1917). Most, but not all, of the groups in this wave had an economic basis.
82
The 1960-1980 wave of group formation is the largest and most heterogeneous.
Thousands of economic groups formed. Numerous nonprofit groups formed as
well.
One researcher has shown that groups vary a great deal as to level of formal
organization.
In spite of the fact that the United States is a nation of joiners, millions of people
do not join or support associations whose interests they share. Who are the
joiners?
Professor James Q. Wilson has identified three incentives: (1) solidarity, (2)
material, and (3) purposive. People join groups when there are incentives to do
so. Some people join for social reasons. Some join because membership confers
tangible benefits. Some join to advance a group's social and political goals.
Groups relying on purposive and material incentives face the free-rider problem:
Many people who share a group’s goals do not join or contribute but share in the
benefits of the group's efforts.
83
The logic of the free rider is that his or her contribution (money or time) will not
have much (if any) affect on the group's success and other group members will
press on without one's contribution anyway. Thus, why contribute?
The free-rider problem is most prominent in large groups and those groups that
have goals are somewhat remote from the members' everyday lives (the difference
between what has been called public goods and private goods).
Only groups whose membership is based on social incentives escape the free rider
problem. The implication for democracy is that small groups organized for
narrow purposes have an organizational advantage. Such groups are called special
interest groups as contrasted with public interest groups.
1. Coercion
One way to overcome the free-rider problem is to make those who benefit from a
group's efforts to contribute to the group. Thus, labor unions rely on closed shops.
A milder form of coercion is to get government recognition for your group and its
members (such as government certification of certain occupations).
2. Social Movements
3. Selective Benefits
Some groups discourage free riders by providing active group members with
tangible benefits.
84
4. Patrons and Political Entrepreneurs
A. Lobbying
The term lobbyist has negative connotations. Actually, most lobbyists operate
within the law. The primary task performed by lobbyists is to provide
governmental decision-makers with accurate information.
B. Grassroots Lobbying
Grassroots lobbying is more prevalent today than in the past. The reasons are (1)
the decentralization of Congress, (2) the openness of government is today, and (3)
technological advances.
PACs are specialized organizations that raise and spend campaign funds. The
have enjoyed explosive growth in the past few decades. Far more of them
represent business and commercial interests than represent labor or citizen
interests.
85
There is widespread public dissatisfaction with the role of PACs in campaign
finance. While the media often portrays them as corrupt, most PAC contributions
are small and most research indicates there is no significant relationship between
PAC contributions by politician’s votes.
Some groups seek to influence the public even when no specific legislation or
regulation is at issue. Their goal is to build general support for the group and its
interests so that it will be more successful in the long run.
E. Direct Action
American history is full of examples. Of direct action taken by groups, one of the
earliest being the Revolution. Forms of direct action are often used by social
movements. The media (particularly TV) pay a lot of attention to such acts.
F. Litigation
Some groups seek to influence policy by selecting cases to litigate. They also
stage demonstrations in front of courthouses, generate letters and telegrams to
judges, and file amicus curiae briefs.
1. Group Characteristics
Size composition, wealth, organizational structure, and other factors affect the
activities in which groups engage; each group allocates its resources in the way
that it considers most efficient.
2. Situational Characteristics
86
Various situational characteristics--party control of Congress and the presidency,
the economic situation, the mood of the country, what your group seeks to
achieve--interact with characteristics of interest groups to determine what mix of
strategies is adopted.
The answers to this question are varied. Some believe interest groups dominate
American politics. Scholars usually disagree noting that one group can cancel out
the affects of another group. Also, subgovernments do not seem as powerful
today.
A. Subgovernments
Scholars coined the word subgovernment for the interaction between three
groups: a congressional committee, an executive agency, and an interest group.
One of these actors offers something the other two desire. The strength of their
relationship is summed up in the descriptive phrase "iron triangle."
B. Issue Networks
Political scientists generally have not held interest groups in as low regard as
ordinary citizens. Some used the word pluralism in a positive way to describe the
role, interaction and importance of group activity in American government.
Under pluralism, change is incremental and moderate, the result of competing
groups that are representative of Americans.
87
Pluralism is out of fashion today. For one thing, critics point out that not all
interests are equally represented by groups. For another, it is argued that the
interests of the nation are not the sum of the interests of its parts. For another,
group processes reinforce extremism and undercut moderation. (Leaders of
interest groups, acting as fiduciaries, tend to take extreme positions.)
There is no one thing that makes one political interest group more successful than
another. Here is a list of factors, each of which, all things being equal, make a
group more successful than others. If a group has several success traits, the
probability that it will be more successful (again, all other things being equal)
goes up.
A. Access - This refers basically to "who do you know?" If the goal of an interest
group is to affect policy-making, then access to the policymaker is critical. Hence,
those groups with access tend to be more successful.
B. Information - As stated in this chapter, the number- one commodity that interest
groups can have is reliable information. In fact, groups that have demonstrated they
have such data can more easily gain access.
88
E. Group Unity - Without unity of purpose groups expend a great deal of energy on
internal disputes (with little left over for external use). Groups with fewer people tend
to have greater unity.
F. Money - While money is important and those groups with it tend to be more
successful, it is not as important as the media would lead people to believe.
G. Narrow Goals – Groups that focus on narrow goals can focus their resources in a
more efficient manner. The text calls them special interest groups. Groups (like
Common Cause) that tackle numerous goals of a broad nature (from campaign finance
to reforming Congress) often find they are not as efficient.
H. Defensive - Groups that seek to sustain the status quo tend to be more successful
than groups seeking change or reform. Part of the explanation is the bias built into
American political institutions, such as Congress, that make it easier to block the
passage of a law than to pass a law.
I. Nature of the Issue - Groups are interested in different issues. Some issues are
general, while others are technical in nature. When issues are technical, voters are less
inclined to notice or care. Hence, groups dealing with highly technical issues tend to
be more successful.
2. It might make for interesting (and thoughtful) discussion to analyze some of the
assertions made by the authors at the end of the chapter. At the very end of the chapter,
the authors write:
One of the first pluralists, James Madison, thought factions could be constrained
by creating the extended republic, as he explained in The Federalist, no. 10. He
seems either not to have foreseen or to have underestimated several modern
developments.
To analyze this, we first must understand exactly what Madison was arguing in
Federalist 10.
89
Factions:
Madison begins this essay stating, "Among the numerous advantages promised by
a well-constructed Union, none deserves to be more accurately developed than its
tendency to break and control the violence of faction."
In the first portion of the essay, Madison discusses the desirability and possibility
of removing the causes of faction. He rejects that possibility, stating that factions
are sown in the nature of man.
Madison concludes, "The inference to which we are brought is that the causes of
faction cannot be removed and that relief is only to be sought in the means of
controlling its effects."
Controlling Factions:
Part of the cure comes in Madison's second usage of the word republic. Earlier in
the essay Madison used the word "republic" as synonymous with "majority rule."
Now, he defines it as a representative democracy. It helps cure the mischiefs of
faction because it allows for a large republic.
Advantages of a Republic:
A republic provides two advantages over a pure (direct) democracy. First, the
people themselves do not make decisions. Instead they decide who will make the
decisions in elections. Second, a republic can cover a larger area. One effect of
this difference is to "refine and enlarge" the public's views by "passing them
through a chosen body of citizens whose wisdom by best discern" the true
interests of the citizens.
90
3. A second major argument made in Federalist 10 is that a large republic is better than a
small republic. Here is the argument from Publius' perspective. It is probably the most
important component of the framers' design behind the Constitution. Some would say it
is Madison's major contribution to American political thought, calling it pluralism.
Having argued that a republic is better than a pure (direct) democracy, Madison
now argues that a large republic is better than a small republic. It is at this point
in his argument that Madison is credited with endorsing pluralism.
Why is a large republic better than a small republic? Madison asserts that no
matter how large or how many people there are in a country, the number in the
legislature is not going to vary that much. This is important because it means that
in a large republic you are not going to have that many more legislators than if
you had a small republic.
The importance of this point is that in a large republic there will be a much greater
number of people (and, hence, a large geographical area usually) represented by a
legislator. This will result in a higher caliber of individual getting elected to the
legislature.
Remember, Madison had already argued that a republic is better than a pure
democracy because in a republic the legislator will be wiser and thus can refine
the public's wishes. So, in a republic anything (that is, in agreement with the
spirit of democracy) that increases the chances of a wiser person being elected is a
positive factor. The large republic will do this. How?
In a large republic, the areas electing legislators will be more populous and
probably geographically larger. Hence, to get elected, politicians will have to be
familiar to the voters. This familiarity, in Madison's time, would come from
having achieved something. Madison asserts that politicians will not be able to
get elected to the national legislature merely by knowing more people. There will
be too many people to have to know. Instead, they will only be successful at
being elected if they are known for their accomplishments.
91
Prevalence of Logrolling:
The authors, quoting the research of others, write, "Rather than check and balance
each other, interest groups often cooperate..." The first thing to note about this
quote is that it refers to checks and balances in a manner than is inaccurate. When
the framers discussed this concept they did so by referring to what would go on in
the three branches of the national government. They did not see how that could
keep interest groups (on the outside of government) from forming alliances.
If, however, the point is that the deals made by interest groups are then carried out
in the government, what would Madison say about that? He would say, “well
done!” Making deals is exactly what he had in mind in designing the large
republic. If the voters don't like the deals they can elect new officials. Of course,
the voters can also hope the president will veto bad deals, or the Supreme Court
may be able to find them unconstitutional. In the end, since it is a democracy
(albeit a representative democracy), the voters have the final say.
This point ties in with the debate in recent years over term limits. The authors, in
quoting the study, argue that politicians are controlled by interest groups, which
then ensure that they will get elected.
The problem with this argument is the one mentioned above. Voters can always
refuse to reelect politicians that seem to be more concerned with brokering the
interests of major groups instead of making decisions that are good for the most
constituents. Of course, there is no proof that brokering interests is always bad.
Again, that is what Madison wanted the Congress to do: broker the multiplicity of
interests in the large republic.
Did Madison, as the authors put it, not foresee modern developments, or did he
underestimate several modern developments?
Madison did not foresee (how could he?) the technological advancements that
would change entirely how campaigns for national office were conducted. He did
not foresee that mass media (particularly television) would reduce the large
republic to a technologically small republic. Politicians, with the aid of
television, could enter into the public's living rooms. There the politician would
92
introduce himself (with the assistance of consultants that would tell him
everything from what to say to how to dress and comb his/her hair), his family,
and perhaps even his dog.
Having overcome one of the large republic arguments, with the assistance of
television, the burden became greater on the voter. This is because voters do not
get to know the politician on a personal basis, but rather for something they had
achieved. Voters, then, might start judging candidates for office by how they look
or what their family looks.
Alexis de Tocqueville
And then there is Alexis de Tocqueville. The young French aristocrat visited the
United States in the 1830s to study its prison system. Upon returning to France,
his book "Democracy in America," explained the workings of democracy in detail
to an inquisitive Europe. He discussed the workings of democracy in America
and its potential in a world undergoing radical change. He, unlike Madison,
praised democracy for raising the level of the average person but noted that it
emphasized equality more than liberty present a potential for danger. He
marveled the mere fact that people were coming together and associating, which
reflected a strong democratic culture.
LIST OF TRANSPARENCIES
Each transparency listed is followed by the Text Figure (or Table) number, followed by
the text page.
T12 PACs Formed Rapidly After the 1974 Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA)
Reforms, 7.2, 217
93
94
CHAPTER EIGHT
Political Parties
OVERVIEW
Although not mentioned in the Constitution, political parties developed early in the
history of the republic. Alignments with parties are fairly consistent, changing when a
critical election or era occurs.
Parties serve a variety of important functions, yet Americans tend to view them
negatively. This is partially due to the fact that parties are mired in a constant struggle to
win elections. The United States has mostly had a two-party system due to election rules.
The parties have been weakened by eforms intended to give voters a greater say in their
affairs. The Democrats and Republicans continue to dominate the election landscape.
LEARNING OBJECTIVES
2. Explain how political parties contribute to democratic politics in America and how
they may also detract from democratic values.
3. Review and explain the six party-systems in American history, noting why and how
each system came into being.
4. Explain why the United States has a two-party system and why most of the other
democracies in the world have a multiparty system. Be sure to define "single-member,
simple plurality" and "proportional representation" systems.
5. Evaluate the current state of America's political parties, including the reasons behind
the decline of party organizations.
6. Summarize those trends that raise the question as to whether party organizations can
be revived.
7. Examine the argument as to whether the power of interest groups correlates negatively
with the power of parties.
95
KEY TERMS
OUTLINE
I. What Parties Do
There are different levels of government in the United States (local, state, and
national), and there are several branches at each level (legislative, executive, and
judicial). Parties are a means for all of these to coordinate their efforts.
96
3. Developing Issues and Educating the Public
Parties identify problems, publicize them, and advance possible solutions. Parties
do this while struggling against each other in elections and one result is the
education of the voter.
4. Synthesizing Interests
Parties want to win, and so they are always on the lookout for promising
candidates. Like predators in the natural environment, parties help to maintain the
quality of public officials by weeding out the weak.
Without parties to narrow down the choice of candidates, voters might be faced
with a great number of candidates to pick from (without party labels!). Voters
would have to spend a great deal of energy becoming informed about each
candidate.
There are two reasons why Americans have, since the end of the nineteenth
century, held parties in relatively low esteem.
First, that parties can perform valuable functions is no guarantee that they will
perform valuable functions. People organize and perpetuate parties primarily for
their own selfish interests.
Second, parties can abuse their powers. The stronger parties have more potential
for extreme abuse. American history provides lots of examples.
97
2. Confusing Responsibility
Parties will blame their opponents for things over which their opponents are not
responsible, and parties will take credit even though they were not responsible.
They may even try to turn a policy into a failure to make the opposition party look
bad (particularly when the government is divided between Democrats and
Republicans).
For various reasons, parties may choose not to develop new issues. (One result
can be the eruption of third parties.)
4. Dividing Society
Rather than synthesize disparate interests into some larger whole, parties may do
just the opposite.
Scholars generally approve of political parties (since they see the alternative--no
parties--as even worse), while reformers view parties from the ideal and, hence,
conclude they fail.
Parties in America stopped representing merely elites during the Jacksonian Era.
They became mass parties. American parties now are weaker and less active than
most of their European counterparts.
98
III. The Party Systems Interpretation of American History
The first party system was basically between the Federalists (mostly those located
in New England) who supported commercial interests and favored an expansive
national government and the Democratic-Republicans (mostly located in the
South and West) who advocated agricultural interests.
Jackson supporters were called Democrats. The dominant issues were economic
and territorial (the tariff, national bank, slavery, and expansion of the Union).
By the early 1850s, sectionalism and slavery resulted in the rise of third parties
and a new party: Republicans.
This was the most competitive electoral era in American history. Democrats were
strong in the House of Representatives, republicans controlled the Senate, and at
the presidential level, the election results gave rise to the phrase "the period of no
decision."
99
Agricultural protest, common in this era, gave rise to a Populist party that
ultimately fused with the Democrats to nominate William Jennings Bryan in
1896. His loss showed that voters viewed the Populist vision of a worker-farmer
alliance as less compelling than the Republican vision of a modern industrial
state.
Democrats nominated the first Catholic to the presidency (Al Smith). Only one
Democrat was elected president during this era. In 1912, Woodrow Wilson won
the three way race among himself, William Taft (the Republican), and Teddy
Roosevelt (the Progressive) and was reelected in 1916.
The era was noted for its reforms (advocated primarily by Progressives): direct
primary, secret ballot, the civil service, initiative, referendum, and recall.
The critical elections of 1932 and 1936 established the fifth party system. It was a
class-based party alignment with Roosevelt (Democrats) the party of the common
people (farmers, blue-collar workers, housewives, and minorities) while
Republicans became, more than ever, the party of business and the affluent.
Democrats dominated the era. Only one Republican was elected president.
Eisenhower won in 1952, and was reelected in 1956. Only once (1952) did
Republicans control Congress and the presidency.
