government essay
henny.rolz
govt2305_ch1.pdf
# 153120 Cust: Cengage Au: Dautrich Pg. No. 2 Title: The Enduring Democracy, 4e
C / M / Y / K Short / Normal
DESIGN SERVICES OF
S4carliSle Publishing Services
1 The More Things Change . . . The More They Stay the Same
Chapter
53048_ch01_