Major issues arose during this era: the Great Depression, World War II, and the
"cold war." Democrats found it increasingly difficult to deal with the racial
issue.
What characterizes this system is the high rate of ticket-splitting, with voters
supporting the presidential and congressional candidates of different parties in the
same election.
100
Beginning in 1964, Republicans made deep inroads in the Democrats' southern
base. The racial issue resulted in many blue-collar and urban whites joining
southerners in abandoning Democratic presidential candidates.
The Vietnam War and social issues also divided Democrats. Most commentators
believe the New Deal party system is gone, but they do not agree on what, if
anything, has replaced it.
For two centuries of the country's history, two major parties have dominated
elections for national office. Most democracies have multiparty systems. What
factors explain this?
Most scholars believe that an important factor in determining whether a polity has
two parties or more is its electoral system. At the national and state levels the
United States relies almost exclusively on the single-member, simple plurality
system. This system tends to manufacture majorities or at least to exaggerate
their size. Voters are not inclined to support third-party candidates since that is
viewed as "wasting your vote."
In most of the world's democracies, however, the electoral system is some version
of proportional representation. Under this system, governing majorities exist only
where voting majorities exist.
In recent decades, scholars and journalists have disagreed over the health of
political parties in America. Why?
Partially, because of the confusion as to what a party is. Parties are multifaceted.
They are composed of the organization, public officials, and voters. Those
describing the decline of parties focus on the weakening of party organizations at
the state and local levels, and the decline in party cohesion in Congress. Also,
fewer Democrats and Republicans and more Independents. However, in recent
years, the first two trends have reversed.
101
A. The Decline of Party Organizations
There are other factors as well. The communications revolution lessened the need
for traditional parties. The post-World War II increase in mobility--social,
economic, and residual--undercut parties. The Supreme Court's reapportionment
decisions (one-man-one-vote) also had an impact.
Unlike the past, national party committees today are active and well-financed.
They were rejuvenated by the parties increasingly relying on full-time political
operatives and experts on polling, fund-raising, campaigning, and the media.
They have, in turn, helped rejuvenate party organization at lower levels.
Some view this resurgence differently, describing parties as not stronger but just
busier.
Some political theorists believe that the power of interest groups correlates
negatively with the power parties. Assuming a two-party system, the argument
makes sense.
If the argument is valid, the real alternative to party domination of the electoral
process is not popular influence, but interest group influence.
The authors end the chapter with an explanation for why a two-party system has
dominated American politics whereas most modern democracies have a multi
party system. They describe in some detail the difference between proportional
representation and single-member, simple plurality voting.
102
There are other reasons that could be discussed for why the United States, unlike
most other democracies, has developed and retained a two-party system.
A. Historical Factors
American history has basically been one of duality. Two groups, for whatever
reasons, have dominated most of U.S. history.
Early on in the history of the republic, a major division was whether or not to
declare independence (Whigs and Tories). The next significant issue was the
writing of the Constitution. Here, two groups developed at the Constitutional
Convention: confederationists (states rightists) and nationalists (as discussed in
Chapter 3). Once the Constitution was written, the nation divided over
ratification: Federalists (for ratification) and Antifederalists (against ratification).
When the first parties developed it was into two: Democratic-Republicans vs.
Federalists.
Probably the most significant issue dividing the nation was slavery: North vs.
South. After the Civil War, as noted in this chapter, the division was primarily
between farm (rural) interests and industrial (urban) interests. Finally, in recent
decades a major division written about a great deal is that between the Frostbelt
(industrial Midwest and Northeast) and Sunbelt (South and West).
Thus, most of the great issues to divide the United States have resulted in two
groups.
B. Consensus
A marked difference between the United States and most other democracies to
which it is compared, is the strong agreement as to what "issues" are debatable
and which are considered settled.
For example, no serious candidate for national office in the U.S. seeks to debate
the need to write a new Constitution. The same could basically be said for the
place of public education, separation of church and state, and capitalism. These
issues are considered "settled." Although some people, and even candidates, may
raise questions over such issues, they are generally not taken seriously.
103
Such is not the case in many other democracies around the world. In many of
these democracies, there is serious discussion over whether or not a new
constitution is needed or just what type of economic system is desired. Some have
Christian parties and blend religion with politics. These issues are alive and being
seriously discussed in some countries.
One result of this difference is that parties in America are not "cross-cut" with a
variety of significant issues. The parties agree about many significant issues.
Their differences are more about the means category rather than the ends as well
themselves. Whereas in other democracies, there exists not only differences over
means but the ends themselves. Thus, there are significantly more issues "cross-
cutting" each significant issue, with the resulting proliferation of groups and
parties.
C. The Media
Some see a bias in the U.S. media towards the major parties. Democratic and
Republican presidential candidates, for example, are covered routinely by the
evening news. Third-party and Independent candidates are given little, if any,
coverage. Only a billionaire, so the criticism goes, like Ross Perot can make any
headway into challenging the major party candidates because he is capable of
purchasing expensive media (primarily television) time.
In their defense, the media argue that it does not cover third parties because they
are not serious challengers and thus, not newsworthy.
Third-party candidates claim that this places them in a Catch-22. They don't get
covered by the media because they are not newsworthy, but they are not
newsworthy because they are not covered by the media.
In any event, it is a fact that most of the news coverage goes to the Democratic
and Republican candidates.
As mentioned earlier, the authors highlight the bias for the two-party system in
the single-member, simple plurality rule. There are others.
104
In every state, the Democratic or Republican nominee for office automatically
gets printed on the ballot. Third-party and independent candidates must earn a
place on the ballot. This usually means collecting thousands of signatures
(sometimes with strict standards as to how and where they are collected).
Each state can also develop other rules that discourage third parties. They might,
for example, stipulate that for a vote for a third-party candidate for the presidency
to count, the voter must list the name of the candidate's electors on the ballot. In
1968, George Wallace ran for president as an American Independent Party
candidate. He claimed he spent more money on lawyer's fees challenging state
laws to get on the ballot, than he did campaigning. The same holds true for John
Anderson in 1980. Though he was more successful than Wallace at overturning
state ballot access laws, the time he spent in the courthouse severely impeded him
from his grassroots effort.
In contrast, the Ross Perot effort on 1992 overcame the various state ballot access
requirements. As the most successful third-party/independent presidential
candidate since Teddy Roosevelt's unsuccessful Bull Moose pursuit, Perot
possessed the resources to establish state directors and volunteers to garner the
needed signatures to get on the ballot.
Election rules are written mostly by state legislatures (with some federal laws).
State legislatures and Congress are dominated by Democrats and Republicans. It
is not surprising that the rules they (Democrats and Republicans) write into law
tend to discourage third-party and independent candidates.
A good example of this at the national level is the 1974 Campaign Finance
Reform Act. This law was the first to provide public financing for presidential
candidates. It allowed for each presidential candidate to get 10 million dollars
(increased every four years to take inflation into account) in tax money in the
prenomination phase of the campaign. Once a candidate was nominated, it
provided for 20 million dollars (again, subject to inflation increase) to be given to
a nominee. In both instances, however, the law stipulated the money for major
parties only (Democrat and Republican). Third parties and independents could
get public money under the law but only after the election, and only if they got at
least 5 percent of the popular vote (after which their funds would be prorated
based on the major party vote).
105
E. Inertia
A body in motion tends to stay in motion - so states the law of inertia. The same
could be said of a two-party system. Once in place, it tends to stay in place.
Why? For all of the reason listed above, and one more.
In Chapter 5, the authors discussed political socialization. The fact is that parents
that are Democrats tend to raise children that identify with the Democratic Party;
likewise for Republicans. Since those two parties have dominated most of
American history since the Civil War, they tend to perpetuate themselves.
The answer is yes and no. Frank Sorauf (“Party Politics in America”) divided the
two major national parties into three groups: party in electorate, party in
organization, and party in government.
The party in electorate for the two major parties does not differ that much. The
party in organization and party in government for each major party do differ.
This can be clearly seen from studies of the views of delegates attending the
national conventions (party in organization) and the views of those holding public
office (party in government).
Perhaps the most recognized document that distinguishes the parties from each
other is the party platform, drafted every four years.
Here are some issue differences from the 1996 Democratic and Republican
platforms:
Republicans: "We cannot go on like this. For millions of families, the American
dream is fading."
Further, it should be explicitly noted that both political parties endorse and
support capitalism rather than socialism and/or communism. Thus, logically and
theoretically, the political parties are playing the same tune economically.
106
Taxes:
Abortion:
Affirmative Action:
Republicans: "We will attain our nation's goal of equal rights without quotas or
other forms of preferential treatment."
Homosexual Rights:
Democrats: Seek to "end discrimination against gay men and lesbians and further
their full inclusion in the life of the nation.
Republicans: "Reject the distortion" of equal protection laws that would "cover
sexual preference."
Republicans: Seek an end to funding for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting.
107
Finally, for those who believe that party platforms were made to be broken,
Gerald Pomper's study of platforms showed that what a party says it believes in
matters. He examined the major party platforms from 1944 to 1976 and
concluded that about two-thirds of platform pledges are carried out (Gerald M.
Pomper with Susan S. Lederman, Elections in America, 2nd ed., 1980, pp. 128-
178).
Why is it that the average American is unable, with any specificity, to distinguish
differences between the two major parties? A partial answer to this question can
be seen by examining three elections: 1964, 1972, and 1976.
In spite of the fact that he represented a minority of views within the minority
party (less identifiers than Democrats), in 1964, Goldwater was able to convince
the Republicans to nominate him for president. He did this by convincing them
that, even though he was an outspoken candidate who sometimes, contrary to
conventional wisdom, took specific issue positions, he could win. His position
was that as such an outspoken candidate, he would ignite voters. Thus, more
people than usual would vote, and they would vote for him. His campaign slogan
became, "A choice, not a echo." He would not merely mimic the Democratic
candidate; rather, he would provide the voters with a "real" choice.
Although he was able to get the nomination, McGovern lost every state (including
his home state) but one (Massachusetts). Nixon won in a landslide.
108
1976 Presidential Election:
In 1976, the two major parties seemed to have learned that when candidates take
specific issue positions or are viewed as extreme, they lose.
That year the Democrats nominated Jimmy Carter, and the Republicans
nominated Gerald Ford. It was very difficult to pinpoint what each candidate
stood for. Carter ran on the phrase "I will never lie to you," and Ford was the
incumbent who wanted to move America forward.
The result was one of the closest elections this century. Had 10,000 (out of about
80 million) voted differently (in selected areas of the nation), Ford would have
won. The lesson for the two parties would seem to be if your nominee
distinguishes himself too much from the opponent, you risk losing. A better
strategy is to try to stake out positions that distinguish yourself from your
opponent, but not too much. If voters can't tell the difference between the two
major candidates for president, this may be due to the strategy of the two
campaigns.
Third Parties:
Though many political scientists claim they are needed to serve as a check and
balance on the two-party system, there have been many reasons for their failure at
the ballot box. Besides the historical dualism and political culture, which
advances the two-party system, institutional barriers play a significant role in
hindering the success of these political vehicles at the local, state, and federal
levels.
They are as follows (here is a good opportunity to discuss Perot's 1992 and 1996
campaign, as well as Ralph Nader's 2000 Green Party presidential pursuit):
109
Maybe George Wallace was right when he called the Republican and Democratic
parties "Tweedledee and Tweedledum." Regardless, third parties raise issues and
offer voters an additional selection at the ballot box - if they are fortunate enough
to get on the ballot!!
LIST OF TRANSPARENCIES
Each transparency listed is followed by the Text Figure (or Table) number, followed by
the text page.
110
CHAPTER NINE
The Media
OVERVIEW
The effects the mass media have on voters are contingent: they depend on the audience
and the information being conveyed. Media can determine what is being discussed,
prime people to evaluate politicians in a particular way, frame issues, and ultimately
persuade people to think a particular way.
There are several forms of media bias, but there is little to show any significant liberal
bias. The biases that do occur are (1) defining what is news, (2) emphasizing conflict, (3)
emphasizing on the negative, (4) emphasizing on scandals, and (5) and emphasizing on
personalities.
Voters do become more informed watching campaign ads. The emphasis on media in
campaigns has led to the development of the media consultant (replacing party leaders).
LEARNING OBJECTIVES
1. Explain how the media influenced or did not influence public opinion after the Tet
Offensive and the 1968 Democratic National Convention in Chicago.
2. Discuss the historical evolution of newspapers, from being expensive and partisan-
controlled to becoming truly affordable, independent and professional publications.
3. Discuss the roles of television, radio, and the new media in terms of providing
information to the American people.
5. Identify the main sources of media information for the American people.
111
6. Itemize and discuss the importance of media effects agenda-setting, priming, framing,
and persuasion- and evaluate how strong these effects are and why these effects relate to
the situation and characteristics of the information being considered.
8. Discuss the strengths and weaknesses of media coverage in relation to campaigns, the
national nominating conventions, and the presidential debates.
KEY TERMS
OUTLINE
The first daily newspaper in America was published in 1783. Prior to this, mostly
weeklies were published. Some were affiliated with a political party.
The rise of the penny (newspapers selling for a penny) in 1883 marks the birth of
the media in America.
112
As readership expanded, newspapers changed. They emphasized local news,
focused on sensationalism, and began including the human-interest story. They
were still intensely partisan.
After the Civil War, the press became more independent of political parties. The
emphasis in the late 1800s was sensationalism (sometimes called "yellow
journalism"). The great chains--Hearst, Scripps, and others--were being formed
around the turn of the century. Partisanship of newspapers declined; journalists
became more professional.
Inexpensive magazines that were aimed at the new educated middle-class also
made their appearance.
Today, about 11,000 newspapers and 12,000 periodicals are published. Many
newspapers and newsweeklies maintain their own Washington bureaus and send
reporters all over the world. Smaller cities rely on news services like the
Associated Press.
The most important modern trends in the newspaper industry are the declines in
the number and independence of papers. Most cities are now served by one or
two newspapers, and chains gobble up independent newspapers. Gannett owns
more than 90 papers.
Some worry that the print media in particular and the mass media in general are
becoming increasingly homogeneous.
B. Radio
Radio began making inroads into the print media monopoly in the 1930s.
President Roosevelt, with his made effective use of the radio with his fireside
chats.
Today there are more than 11,000 stations that reach 80 percent of the population.
The average household has five radios.
113
The talk-show format is now the sixth most popular radio format, just ahead of
rock.
C. Television
Today, the term “mass media” is used almost synonymously to mean television.
There are more than 1,500 television stations in the United States and about 99
percent of all households have at least one television set (with an average of four).
The industry was organized under three large networks: NBC, CBS, and ABC.
The Dwight Eisenhower campaign was the first to take advantage of television,
producing simple commercials. President John F. Kennedy elevated television
above the print medium.
D. New Media
While network TV makes "general" appeals to its audience, the newer media
allow politicians to communicate very specific information to specialized
audiences. It gives politicians a greater capacity to communicate to voters
without having their messages constrained and edited by the traditional mass
media.
114
E. Government Regulation of the Electronic Media
One difference, historically, between print media and electronic media is the
amount of government regulation (with much more regulation allowed of the
latter).
The FCC issued the equal time rule. It required stations that sold time (or made
time available) to one candidate to sell equal amounts of time to other candidates.
It also issued the fairness doctrine, which basically forced stations to provide
balanced political viewpoints to be expressed, but the rule was repealed in 1987.
Early studies done on the effects of mass media on people's opinions tended to
show that Americans were remarkably resistant to attempts to change their views.
The primary reason was selective perception. People were receptive to what they
already believed and screened out what they didn't.
115
A. Agenda-Setting
One researcher concluded that while media may not tell people what to think, that
could tell people what to think about. This has been dubbed the CNN effect.
B. Priming
Media may also be responsible for directing the public to think along certain lines
(such as evaluating a president based on a particular issue). This is called
priming, and is similar to the idea of framing discussed in Chapter 5.
C. Persuasion
If the media persuades people to think about a particular issue or think differently,
it is generally the end result of a chain of subtle influences rather than the direct
product of media attempts to convert people to an alternative point of view.
The strength of the effects of media depends on the characteristics of the audience
and the characteristics of the information.
When the problem or event is far away--well beyond personal experience--and the
mass media provide the only information people have, their influence will be
greater than when information is closer to home and people have some personal
basis for arriving at opinions.
A. Ideological Bias
116
There is not much evidence of a significant liberal bias in media coverage of
politics.
Some studies have concluded that the media are harder on Republicans, but other
studies have shown just the opposite.
One researcher concluded that the media are harder on incumbents than
challengers.
The fact that the media are business enterprises pulls them in a conservative
direction.
B. Selective Biases
Far more pervasive than ideological bias is a bias toward the negative in the
media. One political scientist argues that the negative tone of the media has
become much more prominent in recent decades. Others observe that this has
contributed to increasing voter cynicism.
Another selection bias is what constitutes news. Events and crises, heroes and
villains, dramatic events, colorful personalities, and sound bites all make better
news than their counterpoints.
C. Professional Biases
Some journalists work a particular beat, but most are generalists who lack specific
substantive expertise. Then, too, there is the pressure of ratings (in television
news).
The lack of internal expertise and the competitive pressure for ratings contribute
to what is called pack journalism, wherein reporters unanimously decide
something is the big story and attack it like wolves tearing apart its prey.
As the network system declines, more independent stations begin operation, and
the new media continue to advance, we may see the development of numerous
specialized informational channels that reflect values different from the
entertainment values that increasingly shape the modern mass media.
117
Selection biases might gradually become undermined by technological change.
A. Campaign Coverage
Critics charge the media with providing far too much coverage of candidate
personalities and not enough of the issues. In recent years, the media has
increasingly treated elections as horse races, with an emphasis on who's winning
and who's losing.
B. The Conventions
Since the primary process for nominating candidates was instituted in 1972, the
conventions are not nearly as important as in earlier eras, and media coverage has
dropped accordingly.
Consequently, the parties now treat the conventions as huge infomercials, with the
networks providing less coverage. In 2000, MTV provided more coverage than
the three networks combined.
The debates also don't hold good news for independent and third party
presidential aspirants. The nonpartisan commission established a rule and
reiterated that rule in January of 2000 – which hurt Ralph Nader of the Green
Party. The rule explicitly states that presidential candidates must have an average
of at least 15 percent support in five national polls in order to take part in the fall
debates.
Moreover, there are indications that performance in the debates can sway the
undecided voter.
118
As in campaign coverage generally, the first question the media raise about
debates is "who won?" If a candidate has misspoken, that often becomes the
subject of a feeding frenzy.
The media views much of what government does as dull, and, as a result, it goes
looking for what is less dull.
The media pays more attention to the president than to Congress. He is one
person and has personality and character. (One exception of recent years was
early coverage of Speaker Newt Gingrich, an outspoken and colorful individual.)
B. Emphasis on Conflict
The media emphasizes conflict, name-calling, and the like over thoughtful,
intelligent discussion.
For every three-issue stories about Congress today, there is a media story about a
congressional scandal. From 1972 to the mid-1980s, for every scandal story,
there were 13 issues stories.
From the media's standpoint, what government does well is less newsworthy than
what government does badly.
Government officials have become more concerned with the press than the voters.
119
IDEAS FOR LECTURE OR DISCUSSION
1. Here are some ideas that relate to points made in the chapter, but go into more depth.
The law of minimal effects posits that the chance of this happening is slim. If this
law is true, than it would appear that when candidates spend large sums of money
on television ads, they are not getting their money's worth. Is it true?
First, why would television have a minimal effect on changing people's minds? It
has to do with the political interest and knowledge of the average voter. As
pointed out repeatedly in the text, most people are politically ignorant and
apathetic. In the 1950s and a great deal of the 1960s when candidates wanted to
advertise on television they would buy large chunks of time (often 30 minutes) to
explain their views to the voters. Yet, most voters did not want to listen to a
candidate talk about issues for 30 minutes, so they would switch channels.
Only two types of people watched these political ads: those who really liked a
candidate and those who really disliked a candidate. The candidate running the
ads obviously did not want to change the mind of the former, and it would be
nearly impossible to change the mind of the latter.
The people whose minds were most susceptible to change were the people that
would not watch the ads. These would be the moderates, fence-straddlers, or
undecideds. Thus, the law of minimal effects- if, by effect, one means changing
the viewers mind.
Eventually, when this law became known, politicians, acting on the advice of
those who had studied marketing and advertising, changed the way political ads
were presented on television.
120
Rather than buy large segments of time to explain the issues, candidates began
hiring marketing experts and running one-minute commercials. The more
sensational or eye-catching these commercials were, the better. The reason was
that if they were sensational or eye-catching then the politically apathetic might
still pay attention to them. The fact that they were brief (three minutes at the
most) helped because the people you needed to reach were not that interested in
politics.
Perhaps the best example of this approach is the classic political ad referred to as
the Daisy Girl Commercial. It was an ad for the Democratic presidential nominee
Lyndon Johnson. It created such a furor; it ran on television only one time.
In the opening scenes of the commercial, a very young girl is strolling through a
field and picks a daisy. The girl begins to pluck the pedals from a daisy, and each
time she does a voice counts down another number from 10. When the girl plucks
the last pedal the voice reaches zero and a mushroom cloud goes off behind the
girl with the screen going all white (simulating an atomic-bomb explosion). At
this point, a voice comes on and says, “Vote Democratic in November.”
A few years later, Joe McGuiness came out with his book, “The Selling of the
Presidency.” On the book's jacket was a picture of a package of cigarettes with
Nixon's picture on the package. The message, simply put, was that television was
now being used to sell candidates the same way cigarettes and detergent were
marketed.
This was the beginning of the modern age of political advertising on television.
All of this was basically a result of the acceptance of the principle behind the law
of minimal effects.
121
2. Historic Presidential Debate Moments
Are they really debates? Most commentators think presidential debates aren't
really debates at all. They are more like simultaneous press conferences.
Why do so many people watch them? They don't seem to be paying much
attention. Hardly anyone who has ever watched a presidential debate could
remember a substantive point made by one of the candidates.
As a professor, you may have the answer by asking a similar question about
students. Ever wonder why some students come to class and sleep, or talk to their
neighbor, or work on a crossword puzzle, or work on homework in other courses?
Why do they bother to come if they are not going to pay attention? Perhaps
citizens watch presidential debates for the same reason some students come to
class: in the event something memorable happens.
Those viewing the debates are not really engaged in the debate, they are waiting
for something to happen- the kind of thing that will be talked about at work the
next day-and they want to be able to say "I was watching that!" Likewise, some
students are not really engaging themselves in a lecture or discussion. They are
merely waiting for the professor to make a particular announcement such as “The
exam has been postponed," or “This will definitely be on the exam."
It's just a theory. That being said, here are some memorable moments from some
presidential debates (the kind that make people glad they watched).
1976 - One of the reporters on the panel of questioners asked President Ford about
something relating to the Soviet domination of Eastern Europe. In Ford's
response there he explained that under his administration was no Soviet
domination of Eastern Europe. Since this was clearly incorrect, the reporter
repeated the question only to get the same response from Ford.
The press hounded Ford about this for about two weeks after the debate. He
finally admitted it was basically a mistake.
122
The Ghost of the 1960s Debate:
As noted in this chapter, those listening to the 1960 presidential debates on the
radio thought Nixon won. He had won debating awards in college. Those
viewing it on television thought Kennedy won. In subsequent debates with most
people watching them on television, the lesson was clear: It doesn't matter what
you say, it is how you look (or project).
Thus, when Ford made this mistake during the debate, he probably thought (no
one knows for sure) it would be easier to "explain away" his answer than to admit
to an audience of millions that he had made a fundamental mistake.
1976 - In the debates with Ford, Carter also committed a gaffe. At one point, he
explained that he had talked with his daughter Amy (then just a young girl) about
nuclear disarmament. While Carter may have been trying to appear to be a family
man or sympathetic to young kid's fears, it did not come across that way to many
viewers. He was ridiculed about it in the press.
1980 - Perhaps the most memorable moment in President Carter's debate with
Ronald Reagan was Reagan's line during his summation "Are you better off now
than four years ago?" This was a brilliant strategy since he knew the answer for
most of those viewing would be "no," and he was appealing to the tendency of
most voters to engage in retrospective voting. (See the Lecture Suggestion for
Chapter Six).
1984 - Rumor has it that Reagan's staff did not want him to debate Walter
Mondale in 1984. First, Mondale was an experienced politician, and Reagan was
getting along in years. Also, there was no rule you had to debate. While it is true
there is no rule requiring debating, it has practically become institutionalized now.
Furthermore, Reagan had been dubbed the "great communicator," and apparently
he believed he was. He decided he would debate Mondale. There was one
condition: Mondale had to refer to him during the debate as "President Reagan."
123
Why "President" Reagan?
As discussed Chapter Six about public opinion, how questions are worded makes
a difference. The same could be said with titles in a debate. Usually when a
challenger (in this case Mondale) debates an incumbent, you do not want to
remind the viewers that the person you are debating is president. To keep
reminding the viewers of that would probably not help you win the debate as
some people respect the presidency regardless of who is president, and you would
be reminding people of this. (Reagan did not refer to Carter as "President Carter"
in his debate.)
So again, the ghost of 1960: It is an image thing, or in this case, how you are, in
this case, projecting yourself compared to the person with whom you are sharing
the stage.
What Happened?
During the debate, Reagan stammered a great deal. At one point, it went on for
several seconds (seemingly an eternity) and was quite noticeable. The result was
a great deal of press and attention the days following the debate on Reagan's age.
Perhaps he was too old to be president and, incapable of making important snap
decisions. (Reagan consultants must have been thinking, we told you so.) Nancy
explained that in preparing for the debate, Reagan's handlers had treated Reagan
as if he were preparing for a final exam--cramming all kinds of facts in his head.
According to her, what his consultants should do is "let Reagan be Reagan."
In the next debate with Mondale, everyone was wondering how Reagan would
appear. Would his behavior raise the age issue again? Early on in the debate,
Reagan won over the viewers by bringing up the age issue himself. In a self-
depreciating and humorous way he stated that he knew the age issue had been
raised and he wasn't going to get into it because he didn't want to mention the
youthful inexperience of his opponent (Mondale). Even Mondale laughed.
Reagan was Reagan again.
124
Bush v. Dukakis
1988 - Prior to this debate, Dukakis had been described as a technocrat. At the
Republican national convention, Bush said that while Dukakis might be able to
make the trains run on time, Dukakis' problem was that he didn't know where the
trains were going.
Now, to most people this would be seen as an inappropriate way to ask about the
death penalty (by having millions of viewers imagine your wife being brutally
raped and murdered). This was Dukakis' chance to show some sprit and that he
was not just a walking encyclopedia. Yet, Dukakis' response was quite reserved,
and he merely reiterated his anti-death-penalty position. The Bush contingent
must have been thinking, we told you he was a technocrat. After this, Dukakis
never seemed to be able to warm-up to the voters.
1988 - There was a memorable moment in the vice presidential debate in 1988
between Dukakis' running-mate (Benston) and Bush's (Quayle).
Quayle had come under intense scrutiny after being named as Bush's running-
mate. Many wondered why Bush selected him. Probably, for a variety of
reasons. He was young, attractive, and a staunch conservative, and he had been in
the U.S. Senate. The "young and attractive," along with his stint in the Senate
made him, in some people's eyes, comparable to John Kennedy.
125
During the debate, Quayle made a passing reference to John Kennedy, as if, some
would argue, to remind viewers of his similarities with Kennedy. At that point,
Benston (who, some say, had prepared for any such comparison Quayle might
make) said to Quayle, "Senator, I knew John Kennedy. John Kennedy was a
friend of mine. You're no John Kennedy."
So devastating was the line that many people were said to grumble that they
wished Bentson was the Democrats' presidential candidate and Dukakis his
running-mate.
1992 - The first thing to note about the presidential debates this year was the
presence of three candidates. It is said that the Clinton contingent welcomed
Perot in the debates because they felt that most of those that might switch their
allegiance during the debate would switch from Bush to Perot (making it easier
for Clinton to win).
In any case, Clinton was able during the negotiations over the format of the
debates to get a town meeting type of debate. Clinton was in his element in this
type of setting, and it showed.
What is usually remembered about this debate is how stiff Bush appeared. At one
memorable point viewers saw him glance at his watch as if to say to himself,
"When is this thing going to be over!"
Students often arrive in class thoroughly convinced that the media is biased. A
good assignment that could last a week or two or could be continued throughout
the term would be the following:
Divide the class up into those that will look for bias on the evening news, a major
newspaper, and local newspapers. (You could, if you have enough students, add a
cable news program and a newsweekly like Time or Newsweek.)
Students are to watch or read for bias and whenever they spot it, bring it to class.
A period of class time (depending on how much time you want to devote to this)
could be set aside (say, during the last class period of each week) to present these
biases to the class.
126
The first thing to establish is "Is it an example of bias." Be careful that students
bringing the material don't feel threatened by raising this question. This can be
done by pointing out how difficult it is to establish bias. Of course, it would be an
excellent opportunity to demonstrate the different types of bias.
Your students will probably be surprised at the difficulty in establishing bias and
the fact that ideological bias is not as prevalent as they thought.
LIST OF TRANSPARENCIES
Each transparency listed is followed by the Text Figure (or Table) number, followed by
the text page.
127
128
CHAPTER TEN
OVERVIEW
Since the 1970s, presidential primaries have taken on added significance. The primary
phase of the campaign is long. Party activists and the media are advantaged by it.
Change is unlikely. General election campaigns are misunderstood. Election outcomes
are largely determined by prior events. Prior to the campaign, most voters have made up
their minds (based on party identification and government performance). This explains
Clinton's victories in 1992 and 1996.
LEARNING OBJECTIVES
1. Explain why GOP opposition to Clinton was so vigorous and how that opposition,
along with Democratic divisions, frustrated many of his important policies, such as
national health care.
2. Summarize the growth of the primary process as well as the respective strengths and
weaknesses of that process (both procedural and political concerns).
3. Explain the roles of party activists and the media in the primary process, noting both
the negative and positive implications that flow from those roles.
4. Explain the importance of balancing the ticket regarding the selection of the vice-
presidential nominee.
8. Explain how the "deal of the cards" strongly influences the outcome of a presidential
campaign. Cite some historical examples.
129
9. Summarize the issues that hurt the Democrats during the 1980s and explain how
Clinton was able to defuse some of these issues in 1992 and 1996.
KEY TERMS
OUTLINE
Unlike the case in many other democracies, party meetings (caucuses) and party
elections for nominees (primaries) in the United States are open to every citizen.
The process for selecting delegates to the national convention is, too.
A. Caucuses
B. Primaries
Primaries differ from state to state (closed, semi-closed, open, and blanket).
The type can matter, as was the case in 2000. John McCain's early strength in the
primaries was partially due to his appeal to independents. Thus, he fared better in
semi-closed primary states.
130
The direct primary became popular during the Progressive Era. Still, primaries
did not become popular in presidential elections until after Hubert Humphrey won
the Democratic nomination in 1968 having never entered a primary.
In 2000, all of the Republican delegates and about 80 percent of the Democratic
delegates were selected in presidential primaries. The twenty in the Democratic
Party are awarded to super-delegates.
Most presidential candidates (if eligible) accept federal matching funds during the
primary phase of the campaign; however, Steve Forbes and George W. Bush
(both Republicans) refused these in 2000.
1. Procedural Concerns
One complaint about the process is that it starts too early and lasts too long.
Some candidates declare and drop out of the race without being noticed by very
many voters. Because of the length of the process, every wart of each candidate
has been highlighted to the point of disillusioning the voters.
Those supporting the system reply that the early beginning gives established
outsiders a chance to gain recognition. Also, a long campaign gives voters a
clearer look at the character of the candidates. The argument goes back and forth,
some emphasizing the good of the process and others the bad.
2. Political Concerns
Another set of criticisms of the process has to do with those who gained power
when primaries became important.
3. Political Activists
These are people who are more interested in and committed to political issues
than are ordinary citizens. Primaries increased their importance because political
activists are more inclined than the average voter to participate. Also, they work
in campaigns and donate money to candidates.
131
Critics charge that these activists are not representative of the public in their issue
positions. Thus, candidates seeking the nomination take more extreme positions
than if all voters were participating.
Another result of activists’ involvement in the primary process is that the issues
that get debated are not always the same ones on the mind of the average voter.
4. The Media
The media are advantaged by the primary process and they are criticized for
focusing on trivial matters (such as who's winning, scandals, gaffes, and
campaign feuds) instead of what the election outcome will mean for the country.
In response, it could be said that if this is how the media behave it is because this
is what the voters want to read or hear.
A third criticism is that the media have become players in the election instead of
mere observers. Rather than tell Americans what the political participants think,
the media now tell Americans what the media think.
In defense of the media, it could be said that they merely give a different
perspective to interpreting events from what each candidate's organization gives.
The campaign for the presidency is officially under way on Labor Day. The
election is held the first Tuesday following the first Monday in November.
132
A. Financing the General-Election Campaign
Under the 1974 federal law, presidential candidates (those receiving a major party
nomination) could accept public financing to pay for their campaigns. Since that
law could first go into effect (1976), every major candidate has opted for this tax
money. In the 1990s, soft money also became important.
Electors are who really elect the president and Vice president. To win a candidate
must get a majority of the electors. Presently, 270 is a majority of the 535
electors. There have been instances in which a candidate winning more nation-
wide popular votes did not end up president (for a variety of reasons).
Since all but two states give all their electoral votes to the winner of the popular
vote in the state, there is a large-state bias in how the Electoral College works.
In the past few decades, it appeared as if the Republicans had a lock on a good
number of states (shaped like an "L") guaranteeing it a large share of electoral
votes.
Voters do not often switch how they vote. This electoral inertia is why the media
have such a limited effect on the general election. Here are the factors that affect
when and how Americans make up their minds for whom to vote.
About one-third of voters have decided for whom to vote before the primaries.
By the end of the convention about one-half to two-thirds have made up their
minds.
133
B. How Americans Decide
1. Party Loyalties
2. Public Policies
Policy concerns are not a dominant factor in most elections. Most people just do
not know enough about policies or don't know where the candidates stand on
issues. One exception would be social issues that help form a party's image (such
as abortion, prayer in school, and gun control). Certain issues also can become
important during a campaign.
3. Government Performance
Voters are capable of basing a vote on how well they think the government is
performing. Performance voting demands less of voters than policy voting.
134
The media have less effect on the general election than on primaries. This is due
to the fact that party identification and government performance are not at work
during the primary phase. In this situation voters are more inclined to turn to the
media to get their cues.
The media, political consultants, and the candidates themselves help perpetuate
the myth that the media play a major role in determining the general election.
Campaigns play the most significant role when elections are close from the
beginning.
Since the New Deal Split in the 1960s, the Democrats were not able to win the
presidency twice in a row until the 1990s.
The so-called Republican lock on the presidency reflected developments that gave
Republicans a clear advantage on two of the four major factors determining how
Americans vote: performance and issues.
1. The Economy
By the late 1970s, Americans were in a strong anti-tax mood. Democrats stood
for the party favoring spending.
Vietnam reinforced the view in many voters' minds that Republicans were better
at handling foreign affairs.
135
3. Race
Lyndon Johnson’s (and the Democrats') support for the 1964 Civil Rights Act
hurt Democratic candidates. There is disagreement as to why.
4. Social Issues
In the 1960s, liberalism became associated with busing, welfare, and affirmative
action; later, it was also associated with sexual permissiveness and gay rights. A
majority of Americans took conservative stances on such issues.
A. The Economy
The economy grew steadily during Clinton's first term and most Americans were
optimistic concerning the economy. Inflation and unemployment were very low
and the stock market was at an all-time high.
The gender gap is widely misunderstood. It is not a result of men and women
taking different positions on women's issue, rather, they differ over violence,
military force, and helping the disadvantaged.
The actions of the Republican Congress helped widen the gender gap.
136
D. The Issues That Weren't
Noticeable in the 1990s were issues that weren't important in the campaigns:
crime, welfare, immigration, race, and affirmative action.
Some say Clinton neutralized these issues through his strategy of triangulation.
E. Money
It also underscored the different roles played by the primary and general elections.
One question: Why didn't Gore--the expected winner--win? One theory is that
Gore was not able to take credit for the good of the Clinton years. Another is that
Gore suffered from the scandals that plagued Clinton. Finally, some think Gore
lost because of Gore.
The results of recent presidential elections would indicate that we are now in a
seventh party phase, similar to the so-called era of no decision that prevailed from
the 1870s to the 1890s.
This can be a great place to open discussion on the 2000 presidential election.
CNN has an excellent video examining the entire scenario from start to finish:
"CNN- Election 2000." It would behoove any instructor to get this video. The
visual images and clips will reinforce the lecture material and offer the students a
final opportunity to ask questions.
137
IDEAS FOR LECTURES OR DISCUSSION
1. Federalist 68
Also, the framers did not designate in the Constitution how electors would be
selected, but at least five times in this essay Hamilton expresses the view that
electors ought to be selected by the voters.
I. The method of selecting the president has not been criticized much by the Anti-
federalists. This is because it is such a well-crafted system.
"I venture somewhat further; and hesitate not to affirm, that if the manner of it be
not perfect, it is at least excellent."
II. In designing the system, the delegates were guided by the desire that the people
have a say in deciding who would hold this important office. This was accomplished
by giving the choice to some men chosen by the people for this special purpose (not
to a pre-established body of men, like Congress).
III. The framers also wanted to insure that that those making the decision would be
best capable of analyzing the qualities needed in a president.
"A small number of persons, selected by their fellow citizens from the general
mass, will be most likely to possess the information and discernment requisite to
so complicated an investigation."
IV. The system, as designed by the framers, also provides an efficient check on mob
violence and disorders. This was facilitated by requiring that the electors meet in
their respective state capitals.
V. It was highly desirable that every obstacle should guard against cabal, intrigue,
and corruption.
138
These problems were most likely to come from foreign nations seeking to
influence the election outcome. To prevent this, the framers kept the decision
from any pre-established body (which foreign agents could seek to influence. By
constitutionally excluding office-holders from serving as electors and by the never
having electors meet all in one place.
"Thus, without corrupting the body of the people, the immediate agents in the
election will at least enter upon the task, free from any sinister bias."
VI. Another desire was that the president be independent of all but the people. Had
the Congress elected the president, he would hardly have been independent of the
legislative branch.
VII. Each state has a number of electors equal to its representation in Congress
(House and Senate). To win the presidency, a person has to receive a simple majority
of all the electors. If no person does receive a simple majority, the House of
Representatives will select from the top five [changed to the top three with the 12th
Amendment] electoral vote-getters (with each state casting one vote).
VIII. This process will result in the office seldom going to an incompetent. It meets
the true test of a good government: the tendency to produce a good administration.
"It will not be too strong to say, that there will be a constant probability of seeing
the station filled by characters pre-eminent for ability and virtue."
IX. The vice president is to be selected in the same manner (the person who comes in
second in the presidential election is elected vice president). (This was changed with
the 12th Amendment).
Someone was needed to break tie votes in the Senate, and the vice president can
do this. Also, by being elected in the same manner as the president, he makes a
good successor to the presidency.
139
A Misunderstood Institution," PS March 1997.) Here are some myths concerning
it.
A. The Electoral College was designed late in the Constitutional Convention when the
delegates could not agree on other methods for electing the president.
Actually, within the first two weeks of the Convention, James Wilson of
Pennsylvania proposed electing the president by special electors.
B. The Electoral College system prohibits the election of a president and a vice
president from the same state.
This falsity comes from the language of the Constitution, which prohibits an
elector from casting both of his votes for individuals from the same state. It does
not, however, prevent the election of a president and a vice president from the
same state.
C. Three times the Electoral College has elected a president that got fewer popular
votes.
Not exactly. This has happened only once (1888, when Cleveland got more
popular votes but lost to Benjamin Harrison due solely to the electoral college).
The other two times that are usually lumped in with the 1888 election are the
1824 and 1876 elections.
In 1824 Andrew Jackson got more popular votes than J.Q. Adams, but it was the
House of Representatives that elected Adams (not the electoral college outright).
In 1876 the Democrat Samuel Tilden got more popular votes than Hayes, but it
was a special commission that allocated disputed electoral votes to Hayes, giving
him the victory (again, not the electoral college outright).
D. The Electoral College system stipulates that the plurality winner of a state's
popular votes gets all of the state's electoral votes.
140
The framers did not stipulate how electors would be chosen. The method of
selection was left to states. All but two states use the general ticket system (the
plurality winner of a state's popular votes gets all of the state's electoral votes).
This helps produce the risk that the person winning the national popular vote loses
the election, but it is not required by the Constitution. Two states, in fact, don't
use it (relying on the District Plan instead).
E. The framers designed the Electoral College because they didn't think the public was
intelligent enough to elect a good president.
There was some sentiment similar to this expressed at the convention. But
probably the primary concern with popular election of the president was the
significant population differences among the states. In other words, it was a
political decision. To rely solely on population would have guaranteed that the
president (at least, early on) would have been selected by the three or four most
populous states. Under this arrangement, it would have been difficult to get nine
states to ratify the Constitution.
Technically, they probably can. But of the thousands of electors who have cast a
vote for president and vice president, very few (about .04 percent have "defected."
This is due to the fact that the parties usually select people to be electors due to
their faithfulness to the party. Furthermore, the Supreme Court has ruled (Ray vs.
Blair, 1952) that states may restrict the discretion of electors).
In the latter part of the nineteenth century, Lord Bryce published “The American
Commonwealth,” and he devoted one chapter to why great men are not elected
president of the United States. Your library probably has the book, and you could
take several portions of the chapter and use it for a stimulating discussion. M.
Krasner returned to Bryce's theme in an article published in Volume 9, No. 4 of
“Presidential Studies Quarterly.” Here are a few points made by Bryce and
Krasner.
141
A. Many are Eligible but Few Great Men are Chosen
Since the heroes of the Revolution (Jefferson, Adams, Madison, etc.), no person
except General U.S. Grant has reached the presidency whose name would have
been remembered had he not been president.
Bryce asserts that, unlike most European countries, the number of people with
first-rate ability are not attracted to politics. Several factors explain this.
1. Non-Ideological Politics
The United States does not have the burning questions in politics to attract those
with a passion for politics.
2. Bureaucracy
The United States does not have the best organized bureaucracy for drawing
people into government or for grooming those already there.
3. Other Pursuits
5. Eminence
Eminent men make more enemies and therefore make less desirable candidates in
America. In other words, when the party's choice lies between a brilliant person
and a safe person, the safe person is preferred. Parties are more interested in a
good candidate rather than a potentially good president.
142
6. Originality and Profundity
More so than European voters, American voters prefer the magnetic candidate but
see no need for originality or profundity.
7. Election Rules
Finally, election rules and other informal rules limit the pool of eligibles.
Technically, anyone who is 35, a natural born citizen, and has resided in the
United States for 14 years is eligible to be president.
Parties, however, look for candidates from large states or from regions where their
popularity would guarantee a large electoral vote. There is increasing emphasis
on looking presidential. (Note the story related in this chapter about Dukakis in
the tank; the authors fail to mention that voters scoffed at the ad also because
Dukakis looked ridiculous.)
Finally, how many people, want to undergo (along with their families) the intense
media scrutiny in order to possibly be elected president?
LIST OF TRANSPARENCIES
Each transparency listed is followed by the Text Figure (or Table) number, followed by
the text page.
T18 Bill Clinton Won an Overwhelming Electoral College Majority in 1996, 10.3, 316
143
144
CHAPTER ELEVEN
Choosing the Congress
OVERVIEW
Why do Americans keep reelecting Congressman if they are so critical of Congress? The
answer has to do with the different standards by which Americans judge Congress and its
members.
The single-member district simple plurality electoral system dilutes the impact of
minorities in House elections. Attempts to draw district lines so as to correct for this has
been struck down by the Supreme Court.
LEARNING OBJECTIVES
2. Explain why, despite the framers' original intentions, Congress was not electronically
sensitive during most of the nineteenth century. Be sure to account for the rapid
turnover of congressional personnel.
.
3. Discuss the impact of reapportionment and redistricting upon congressional elections.
4. Analyze why party and incumbency are the two most influential factors affecting
House elections and why challengers have such difficulty in winning office.
5. Define and explain such key concepts as constituency service, the frank, ombudsman,
rotation services, and soft-money.
6. Demonstrate why Senate elections are more perilous that House elections.
145
7. Explain what national forces were at work in the 1994 midterm elections.
8. Evaluate whether the membership of Congress should or should not mirror the great
ethnic and gender diversity of the American population.
9. Review the dilemmas posed by majority-minority districting after the 1996 elections.
10. What were the significance for term limits in the cases of U.S. Term Limits, Inc. vs.
Thornton and Bates vs. Jones?
KEY TERMS
OUTLINE
Turnover levels were as high as 50 percent in the Houseuntil the Civil War. This
was due to factors other than defeat in an election: the office, and location, were
not attractive and some states used rotation.
Today, members of Congress serve for so many terms that Congress is described
as a professional legislature.
146
In fact, this trend explains why some people advocate term limits, but it is because
members of Congress are so sensitive to voters that they serve numerous terms.
The Constitution mandates a census every 10 years after which seats in the House
are apportioned and states, if necessary, redistrict (redraw district lines). Lines
may be drawn to favor a candidate or party (gerrymandering). Racial
gerrymandering has been ruled unconstitutional by the courts.
The Supreme Court has also ruled that districts must be equal in population (as
close as possible). Recent population shifts have favored Republicans in the
House.
Most candidates for Congress are nominated by the primary system. The hardest-
fought primaries occur in open seats. Few incumbents lose primaries.
Party affiliation is the most important factor in getting elected to the House of
Representatives. Iincumbency is second. In House elections, 70 percent or more
of all voters who identify with a party typically support the House candidate of
that party.
A. Party Decline
Members of Congress perform several functions other than make laws: district
service and constituent assistance. These constituent services, by benefiting lots
of people (regardless of party) and being more prevalent today, help incumbents
get reelected.
147
C. Expanding Member Resources
D. Campaign Funds
The role money plays in the election of incumbents is complicated. Part of the
reason is the law of diminishing returns: Money matters, but at some point, it
stops making much of a difference.
There is a hidden impact of campaign money: Since it takes so much to run for
office, many don't try. In other words, money doesn't buy an election, it keeps
competition away. It also hinders voter turnout.
The public is clearly upset with campaign financing. The most talked about
reform is public financing of congressional elections. One point often missed is
that the current system does allow challengers to offset the current financial
advantage held by incumbents – who are writing the campaign finance laws.
One reason members of Congress are reelected today is because of the emphasis
they place on pleasing constituents (more than ever before).
Technological advancements have made it much easier for members to stay close
to their constituents. The fact that members votes are watched more closely is
another factor. Finally, with parties weak, members are freed up to vote as they
want, making them more responsive to constituents' wishes.
There are several ways in which the Senate differs from the House of
Representatives, and they explain why reelection rates are lower for Senators.
A. Party Competition
Senators receive far more media coverage than Representatives. Because of this,
Senators ard more vulnerable to attack.
C. Better Challengers
The Senate is seen as a more attractive office and thus it attracts better
challengers. Also, there are only 33 seats up for election every two years (unlike
435 in the House), meaning fewer credible challengers are needed for competitive
challenges.
D. High Ambitions
Senators (and President) lay the groundwork for this, they must get involved in
more controversial issues, making them vulnerable to attack.
Forces means many members of Congress have concerns that are parochial and no
longer tied to national trends.
The 1994 congressional elections (in which 57 Democrats lost) were somewhat of
a throwback to earlier times (when incumbents were not as insulated), but not as
much as one would think. Ninety percent of incumbents won! Republicans in
Congress are now performing as Democrats had to win reelection.
Republicans retained control of the House and Senate (but just barely--and only
by the vice president’s vote in the Senate). Exit polls showed that voters may
have been influenced by national trends.
149
C. Why Do National Forces Appear to Be Growing Stronger?
Two reasons may explain why congressional elections are becoming more
nationalized. One is more unified political parties. Another is soft money and
independent expenditures (used to promote national issues).
A. Women
B. Minorities
Democrats are ambivalent about such districts since they are philosophically in
favor of them, but it also costs them seats won by Republicans.
Some question the desirability of such districts because it locks in the number of
minorities that can win (by block voting), and it places them in a kind of political
ghetto.
150
One reason minorities go underrepresented in Congress is due to the single-
member district, simple plurality rule.
1. The notion of term limits, mentioned in this chapter, has been very popular in recent
years. Although the Supreme Court ruled that States could not set term limits on their
members of Congress (U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton, 1995), the push for such
limits continues at the national level.
Below are five reasons Publius (Federalist 72) gave for why the delegates to the
Convention decided against term limits on the president. The 22nd Amendment
(ratified in 1951) did put a limit on the number of times a person could be elected
president. The arguments Publius gave would make for good class discussion.
Do the argument Publius made concerning term limits on the presidency apply to
Congress, too?
Publius argues that a person takes more interest in their work if they know that by
doing a good job they will be rewarded. If they know that no matter how they
perform, they must leave office at a designated point, they will not take their job
as seriously. Publius concludes, "The most to be expected from the generality of
men, in such a situation, is the negative merit of not doing harm, instead of the
positive merit of doing good."
B. "A second ill effect of the exclusion would be the temptation to sordid views,
to peculation, and in some instances, to usurpation."
151
Publius argues that term limits tempt politicians to engage in corrupt practices.
Realizing that they will soon be stripped of the position, they will be more
inclined to, as one delegate at the Constitution Convention put it, "make hay while
the sun shines." If a man has a lust for power or money, he might hold these in
check if by doing so he could get reelected. Take the temptation of reelection
away (which is what term limits do) and the temptations of ambition and avarice
can be overpowering.
Describing how it would be with term limits Publius explains, "But with the
prospect before him of approaching and inevitable annihilation, his avarice would
be likely to get the victory over his caution this vanity, or his ambition."
C. "A third ill effect of the exclusion would be thedepriving the community of the
advantage of the experience gained by the Chief Magistrate in the exercise of his
office."
D. "A fourth ill effect of the exclusion would be the banishing men from stations
in which, in certain emergencies of the State, their presence might be of the
greatest moment to the public interest or safety."
E. "A fifth ill effect of the exclusion would be that it would operate as a
constitutional interdiction of stability in the administration. By necessitating a
change of men, in the first office of the nation, it would necessitate a mutability of
measures."
152
The reason why a change of men would cause a change of policy is because
Publius is recognizing that when new people come into office they are going to
think differently, and even if they don’t they still want to leave their unique
imprint behind.
Publius concludes, "And we need not be apprehensive there will be too much
stability, while there is even the option of changing; nor need we desire to
prohibit it from continuing their confidence where they think it may be safely
placed, and where, by constancy on their part, they may obviate the fatal
inconveniences of fluctuating councils and a variable policy."
2. In 1994, Republicans took control of the House of Representatives for the first time
since 1953. Yet, as reported in this chapter, 90 percent of the incumbents running were
reelected. How is this possible?
A. First, not all incumbents seeking reelection made it to the general election.
Some were defeated in the primaries. Thus, if they were included, the percent
would be lower.
B. There were a good number of incumbents that decided not to run for reelection.
Congress has a good retirement package. Of course, one does not know if those
members retiring did so because they felt they might not get nominated or
reelected. Obviously, there were probably some that thought this. Were they to
be included in the calculation, this would lower the percent of incumbents getting
reelected.
C. It is impossible to predict how many open seats there will be every two years
(when Representatives are up for reelection). In an open seat, there is no
incumbent running for reelection. Hence, there is no incumbency factor to help
explain who wins. The factor replacing incumbency in determining who wins is
money. Money plays a significant role in who wins in open seats. Which party
typically has more money to spend in campaigns? Republicans. Thus, it should
come as no surprise that Republicans won most of the large size of open seats
(52).
D. Finally, 34 incumbents who made it to the general election did lose. They
were all Democrats.
153
LIST OF TRANSPARENCIES
Each transparency listed is followed by the Text Figure (or Table) number, followed by
the text page.
154
CHAPTER TWELVE
OVERVIEW
Americans tend to give Congress low ratings, yet they overwhelmingly reelect
incumbents. The reason is Americans hold Congress and Congressmen to two different
standards. They want Congress to solve the nation’s major problems, and they want
Congressmen to solve individual constituent problems. Congressmen are good at the
latter (since it helps guarantee their reelection), but that leaves little time for the former.
LEARNING OBJECTIVES
1. Explain why Congress failed to pass a bill authorizing enterprise zones in the aftermath
of the Rodney King incident.
2. Explain why Americans do not have a high opinion of Congress as an institution but
do have a positive view of their own members of Congress.
4. Delineate and explain the function of congressional staffers and congressional support
agencies.
6. Explain how congressional parties and the committee system contribute to the
operation, organization, and legislative flow in Congress.
155
7. Review the various stages in how a bill becomes a l aw noting where a bill can die and
why.
8. Summarize the respective criticisms of Congress, noting what Americans do and don't
like about the institution and/or its members.
9. Understand the respective arguments that comprise the controversial issue of term
limits.
KEY TERMS
OUTLINE
Surveys consistently report that only a minority of Americans trust the Congress
to do what is right or have confidence in Congress, and they view members (other
than their own party) as having ethical standards only a bit higher than car
salespersons.
This view is puzzling given the fact that members of Congress work hard, don't
get as much pay as those in the private sector, and are very powerful, and
Americans view their own party members positively.
156
II. The Organization of Congress: Parties and Committees
Congress is composed of a House and Senate. The two chambers have developed
a division of labor and a party leadership structure.
Members of Congress are professionals. They care deeply about reelection, and
they are attentive to the needs, interests, and values of their districts. Thus,
constituency interests trump other forces - party, ideology, or national interest.
Members of Congress today do not rely heavily on the party for their continuance
in Congress. For that, they rely on themselves by serving their constituents in
such a way that they stay popular and receive sufficient campaign contributions.
There are two major organizational features of the Congress, the party structure
and the committee structure. Not mentioned in the Constitution, these structures
have been developed by elected officials to meet their needs. Both are more
important in the House than the Senate (which operates more informally).
157
1. Speaker of the House
The Constitution stipulates that the House shall elect a Speaker. In practice, the
Speaker is always the leader of the majority party in the House. The Speaker
ordinarily does not vote.
From the end of Reconstruction to the turn of the century, the Speaker often
rivaled the president as the most powerful public officialin the United States.
Their powers in the House were such that it could accurately be said that Speakers
ruled.
A revolt began in 1910, stripping the Speaker of several significant powers. The
office of Speaker never regained the powers removed at this time.
The office of majority leader was created in 1899. The majority leader votes, and
is responsible for the day-to-day leadership of the party.
The minority leader (created in 1883) performs the functions of the majority
leader but for the minority party.
The majority and minority leaders are assisted by whips; whose job it is to link
the leadership to the party rank and file.
Some members serve on party committees that discuss issues, develop the party
program, and sometimes endorse legislation. These committees are the
Democratic Steering and Policy Committee, the Republican Policy Committee
and the Republican Steering Committee.
158
3. Party Leadership: Senate
Constitutionally, the vice president is the presiding officer of the Senate. He can
only vote to break a tie. The Constitution also provides for a president pro-
tempore, who presides in the absence of the vice president. Senate leaders are not
as powerful as their House counterparts. Since one member using a filibuster
(which takes 60 members to stop) can delay action, party leaders work to hammer
out unanimous consent agreements.
While the congressional party leadership today is not as strong as it was in the
period before the revolt against Cannon, it is stronger than it was for a half
century after the revolt.
What explains these shifts? Careerism (beginning around the turn of the century)
made members more independent of the leadership. Another reason put forth by
one researcher is that the more homogeneous the parties are, the stronger the
leadership.
Congress does its business through committees. Only about ten to fifteen percent
of the bills introduced in Congress pass because most never make it out of
committee (even though there is a procedure, the discharge petition, for removing
them from committee). In the 106th Congress there were 19 standing committees
in the House and 17 in the Senate.
159
1. House Committees
Probably the three most important House committees are the Rules, Ways and
Means, and Appropriations. Ordinarily, a member serving on one of these
committees is not allowed to serve on other committees (an exception being the
Budget Committee).
2. Senate Committees
Each Senator may serve on two major and one minor committee, and every
senator gets to serve on one of the four major committees. Since Senators serve
on more committees than House members, they generally cannot be as specialized
as House members.
Committee chairs go almost always to the most senior members of the majority
party. They exercise considerable independence.
160
4. Committee Reforms
After committee chairs became very powerful in the 1950s, reforms were initiated
in the 1970s that spread power among committees and subcommittees more
evenly. While the effects are debatable, committees appear to be more responsive
to party influence.
Why has Congress delegated so much power to committees? There are two
prevailing theories.
The distributive theory has it that members give committees power so that they
can better serve their constituents.
The informational theory explains the transfer of power as necessary for reliance
on experts in policy areas.
The subcommittee may hold hearings on the bill. After this the subcommittee
begins markup of the bill. The committee may repeat the hearing and markup
process. If a majority of the committee votes for the bill, it is ready to be
scheduled for floor debate.
In the House, some measures will be brought to the floor under suspension of the
rules. For most important bills, scheduling of a floor debate is done by the
powerful Rules Committee, which issues a rule specifying the terms and
conditions of debate (closed rule, open rule, or restrictive rule).
161
Once passed by both chambers, the bill will be sent to a conference committee
(made up of House and Senate members) to iron out any differences in the House
and Senate versions of the bill. If ironed out, the bill is sent back to both houses
for approval.
The bill can now be sent to the president. But if this bill was for authorization of
a program, another bill will have to go through the same process appropriating
money for the program.
A. Criticisms of Congress
The congressional process is such that sometimes the very process of passing
legislation ensures that it will not work. Why? Political scientists call it the
distributive tendency. This means that every member of Congress wants a "fair
share" of the federal pie for his or her district. The result is that tax money goes
to areas that don't really need it. Federal programs often fail because they are not
focused on where they will do the most good, and resources are not sufficiently
concentrated to have a major impact.
Americans don't like Congress because they don't think Congress solves the major
problems facing the nation. They also don't like the way Congress operates.
162
Yet, Americans overwhelmingly reelect members of Congress. The reason is that
they hold individual members responsible for things other than solving the nations
major problems. For members to be liked they must respond to specific demands
of their constituents. Ironically, in meeting this responsibility, members are not
able to address the nation's major problems.
In the early 1990s, term limits became very popular with the public. Several
states placed them on members of the state legislatures. When states also placed
them on their members of Congress, the Supreme Court declared them
unconstitutional.
Proponents of term limits argue that incumbents are unbeatable and their electoral
success is illegitimate. Actually, incumbents win because they are so responsible
to their constituents.
The irony is that legislatures perform badly often because legislators perform so
well. This irony is explained by the different standards used to gauge legislatures
and legislators.
The argument for term limits is unpersuasive. They do not address the real
problem with Congress: professional politicians chosen in single-member districts
by simple pluralities motivated by a desire to please the special interests of their
districts.
1. This chapter does not mention the qualifications of members of Congress. Here are
some interesting point that could be made on this topic. These can also be tied in with (as
will be shown below) the concluding topic of the chapter: term limits.
Constitutional Qualifications
House "No person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the
age of twenty-five Years, and been seven Years a Citizen of the United States,
and who shall not, when elected, be an inhabitant of that State in which he shall
be chosen" (Article I, Section 2, clause 2).
163
Senate -"No person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained to the Age of
thirty Years, and been nine years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not,
when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State for which he shall be chosen (Article
I, Section 3, clause 3).
Thus, there three requirements for being a member of the House or Senate: age,
citizenship, and residency.
Judging Qualifications
B. Article I, Section 5 states, "Each House shall be the Judge of the Elections,
Returns, and Qualifications of its own Members."
What does this phrase mean? Does it mean that each house of Congress can
decide who is worthy of being a member of Congress. If this is so, then each
House would be able to add to the qualifications listed above.
This was the interpretation given to this clause for a good number of years. In the
early 1860s, Congress required duly elected members to take an oath that they had
not participated in rebellion against the United States. In 1900, the House refused
to seat a polygamist from Utah. In 1919, the House refused to seat a duly elected
Socialist.
In 1920, there was a man elected to Congress who was raised believing he was
Jesus Christ. His parents named him Immanual. While still a teenager, he tried to
rob a train, but was disarmed by the conductor. When he first arrived in
Washington the described the women living there as "so ugly, it makes a fellow
think he had died and woke up in Hades." Although the House did not try to deny
him his seat, the election of Immanual Herrick makes one wonder if the House
should not, if they thought they had the power, have done so (This fascinating
story is told in the book The Okie Jesus Congressman by Gene Aldrich).
Did this clause confer on each house of Congress the power to judge duly elected
members on qualifications other than those explicitly listed in the Constitution?
164
In 1967, when the House voted to exclude incumbent Adam Clayton Powell from
taking a seat in the House, Powell sued. The House was upset, among other
things, with what was viewed by many as Powell's poor performance of his
congressional duties. Ultimately, the case reached the U.S. Supreme Court which
ruled in Powell's favor. The Court ruled that Article I, Section 5's grant to each
house to judge electionreturns was limited solely to the three specified in the
Constitution: age, citizenship, and residency.
It was this reasoning that was used to strike down states placing term limits on
their members of Congress (U.S. Term Limits v. Thornton, 1995).
C. In Powell v. McCulloch (1969), the Court did note that while the House could
not exclude a duly elected member, it could expel any member. Article I, Section
5 states, "Each house may...punish its Members...and, with the Concurrence of
two thirds, expel a Member."
Due to the norms of Congress, expulsion is rare. Members are not inclined to
expel a member that has been duly elected. The feeling is that if the voters want
to elect someone, they should not be denied their intent. Expulsion, to some
extent, makes the Congress look bad, and there is always the possibility that if
members are easily expelled, one might end up on the receiving end.
D. House members have two-year terms and Senators six. Here are the reasons
why.
House: Some delegates desired a one-year term for members of the House. There
was an adage well known to many at this time: Where annual elections end,
tyranny begins. Madison favored a three-year term. He thought this would give
stability to the House. Fewer elections would mean fewer chances of new
members elected.
Also, members would need time to learn on the job about national issues and
three years would allow members to educate themselves in this regard.
165
Senate: The same arguments used by Madison and others for a three-year term for
members of the House were used for arguing for a longer term for members of
the Senate. It was argued that what was needed was stability (fewer elections
would mean fewer new members) and more time for acquiring knowledge.
The argument was more persuasive here than with the House for several reasons.
First, the Senate was designed to provide for a check on the House. As such it
was to operate with more deliberation. On June 7, Madison stated, "The use of
the Senate is to consist in its proceeding with more coolness, withmore system,
and with more wisdom, than the popular branch."
Second, to provide for stability and continuity in the Senate, it was decided that
only one-third of the members would be up for election at a time. Thus, the
length of term needed to be divisible by three. A three year term was clearly too
short, while a nine year term was viewed as too long; hence, a six-year term.
[Note: In the first Senate, lots were drawn to determine which Senators would
have a two, four, or six year term to provide for an initial staggering of elections.]
2. There were three decisions made at the Constitutional Convention of 1787 that
demonstrate the nationalist position of most of the delegates and relate to Congress.
Nationalists, on the other hand, wanted the pay of congressmen to come from the
national treasury. They understood that if states paid congressional salaries, this
could be used as leverage to get congressmen to think in terms of states' interests
rather than the interests of the nation. Hamilton argued at the Convention, "Those
who pay are the master of those paid." In the end, the nationalists won the debate.
Per Capita Voting: How would votes be counted in the Senate? It it taken for
granted now that each senator would have a vote (per capita voting). But, this
was not an assumption at the Convention. After all, under the Articles of
Confederation, states had different size delegations, but each state's delegation
cast a single vote.
Confederationists at the Convention wanted the two Senators to cast a single vote
for the state. Nationalists wanted per capita voting to enable measures with a
nationalistic support to more easily pass. The nationalists won the debate.
166
Recall: The framers were not unfamiliar with the recall. It is a device used to end
a politicians term before it has expired. Although the recall was in the original
Virginia Plan, it was stricken from that proposal on June 12 with no one
objecting. The issue never surfaced again during the remainder of the
Convention.
Had the recall been approved, this would have provided states with tremendous
leverage in keeping congressmen tied closely to the state's interests.
Although uncommon, when very upset with a member of Congress, states have
incorrectly called for his or her recall. The most recent example of this was in
Wisconsin. Antiabortion forces were circulating petitions in that state to recall
Wisconsin's two Democratic U.S. Senators. See "Wisconsin GOP Congressman
Backs Drive to Recall Senators,” Washington Post, Tuesday, April 22, 1997, p.
A4).
3. A good exercise at the beginning of the topic on Congress is to draw a vertical line on
the chalkboard and ask the class to give differences between the House and Senate. Not
only can this be used to branch off onto other topics in more depth, but it can be a good
gauge of how knowledgeable the students already are. Here is a list of differences
between the House and Senate.
Term:
House – two years (all up for election every two years)
Senate - six years (with one-third up for election every two years)
Exclusive Powers:
House - impeaches; originates tax bills
Senate - tries impeachments; provides advice and consent for
some presidential appointments and all treaties
Leadership:
House - elects Speaker
Senate - vice president
167
Prestige:
Senate is considered by most to have more
Prestige. It is not uncommon for a member of the
House to resign and run for the Senate; presidential candidates often come from
Senate.
Flexibility of Rules:
The House is less flexible than the Senate; there is no filibuster
in the House; the size of the House makes adherence to rules a
must.
Constituency:
Except for the few states with one Representative,
Representatives' constituencies are smaller than Senators' (who
are elected "at large") and thus more homogeneous.
Power:
Less evenly distributed in the House than in the Senate. There being fewer
members in the Senate, there is a greater possibility of getting a position of power
on a committee, subcommittee, or as part of party leadership).
Media:
There is greater media coverage of the Senate than the House (C-SPAN I & C-
SPAN II).
Staff:
Generally speaking, there is a greater reliance on staff in the Senate than the
House (due to differences in specialization).
Policy:
House members tend to be policy specialists while Senators tend to be policy
generalists.
Ideology:
The framers designed the Congress thinking the House would be more liberal and
the Senate more conservative; most scholars today think that all things being
equal, the Senate is more liberal than the House.
168
LIST OF TRANSPARENCIES
Each transparency listed is followed by the Text Figure (or Table) number, followed by
the text page.
T21 The Public Rates the Honesty and Ethics of Members of Congress Lower Than That
of Other Occupations, 12.1b, 380
T22 Americans Rate Their Representative Much More Positively Than the Congress,
12.2, 381
169
170
CHAPTER THIRTEEN
OVERVIEW
Presidents have to balance the difficult task of pleasing the activists in their party and the
general public. Presidents have a few constitutional powers (such as the veto and
appointment), but they have also been successful in claiming to have inherent powers.
Congress has the power to check several of these powers and has the ultimate check of
impeachment. Presidents are often left with the power to persuade important political
actors, a power that depends as much on the dignity of the office as specific powers.
They tend to propose major initiatives at the beginning of their terms when their
popularity is highest.
LEARNING OBJECTIVES
1. Explain why President Bill Clinton's stand on gays in the military resulted in a torrent
of opposition from the public, Congress, and military leaders.
2. Understand the significance of the national constituency, the party constituency, and
the pattern of partisan support in Congress to the overall political effectiveness of the
president.
3. Define and explain the power to inform and persuade, the veto power, and the
appointment power. Cite real-life political examples of each power.
4. Understand how the Chief of State role augments presidential prestige while
enhancing the level of public respect for the office.
5. Explain how presidential reputation and presidential popularity are related and note
what developments, domestically and internationally, can impact the reputation-
population linkage.
6. Analyze why some men are great presidents while others are only mediocre or even
fail.
171
7. Define and elaborate upon the presidential personality and leadership characteristics
inherent in James Barber's active-positive conceptualization.
KEY TERMS
administration honeymoon
beltway insider impeachment
bully-pulpit independent counsel
cabinet inherent executive power
chief of staff line item veto
commander-in-chief override
dignified aspect pocket veto
divided government presidential popularity
efficient aspect secretary
Executive Office of State of the Union address
the President transition
executive order veto power
executive privilege First Lady
White House Office
OUTLINE
I. Presidential Constituencies
A. National Constituency
In theory, the president is the only person elected by all the people, and thus, only
the president can persuasively claim to be speaking for the country as a whole and
use this national constituency to powerful effect.
This also means, however, that presidents often get blamed for things over which
they have no control.
B. Partisan Constituencies
Presidents must also be attentive to the active members and leaders of their party,
who are normally more extreme in their issue positions.
172
C. Partisan Support in Congress
Members of Congress of the president's party vote with the president about 80 to
90 percent. Opposition party members vote with the president about 40 to 50
percent.
Over 80 percent of the time, presidents either fail to secure passage of their major
legislative agendas or must make important compromises to win congressional
approval.
Presidents can only govern with the help of Congress. The result is, as Richard
Neustadt explains, a "government of separated institutions which share power."
One way in which presidents seek to persuade Congress is by the annual State of
the Union address.
The power to persuade is used much more publicly today than it was in the early
years of the republic
Teddy Roosevelt brought new meaning to the acceptable president rhetoric (bully-
pulpit).
173
B. The Veto Power
Prior to the Civil War, each president's average use of the veto was four.
Presidents exercise the veto much more frequently today, and since the Kennedy
administration, only about 10 percent are overridden by Congress.
If the president does not sign a bill and 10 days later (not counting Sundays)
Congress has adjourned, the bill is pocket-vetoed – also called pigeon-holed.
After making a promise in the 1994 landmark decree “Contract With America,”
Congress gave the president the line-item veto in January of 1996. In 1998, the
U.S. Supreme Court declared the law unconstitutional.
1. The Cabinet
Most of the cabinet consists of the heads of the executive departments. Today
there are 15 departments making it hard for the cabinet to provide confidential
advice to presidents.
The growth of the modern presidency can be traced to the Brownlow Report
which concluded "the president needs help." Congress enlarged the presidents
staff; today, over 400 aides (mainly close friends and/or campaign donors) assist
the president.
The White House Office is just one section of the large Executive Office of the
President (EOP).
Presidents name one person, the Chief of Staff, to head the White House staff.
The most effective are those who are usually Washington insiders (such as
Howard Baker, Reagan's Chief of Staff).
174
3. Scandals in the White House Office
A loyal staff can sometimes isolate the president from criticism. Sometimes a
staff can engage in illegal activities.
The intensity and significance of White House scandals have escalated in recent
decades. Examples include Watergate, Iran-Contra, and Whitewater.
The power to recommend gives the president the power of initiation, the power to
set the political agenda. Of course, Congress can ignore presidential
recommendations or propose their own.
Prior to the Civil War, the power to recommend was exercised with great
restraint.
The power to recommend expanded rapidly after the Civil War. Strong presidents
like Teddy Roosevelt, Franklin Roosevelt, and Ronald Reagan used the power to
set the national agenda.
Presidents have the best chance of initiating policy in the first months after their
election (called the honeymoon), since their popularity is at its peak. This also
makes transitions (the first 75 days before inauguration) important.
In many countries the roles of political leader and head of state are separated, but
not in the United States.
175
These two roles have been described by Walter Bagehot as the efficient aspect
and the dignified aspect of government. The latter has always stood in tension
with the egalitarian ideals of American democracy. Over the years, presidents
have become more and more involved in the efficiency aspect of governing, often
making it harder to maintain their dignity.
Historically, the role of the First Lady was to reinforce the dignified aspect of the
presidency. Some, like Eleanor Roosevelt and especially Hillary Clinton,
involved themselves in political and policy processes.
Traditionally, the vice presidency was viewed as a do nothing office. Their only
ongoing constitutional duty was to preside over the Senate (a vote in the case of a
tie).
Presidents have not been inclined to delegate power to them since they are
guaranteed a four-year term and can't be fired.
The process for selecting vice presidents (balancing the ticket) has resulted in
presidents and vice presidents not being very close.
Still, vice presidents are only a heartbeat away from the presidency, and in
modern times have become the heir apparent to the office of the presidency.
Recently, the office has grown both in terms of the dignified aspect and efficiency
aspect. Richard Cheney, George W. Bush's vice president, was selected for his
familiarity with national-security issues.
Some presidents have claimed that the executive power clause of Article II is a
recognition of inherent presidential powers.
176
1. Executive Order
One example of inherent executive powers is the power to issue directives that
have the force of law (called executive orders). The Supreme Court has
recognized the constitutionality of these orders.
2. Executive Privilege
The House can impeach and the Senate can convict the president for committing
impeachable offenses. Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton were both impeached,
and Nixon resigned in the face of certain impeachment. Neither Johnson nor
Clinton were removed from office.
4. Independent Counsel
The public expects the president to solve problems, but given the limits on
presidential powers, this is unlikely. Thus, presidents are faced with the dilemma
of playing politics to get results or appearing helpless.
A. Presidential Reputations
Presidents take steps to remain influential with beltway insiders. Two things
important in this regard are the kind of people working for them and their ability
to be on the winning side of issues.
177
B. Presidential Popularity
Presidents are also concerned with their popularity with the general public. Their
popularity, as gauged by frequent opinion polls, fluctuates greatly.
Typically, their popularity falls about eight points during their first year in office
and fifteen points by the middle of their third year. During their fourth year, their
popularity recovers somewhat.
C. Great Presidents
James David Barber argues it is due primarily to presidential character (how they
like their job and how active they are).
1. Who are the "great" presidents? There have been three Schlesinger polls in which
historians and political scientists rate presidents. This could make for a lively discussion
concerning how one judges a president. Here are the results of the three Schlesinger
polls. The third one appeared in The New York Times Magazine, December 15, 1996.
SCHLESINGER POLLS
178
Near Great T. Roosevelt Jackson Jefferson
Cleveland T. Roosevelt Jackson
J. Adams Polk Wilson
Polk Truman T. Roosevelt
J. Adams Truman
Cleveland Polk
179
Failure Grant Grant Hoover
Harding Harding Nixon
Pierce
A. Johnson
Grant
Buchanan
Harding
[Note: In the 1996 poll, 32 jurors cast votes. The rankings listed here were determined by
calculating the total score for each president using the following: Great=4; Near Great=3;
Average=2; Below Average=1, and Failure=0.]
2. The authors offer some quotes on the vice presidency. Here are some others, along
with some concluding thoughts on the office.
Vice-Presidential Quotes
"Once there were two brothers. One ran away to sea; the other was elected Vice
President, and nothing was ever heard of either of them again."
180
Truman (FDR's Vice President)
"I bet I can go down the street and stop the first 10 men I see and they can't tell
me the names of two of the last 10 vice presidents."
"Look at all the Vice-Presidents in history. Where are they? They were about as
useful as a cow's fifth teat."
Ben Franklin said that the vice presidency should always be addressed as "Your
Superfluous Excellency."
When Marshall (Wilson's Vice President) was asked why so many vice presidents
came from Indiana, he replied, "Because Indiana produced so many first-rate,
second-rate men."
Vice-Presidential Myths?
It is difficult to accept this as true. First, until very recent presidential terms, vice
presidents did not even have an office in the White House. Second, until after
World War II, vice presidents typically did not even attend cabinet meetings.
One study found that those presidents that had previously served as vice president
got poorer ratings as president than those coming from other positions. [See, Danny
M. Adkison, "The Vice Presidency as Apprenticeship," Presidential Studies
Quarterly (Spring 1983.]
181
One study found that most people vote against a ticket because of the vice-
presidential candidate rather than for the ticket because of the vice presidential
candidate. Richard Nixon, once commenting on his selection process for a vice
presidential candidate, stated that his selection could not help him. So Nixon
looked for the running mate that would hurt him the least (Agnew).[See Danny M.
Adkison, "The Electoral Significance of the Vice Presidency," Presidential Studies
Quarterly (Summer 1982.]
Actually, as one congressman once put it, rather than picking someone to succeed
them, presidents are picking someone they think will help them succeed (i.e. get
elected).
First, there is evidence that the framers did not create the vice presidency to
provide a successor to the presidency. The delegates at the Convention had
already designated someone to be a successor when the idea for a vice president
emerged. The idea came about when discussing the method for electing the
president. Once the discussion shifted to electors casting two votes each, it was
thought there needed to be a second office. Once that idea caught on and the vice
presidency was created, then the delegates went looking for what the person could
do.
Second, the national government does need someone that can succeed to the
presidency in the event of a vacancy (or disability). That would not have to be a
vice president. It could easily be someone of, typically, greater stature. For
example, the Secretary of State is usually someone of stature and this person
could be the successor. (It might be interesting to see how many of these your
students can name compared to vice-presidents).
182
Third, Arthur Schlesinger Jr. describes the vice presidency as a maiming
experience. He thinks that any person that would serve in such an office for four
or possibly eight years is going to have problems later as president.
If there is any truth to this, the problem is exacerbated by the fact that in recent
years whoever serves as vice president (or, on the losing ticket ran as vice
president) is immediately accepted as the front-runner for the presidency four
years later.
3. Although touched on briefly, a great deal more could be said about the phrase
"executive power" in the first sentence of Article I. Below are some ideas:
The Meaning of Executive Power: There are two schools of thought concerning
what the framers meant when they used the phrase "executive power."
A. Some scholars think that the phrase "executive power" was intended to summarize
the powers that are enumerated in Article II. According to this point of view, all
presidential power is listed in Article II and the executive power clause does not add
any power to the list. It is merely descriptive.
Presidents taking this view are said to be exercising the role of literalist. Some also
refer to it as the Whig role. Examples would be William Howard Taft and Dwight
Eisenhower.
B. Some scholars think the phrase "executive power" confers power. That is, it is not
descriptive of other powers but is, itself, a grant of additional power. What power?
Executive power. Viewed in this way the clause became a kind of necessary and
proper clause for the executive. This is the interpretation that has come to accurately
describe the modern presidency. There is no mention in the Constitution of the
president's power of removal. There is no mention of executive privilege, or executive
agreements, or executive orders. Yet presidents exercise all of these, and with the
blessing of the U.S. Supreme Court.
Presidents taking this view are said to be exercising the stewardship role. Examples
would be Abraham Lincoln and Franklin Roosevelt.
183
The Tension of the Presidency
C. Years ago, Barbara Hinckley (Outline of American Government) argued for a kind
of synthesis of these two views. In her opinion, the framers constructed a duality when
designing the presidency. On the one hand, they desired an energetic (strong)
executive (as outlined by Hamilton in the Federalist Papers). They listed very few
specific powers in Article II. Rather, they purposely left presidential powers
ambivalent or undefined. This was so that the executive could exercise needed powers
when certain occasions presented themselves.
On the other hand, the framers worried that the president could be too strong. Thus
they provided numerous checks on the president. The Senate must approve certain
appointments and all treaties. The president did not have an absolute veto it could be
overridden. Only Congress could declare war or appropriate funds.
Seen in this light, the presidency, by design, is both strong and weak. By setting up
such broad parameters, the framers allowed some presidents to be strong (Lincoln)
and others to be weak (Carter). Of course, the personality of the president matters
here, but the tension in the office is there purposely.
D. Finally, in Youngstown Sheet & Tube Company v. Sawyer (1952) Justice Jackson
discussed presidential power in relationship to Congress. He provided three different
groups or categories under which presidents can act, with different amounts of power
for each.
This case dealt with the question of whether or not the president (Truman) had the
constitutional authority to seize private steel mills in order to prevent a nationwide
steel strike. In taking this action, President Truman did not follow the Taft- Hartley
Act, which provided for the seeking of an injunction to halt a strike.
Jackson's description of power under the Constitution sounds very much like Barbara
Hinckley's. For example, he states, "While the Constitution diffuses power the better
to secure liberty, it also contemplates that practice will integrate the dispersed powers
into a workable government." He continues, "Presidential powers are not fixed but
fluctuate, depending upon their disjunction or conjunction with those of Congress."
Here are the three groups as he described them.
184
1. When the president acts pursuant to an expressed or implied authorization of
Congress, his authority is at its maximum, for it includes all that he possesses in his
own right plus all that Congress can delegate. In these circumstances, and in these
only, may he be said (for what it may be worth) to personify the federal sovereignty.
If his act is held unconstitutional under these circumstances, it usually means that
the federal government as an undivided whole lacks power. A seizure executed by
the president pursuant to an Act of Congress would be supported by the strongest of
presumptions and the widest latitude of judicial interpretation, and the burden of
persuasion would rest heavily upon any who might attack it.
3. When the president takes measures incompatible with the expressed or implied
will of Congress, his power is at its lowest ebb, for then he can rely only upon his
own constitutional powers minus any constitutional powers of Congress over the
matter. Courts can sustain exclusive presidential control in such a case only by
disabling the Congress from acting upon the subject. Presidential claim to a power
at once so conclusive and preclusive must be scrutinized with caution, for what is at
stake is the equilibrium established by our constitutional system.
LIST OF TRANSPARENCIES
Each transparency listed is followed by the Text Figure (or Table) number, followed by
the text page.
185
Chapter Fourteen
THE BUREAUCRACY
Overview
Learning Objectives
Key Terms
Outline
206
I. The Role of the Bureaucracy
A. Impossibility of Tasks
B. Measuring Performance
C. Expansionary Tendencies
D. Slow to Change
207
E. Red Tape
A. Difficult Beginning
B. Mountains of Patronage
210
IV. The President and the Bureaucracy
A. The Cabinet
A. Senate Confirmations
212
Still, Senate rejections of presidential nominees
are the exception, not the rule.
B. Agency Reorganization
C. Legislative Detail
D. Budgetary Control
E. Legislative Oversight
213
Iron triangle is the name for connections among
government agencies, interest groups, and
congressional committees. Each provides a benefit
to the other. The relationship is said to be iron
because the connections among the three groups
are very stable.
A. Bureaucracy Secrecy
214
Even for actions that can be legally kept a secret,
bureaucracies find that information is often leaked
to the public.
B. Bureaucratic Coercion
C. Agency Expansion
D. Administrator Caution
E. Compromised Capacity
F. Muddling Through
216
Kaufman's Point
B. Student makes bed. Tthe material used for their blanket, mattress or
both may be resistant to fire due to government regulations.
C. Student gets in car to drive to campus. Lots of regulations here (most local, but
some,
like the speed limit, may have been "urged" on to the
states). The car probably has a catalytic converter, etc.
as required by the government.
E. Student gets to class. Again, the suggestions for regulations are almost
endless, from EXIT signs in the classroom buildings
(Occupational Safety and Health Administration) to
affirmative action (1964 Civil Rights Act and
amendments). The professor standing before them may
have been hired due to the university's enforcement
of equal opportunity laws.
A. Parkinson's Law
F. Law of Countercontrol
222
G. Law of Control Duplication
List of Transparencies
223
Chapter Fifteen
THE COURTS
Overview
Learning Objectives
Key Terms
204
civil code plaintiff
class action suit plenary session
concurring opinion precedent
criminal code receiver
defendant remand
dissenting opinion remedy
district attorney restorationist
double jeopardy reversal
federal district courts senatorial courtesy
judicial activism solicitor general
judicial restraint stare decisis
judicial review statutory interpretation
law clerk U.S. attorney
legal distinction writ of certiorari
Outline
205
II. Judicial Review
206
Another method of interpreting the Constitution is
living constitution: judge the constitutionality of
laws in light of the entire history of the United States. as
a nation. The idea with this method is to keep the
Constitution current or allow it to adapt to modern
circumstances.
The first was the Dred Scott case, the 1857 declaring
the Missouri Compromise (1820) unconstitutional.
This decision convinced Northerners that slavery
would be extended throughout the Union and for
Southerners it helped justify secession.
207
intrastate not interstate commerce. This fine
distinction between intrastate and interstate
commerce was later overruled.
A. District Courts
B. Appeals Courts
208
C. Specialized Courts
E. Selection of Judges
F. Deciding to Prosecute
209
attorney may ask a grand jury (16 to 23 citizens)
to issue an indictment.
V. State Courts
210
case can be heard in federal court if it raises a
federal question.
A. Stare Decisis
B. Certs
211
There are about 7,000 cert requests a year, but the
Court only grants a small fraction (about 80 during
the 1999-2000 term).
212
E. The Role of Clerks
213
usually sends or remands the case to a lower court
for implementation.
A. Constitutional Amendment
B. Statutory Revision
214
modified by revising the statute.
C. Nonimplementation
215
the chapters.
216
The case was decided in 1973. Another citation often
used will look like this: Roe v. Wade , 93 S.Ct. 705
(1973). This means this case can be found in a
volume 93 of Supreme Court Reporter, on page 705.
This is not a government document (it is published by
West Publishing), but it contains the same text of
the opinion.
217
3. The legal question of the case: This is usually
just one sentence, but it can be a difficult part
of the brief, because it takes some skill to
summarize an entire case (covering the
significant facts and law) in one sentence.
What are the different ways the Senate can exercise this
role? What role is usually used? What role would seem
to be the one intended by the framers?
218
One way the Senate could approach its role of advice
and consent is to see its job as one of uncovering any
bad behavior on the part of the nominee that might
disqualify him or her from serving on the Court. In other
words, when guided by this role, the Senate is basically
searching for any skeletons that might exist in the
nominees closet. If none are uncovered, then the
nominee should be confirmed. Perhaps the driving force
behind this approach is the assumption that the president
should be able to select whomever he or she wants as long as
the person has not smoked marijuana, abused his or her
spouse, had shock treatments, etc.
219
historical record was that 80 percent of the time,
presidential nominees to the Court were confirmed. Of
course, one could focus on the 20 percent and see this as
a sign that the Senate had not, over the years, merely
played dead with Court nominees.
220
3. A question that frequently comes up in class is which
cases go to federal courts and which cases go to state
courts. Below is a description of the jurisdiction of
federal courts. All other cases begin in state courts.
Original Jurisdiction
Appellate Jurisdiction
221
There are two categories of cases that can be brought to
federal courts: those dealing with a particular subject
and those involving particular parties.
Subject Matter
Particular Parties
List of Transparencies
222
T34 Presidential Nominees to the Supreme Court Not
Confirmed, Table 15.1, 487
223
Chapter Sixteen
CIVIL LIBERTIES
Overview
Learning Objectives
Key Terms
Outline
E. Balancing Doctrine
1. Commercial Speech
2. Libel
3. Obscenity
227
IV. Law, Order, and the Rights of Suspects
E. Impartial Jury
229
e. Courts should consider changing a trial
venue in order to keep jurors from being
exposed to pretrial publicity.
F. Legal Counsel
G. Double Jeopardy
A. Consent Search
Federalist 84:
In this essay, Hamilton explains why the framers did not
include a Bill of Rights in the Constitution. Hamilton
gives two broad reasons for why the framers did not
include a Bill of Rights.
Unnecessary
233
Art. I, Sec. 9, cl. 2 - privilege of habeas corpus
Art. I, Sec. 9, cl. 3 - no Bill of Attainder
Art. I, Sec. 9, cl. 3 - no ex post facto law
Art. I, Sec. 9, cl. 7 - no title of nobility
Art. III, Sec. 2, cl. 3 - trial by jury in all crimes
Art. III, Sec. 3, cl. 3 - definition, proof, and
punishment for treason
Dangerous
Surprisingly, Hamilton also argues that a Bill of Rights
would be dangerous. Why? Hamilton knows that not all
rights can be listed in the Constitution. Even if one were
to try to list all rights, it is likely that some would
inadvertently be omitted. This would be dangerous. The
reason is because those in government could infringe on rights
not listed in the Constitution, claiming that if the
people wanted them protected they would have listed them.
List of Transparencies
237
CHAPTER SEVENTEEN
Civil Rights
OVERVIEW
Civil rights groups have often been successful by persuading a majority of voters that
they deserve equal treatment. Usually, the Supreme Court has followed the mood of the
country in such matters. The Court ruled against the Civil Rights bill that followed the
Civil War and established the doctrine of "separate but equal" in the latter part of the
nineteenth century. Minorities achieved a big victory with passage of the 1964 and 1965
civil rights legislation. When Northerners became upset with racial demands, the Court
struck down de jour discrimination but upheld de facto discrimination.
The modern women's rights movement grew out of the civil rights movement. Although
the Equal Rights Amendment was not ratified, the Supreme Court has struck down many
instances of gender discrimination. The civil rights movement also spawned new
attention to the rights of the disabled. Once again, the most important steps were taken
by Congress, not by the courts.
LEARNING OBJECTIVES
1. Explain and summarize the historical origins of Civil Rights in the nation.
2. Review the role of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People
(NAACP) in the courtroom and how it efforts eventually led to segregation being
declared unconstitutional in the 1954 case of Brown vs. Board of Education.
3. Summarize those key political, economic, and social changes that transformed the
civil rights movement in the post-Brown era, including the use of civil disobedience, the
Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Voting Rights Act of 1965, a changing Supreme Court, the
controversy over affirmative action, and the persistent problem of black unemployment
and poverty.
235
5. Trace the history of women's rights in America and include such specific issues as the
ERA, sexual discrimination and harassment in the workplace, and single-sex education.
6. Review the civil rights needs of the disabled and summarize the type of progress the
disabled have made in recent years.
KEY TERMS
OUTLINE
The term civil rights refers to the right to equal treatment under the law. The
pertinent passage of the Constitution is the equal protection clause of the 14th
Amendment. Although minorities rely on this clause, politicians listen to what
majorities say the clause means since voters elect them. Minorities often react by
turning to the courts. Yet, like politicians, judges are sensitive to majorities, too.
236
A. Conflict Over Civil Rights After the Civil War
At the end of the Civil War, some southern states passed black codes, laws that
applied to newly freed slaves but not to whites. During Reconstruction, Congress
passed the Civil Rights Act of 1866 to guarantee every citizen (regardless of race
or color) the same right to the full and equal benefit of all laws. In addition,
Congress established a Freedman's Bureau, which provided blacks with education
and other benefits.
As the years passed, there were charges of fraud, corruption, and mismanagement
leveled against both black elected officials and carpetbaggers. The Republicans
won the presidency in 1876, but only after promising Democrats they would
remove the Union army from the South. This brought the end to Reconstruction,
and the whites reinstituted many of the old racial patterns.
The Ku Klux Klan used intimidation to keep blacks from voting. In addition,
laws were passed making it difficult for blacks to vote: poll taxes, grandfather
clauses, and the white primary. African-Americans were also subject to Jim Crow
laws, state laws that segregated the races from each other.
With little public support for civil rights, the Supreme Court of the day took a
very restrictive view of the equal protection clause. Relying on the state action
doctrine, the Court declared the Civil Rights Act of 1876 unconstitutional. In the
landmark case of Plessy vs. Ferguson (1896) it developed the separate but equal
doctrine.
Progress in the dismantling of segregation took place when blacks left the South
for the North where they could vote. Northern political machine politicians were
willing to allow blacks to vote. By the 1930s, African-Americans used their votes
to win a small place in the politics of a few big cities. The biggest breakthrough
came when many gave them credit for casting the decisive votes electing Harry
Truman as president.
237
D. Awakening the Supreme Court to Civil Rights
The NAACP relied on the courts to achieve racial equality. After initial failures,
the NAACP won cases declaring the white primary unconstitutional and getting
restrictive housing covenants declared unenforceable.
Civil rights groups tried for years to get the Plessy decision overruled. Early
successes came in the area of higher education. Finally, the landmark Brown
decision was handed down in 1954, overturning Plessy.
The Court reasoned that racially segregated public schools were inherently
unequal (by creating an inferiority complex in the minds of students) and thus in
violation of the 14th Amendment's equal protection clause.
The Court ordered schools to desegregate "with all deliberate speed," which
southern school boards used to resist the decision.
Later, the Court declared race was a suspect classification that would be closely
scrutinized by the courts to make sure it did not violate equal rights.
Three civil rights organizations came into being immediately after Brown: the
Congress of Racial Equality (CORE), the Student Nonviolent Coordinating
Committee (SNCC), and the Southern Christian Leadership Conference (SCLC).
One year after Brown, a more militant phase of the civil rights movement erupted,
involving acts of civil disobedience. Using boycotts, protests, and acts of civil
disobedience, the southern civil rights movement gained strength by winning
sympathetic coverage in the northern press.
Southern government officials opposed the civil rights movement. Most southern
members of Congress signed the Southern Manifesto. When school began in the
fall of 1964, 10 years after Brown, only 2.3 percent of black students in the states
of the Old Confederacy attended integrated schools.
238
Through the vote, progress was gradually made. Presidential candidates,
including John Kennedy, paid more attention to civil rights issues. Then in 1963,
Martin Luther King gave his "I have a Dream" speech to 100,000 black and white
demonstrators on the Washington, D.C. mall. Kennedy's assassination just a few
months later generated an outpouring of moral commitment to racial justice
unseen since the closing years of the Civil War.
In response, Congress passed the 1964 Civil Rights Act, prohibiting racial
discrimination in all places of public accommodations. The percentage of black
students in southern schools that included whites increased dramatically from 2.3
percent in 1964 to 91.3 percent in 1972. In 1967, Congress passed a Voting
Rights Act.
When Martin Luther King, Jr. began attacking racial discrimination in the North,
support for civil rights protests among many northern whites dwindled. Civil
violence began to break out in black neighborhoods, beginning in Los Angeles in
1964 and spreading to other cities over the next three years. King's assassination
in 1968 resulted in more violent racial disturbances.
Whites had second thoughts about the movement after this and began opposing
such things as busing, affirmative action, and other programs of racial integration.
Blacks began identifying more with the Democratic Party, and the backlash from
whites helped the Republican Party win five of the eight presidential elections
following the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
When some turned to the Supreme Court to further the cause of racial integration,
they were disappointed. Instead, the Court ruled that the Constitution forbade de
jour segregation (segregation imposed by law) but not de facto segregation
(Milliken vs. Bradley, 1974).
Following this decision, very little additional school desegregation took place in
either the North or South.
239
D. Affirmative Action
Some civil rights groups asked the government and private institutions to develop
affirmative action plans. These range from helping minorities learn about job
opportunities to quotas.
During the 1990s, all forms of affirmative action came under increasing criticism.
California passed an initiative banning affirmative action (as did Washington) and
a federal court ordered Texas to eliminate race-based preferences from its state
university admissions system. The growing ambivalence toward affirmative
action could be seen in the positions taken by George W. Bush and Al Gore.
Bush opposed it and Gore, though supporting it, opposed the use of quotas.
In spite of the electoral and educational gains of blacks in recent decades, the
process of racial change has slowed in recent years. Poverty among blacks has hardly
changed since 1970. Some say this is due to continuing racism. Others insist that
welfare has given people an incentive not to work.
The civil rights of groups other than African-Americans become legally and
politically distinctive under two circumstances: (1) when groups eligible for
affirmative action need to be defined, and (2) when language or other issues arise.
A. Latinos
Currently, Latinos constitute 9 percent of the population of the United States only
three percentage points behind African Americans. Yet they have not been as
politically effective. Many more of them lack citizenship, and fewer of them
vote. Also, they come from different countries, preventing them for being united
with a common background.
240
Various groups represent Latinos. One group, the Mexican American Legal
Defense and Education Fund (MALDEF), focuses on voting, education, and
immigration issues. Partly due to this group's efforts, schools must provide
special educational programs for those not proficient in English, and ballots, in
some instances, must be printed in languages other than English.
The case of Elian Gonzalez revealed the extent to which an ethnic group can
mobilize itself for political action and the clear limits to what such a group can
achieve once a majority of Americans take another point of view.
B. Asian-Americans
Some of the most contentious political debates in the late 1990s concerned the
rights of gays and lesbians; not accidentially, this was a time when homosexuals
were more engaged in electoral politics than ever before.
In the last decade, the American public grew to believe that equal job
opportunities ought to be accorded gays. (Other gay issues--gay marriages--have
not fared so well with the public.)
D. Native Americans
At the time of the writing of the Constitution, Native Americans were considered
to be members of a foreign nation. The Supreme Court still considers the treaties
Native Americans entered into with the American government binding. As such,
they have certain rights and privileges not available to other groups.
241
Recently, the Court has ruled that they have a right to provide commercial
gambling on tribal property, even when it is otherwise forbidden by state law.
The equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment has been interpreted as
pertaining to the legal treatment between men and women.
The first struggle for women's rights focused on the right to vote. Since the
1960s, women's groups have achieved four civil rights objectives. The
accomplishment of each (discussed below) required both electoral involvement
and courtroom presentations..
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination on the basis of
sex (as well as race, religion, or national origin).
In 1972, Congress proposed the Equal Rights Amendment. The Amendment was
ratified by 35 states, but this was three short of the number needed to become a
part of the Constitution.
In the 25 years after the ERA campaign began in earnest, women's place in
politics changed more dramatically than in any previous quarter century.
For the first time the Supreme Court struck down a law treating men and women
differently in 1971. It has subsequently declared many other such laws
unconstitutional; yet, it has not treated sex as a suspect classification. It has
upheld gender distinctions within the military.
In order for a law treating men and women differently to be upheld, the Court
must be convinced the law furthers important governmental objectives.
242
C. Discrimination in the Workplace
D. Sexual Harassment
243
F. The Future of Women's Rights
244
1. This chapter makes reference to some higher education
cases that preceded the Brown decision. Here are the
facts of two cases that are not mentioned in the text
but that demonstrate how the Court was beginning to
emphasize the "equal" portion of the separate but equal
doctrine.
A Test Case:
The NAACP heard about Miss Sipuel's situation and offered
to provide her with counsel to test the law in
question. She agreed, and the NAACP assigned her a
lawyer: Thurgood Marshall.
245
was enforcing Plessy. The Court was not demanding racial
integration for law schools. In enforcing separate but equal
it was merely pointing out the obvious: There was no
separate law school for Miss Sipuel.
246
University's actions.
George McLaurin:
One of the six students, George McLaurin sued the
university charging it with violating the equal
protection clause of the 14th Amendment. The case began
in federal District Court, which ruled that McLaurin must
be admitted as soon as a white would be admitted or
discontinue classes for white students. This was the
same directive the Supreme Court had issued in the Sipuel
case. The University complied, sort of. They placed Mr.
McLaurin's chair in a broom closet (the university called
it an alcove) at the back of the room so that he could
peer out and see the instructor and blackboard but be
hidden from view from the rest of the students. His
lawyer was back in court suing claiming that this was
separate but not equal. Notice the challenge, here
is not directly to the Plessy decision. Both Sipuel and
McLaurin are merely asking, in the strict sense, for
Plessy to be enforced.
The Outcome:
Eventually Miss Sipuel and Mr. McLaurin won. Oklahoma
passed a law allowing blacks to enroll in graduate
programs. Miss Sipuel was admitted to the OU Law School.
The university did, however, build a kind of fence in the
classroom, seating whites on one side and blacks on the
other.
247
2. A case referred to in the text Craig v. Boren (1976)
originated in Oklahoma and deals with sex discrimination:
Earlier Precedent:
The Court had only decided a few sex discrimination cases
prior to this case. In 1971 the Court, for the first
time struck down a law discriminating on the basis of
sex. The case was Reed vs. Reed. Idaho had a law that
said if parents of a deceased sibling were equally fit to
control an estate, the preference should go to the
father. The reason Idaho gave for the laws was
administrative convenience. In other words, it would
be inconvenient for the courts to have to spend time
trying to figure out which parent was more fit to
248
administer the estate. It would be easier to just assign
the estate to one person in this case, state law dictated
the father, rather than expend the energy to try to
discover who was actually more qualified.
A New Test:
Some, such as Ruth Bader Ginsburg, wanted the Court to
strike it down using the same test the Court was then
using (and continues to use) in race discrimination
cases: strict judicial scrutiny test. Under this test,
the Court strikes down a law discriminating on the basis
of race (or violating a constitutional right) unless the
government can demonstrate a compelling need for the law.
Although a majority of the Court voted to strike the law,
a majority did not agree to use the strict judicial
scrutiny test.
249
if it furthers important governmental objectives.
250
A. Jefferson might have penned this phrase to express
the idea that no person has a God-given right to rule
over another. Most recognize that Jefferson was
relying on the writings of Locke when he wrote the
Declaration of Independence. In his Two Treatises on
Government, Locke had provided an extensive argument
against the Divine Right of Kings. Thus, Jefferson
might have been trying to summarize this argument in
this brief statement. Of course, the argument,
broadly taken, could also be used to attack the
institution of slavery.
List of Transparencies
251
Chapter Eighteen
DOMESTIC POLICY
Overview
Learning Objectives
251
6. Review the origins and development of public assistance
programs while discussing such key programs as Aid for
Families with Dependent Children (AFDC), Earned Income Tax
Credit (EATC), Supplemental Social Insurance (SSI), rent subsidies,
and, Medicaid.
Key Terms
252
Earned Income Tax Credit rent subsidy
Environmental Protection social insurance
Agency social policy
externalities social security
food stamps Supplemental Security
hammer Income
Medicaid Temporary Assistance for
Medicare Needy Families
natural monopoly zone of acceptance
253
Outline
254
During the Great Depression when poverty among the
elderly was particularly acute, President Franklin
Roosevelt appointed an advisory committee to
consider the problem. The committee recommended a
program of social insurance. Under the program,
people would make contributions to a fund during
the years they were employed and receive monetary
benefits when they retired. Congress enacted the
program in 1935 (the Social Security Act) which
created a broad range of social programs.
255
available).
2. Complexities of Medicare
256
Senior citizens have clout due to their
tendency to vote more than the average voter.
They also are more politically active and join
organizations that lobby for their interests.
The American Association for Retired Persons is
the largest interest group in the United States.
4. Broad Support
257
Known as "the welfare program," it was
politically unpopular.
2. Food Stamps
5. Rent Subsidies
6. Medicaid
258
Furthermore, programs for poor families are
more restrictive than programs for senior
citizens. Six factors explain this.
259
Liberals say the cause is the government
not providing enough assistance for the poor.
260
Finally, sociologist William J. Wilson
attributes increasing poverty to the decline of
unskilled jobs.
2. Group Organization
3. Public Opinion
4. Political Parties
A. Local Control
261
the federal Department of Education, but the bulk
of control over education policy remains at the
state and local levels. Today, 95 percent of the
cost of public education is paid for out of state
and local budgets (each contributing about half).
262
D. Contemporary Issues in Education Policy
E. Politics of Education
V. Regulation
263
political activities.
1. Natural Monopoly
2. Negative Externalities
264
Regulations are used to protect those who cannot
be expected to be well-informed, most notably
consumers. Consumers, for example, cannot know
all about pharmaceutical products. Hence the
need for an agency like the Food and Drug
Administration (FDA).
C. Politics of Regulation
1. Congress
2. Agency Discretion
265
which Congress will accept that whatever an
angency decides is the correct interpretation of
the statutes.
3. Courts
D. Deregulation
1. A Case of "Enough!"
266
In 1990, Congress passed the Gun-Free School Zones Act.
This law made it illegal for any individual to possess a
firearm within 1,000 feet of a school. Clearly Congress
was reacting to incidents of guns at school and incidents
of violence in which adults fired on kids at school.
Constitutional Justification:
Where did Congress get the constitutional authority to
pass this law? Congress claimed that Article I, Section
8, clause 3 gave them the authority. The portion of that
clause pertinent to the case states Congress shall have
the power "to regulate commerce...among the several
states...."
Is It Commerce:
Does this appear to be a regulation of commerce among the
states? Obviously Congress thought so. The lawyers for
the government argued before the Supreme Court that it
was. They provided several arguments to defend their
position.
267
in schools poses a substantial threat to the educational
process by threatening the learning environment." This,
in turn, has an impact on the nation's economy since a
weakened education system will result in less productive
workers. A less productive worker results in a less
productive economy, and hence the nation as a whole
suffers. Congress, it was argued, has the authority to
try to prevent this.
Historical Precedents:
If these arguments seem like a stretch, they are
the kind of arguments that Congress had been offering
for decades to justify its authority to regulate. In the
1940s, Congress used this type of reasoning to justify
telling a farmer he could not plant about 10 acres of
wheat. It was also this reasoning that was used in
support of the 1964 Civil Rights Act prohibiting public
accommodations from discriminating on the basis of race.
Thus, it would only seem natural that Congress would have
the authority to step in and try to do something about
the growing problem of violence in public schools.
What about all the earlier cases? The Court stated, "The
broad language in these opinions has suggested the
268
possibility of additional expansion, but we decline here
to proceed any further."
269
and the questions that follow for class discussion.
270
B. Why did the one representative think it was
significant that the commission was ordering the
cuts?
List of Transparencies
271
T39 U.S. Poverty Rates for Senior Citizens and Children,
1970-1994, 18.2, 582
T40 Project Cost of Social Insurance for Senior Citizens,
18.3, 586
272
Chapter Nineteen
ECONOMIC POLICY
Overview
Learning Objectives
1. Explain how and why the American national economy was the
major reason for the defeat of President George Bush in
the 1992 presidential election.
267
Reserve system, how the FED can affect the national
economy through its various operations, and who, if
anyone, tightly controls FED operations.
Key Terms
budget monetarism
business cycle monetary policy
Council of Economic Keynesianism
Advisors (CEA) partisan interpretation
debt progressive tax
deficit recession
election-cycle regressive tax
interpretation sin tax
Federal Reserve System supply-side economics
fiscal policy surplus
flat tax tax base
gross domestic product tax preferences
inflation unemployment
Outline
268
I. Economic Growth and the Business Cycle
269
A. Use of the Budget Deficit
1. Divided Government
2. Monetarism
270
economics ("Reaganomics"). So much so that
aggressive fiscal policies have become
politically infeasible.
D. Internationalization
271
(consisting of the seven governors and 12 regional
bank presidents--only five of whom have a vote).
1. Congressional Influence
2. Banker Dominance
272
the Fed is mainly concerned with low inflation
and preventing recession (the same concerns of
banks). The Fed tries to defend itself against
such claims by arguing it must take actions
that may appear to favor banks or else the
economy could be severely damaged.
3. Presidential Dominance
4. An Independent Fed
273
strong, independent staff, a chair that is
usually more knowledgeable about economic
policy than any presidential appointee, and
an independent Fed that is viewed by many as
a good thing.
274
they tax all economic activity at the same rate.
If everything is taxed alike, then tax policy will
not distort the economy. But this is easier said
than done since good reasons can often be given for
not taxing some activities and groups pressure
Congress not to tax their favorite activities.
Lawmakers have responded with thousands of tax
preferences.
C. Tax Progressivity
D. Tax Reform
275
because it is not progressive; conservatives oppose
it because it is too easily hidden.
A. Taxes
B. National Debt
276
debt in the United States is moderate.
Italy's is twice as large as that of the United States.
C. Employment Opportunities
The United States has done a better job than most countries
of incorporating new workers into the economy. The
United States did a better job of absorbing the baby-boomers
into the economy in the 1980s than Western Europe.
While some say the jobs created in the United States were
low-skill, low paying McJobs, the evidence
suggests otherwise.
D. Inequality
277
disagreed. Below is part of the story.
Legislative Deference:
For a law to be upheld, the courts would want to know if
the proper procedures established for passing laws were
used. Likewise, for a person to be fairly tried for
breaking a law, established procedures must be followed.
If they were, any challenge to the law (or court
procedure) will be denied. In other words, the courts
would defer to the wisdom of the legislature rather than
questioning the wisdom of the law (what is called
A New Standard:
In an 1877 case (Munn v. Illinois), the Supreme Court
hinted that it might strike down certain kinds of state
laws, even if the Constitution did not explicitly forbid
278
what the laws were regulating. Prior to this reasoning
the courts had been quite differential to laws. All that
mattered to the court was whether or not the law was
passed following the procedures required by the state
constitution (or the U.S. Constitution in the case of
laws passed by Congress). The Court seemed to be saying
that there are some things that state legislatures (or
Congress) can't forbid in laws even if set procedures for
passing laws are followed. The courts, in other words,
would not hesitate in certain instances to question the
wisdom of the legislators in passing a law (what is
called judicial activism).
279
confectionery sugar for long hours. The danger of white
lung was real. Also, it would be very possible for an
employer to refuse to hire anyone not willing to work long
hours (in a way forcing a person to work long hours or
not get the job).
The Supreme Court struck down the New York law. Below is
a quote from the case which clearly demonstrates its
reliance on substantive due process:
280
for example, when judges strike down a law for violating
a right, conservatives often complain that judges are
merely relying on their personal opinions to strike
down a law passed by the people's representatives. In
the early portion of the century, however, it was the
conservatives that were applauding the court's reliance
on judicial activism.
Holmes' Dissent:
The most eloquent statement in the case came in Justice
Oliver Holmes' dissent. Holmes objected to the Court reading
its own economic version of what constituted valid
281
regulations into the Constitution rather than, like
Harlan, merely relying on the wisdom of the legislature.
In what has become a frequently quoted dissent, Holmes
wrote:
Liberty of Contract:
Was there any legitimate argument for the Court ruling as
it did in Lochner, or were the justices merely letting
their conservative leanings get the better of them? The
argument could go like this: I have a "right to
contract."
282
take a job that requires me to work more than 10 hours a
day or 60 hours a week, that is my business. It is my
right to accept or reject such a job. The government has
no right to tell me I can't form a contract with an
employer to work in excess of these hours.
283
Constitution, such as those of the first ten amendments,
which are deemed equally specific when held to be
embraced within the Fourteenth."
List of Transparencies
284
Chapter Twenty
Overview
Learning Objectives
281
7. Review both the content and impact of current American
defense and foreign policies toward the regions of
Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union.
Key Terms
Outline
282
Protracted military excursions, however, can result
in public disapproval.
D. Congressional Role
283
A. War Power
C. Treaty Power
284
Presidents relied on executive agreements, which
are not mentioned in the Constitution, more
after the Supreme Court upheld them in 1937.
A. State Department
B. Defense Department
285
It took decades, but eventually a unified command
structure was created in each of the major
operating theaters of the world (as witnessed in
the success of the Persian Gulf War).
286
the world.
B. National Interests
C. Latin America
287
States should work within the UN when conducting its
foreign policy. Realists don't.
B. Regional Conflicts
Idealists say that the United States must use its economic
and military muscle to promote human rights
throughout the world. Realists recommend that the
United States exercise caution before supplementing
diplomatic efforts to promote human rights with
economic or military pressure.
A. Consultation
288
(1) What is consultation? The law does not define
it. The evening before American troops invaded
Grenada in 1983, President Reagan told some
members of Congress about the planned invasion.
This amounted to an announcement rather than
consultation.
B. Report
289
his actions in the rescue of the Mayaguez. The
letter arrived after the rescue. He explained that
he was sending the letter in good faith, which was
his way of saying he did not feel legally bound to do
so.
290
about the "clock" running out, Reagan would reply
that if Congress thought he had introduced the troops
under the provision requiring a 60-day limit they
should so vote. Of course, this is exactly what
Congress can't bring themselves to do (and why they
initially wrote the limit to apply by merely doing
nothing).
291
public ministers
292
probably were mistaken for a torpedo. Of course,
Congress had already given Johnson a blank check to act
in the area in the form of the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution.
Interest Groups
There are not nearly as many interest groups in the area
of foreign policy as there are domestic policy. This
gives presidents more room to maneuver. At the same time,
it gives Congress less reason to oppose the president.
293
List of Transparencies
294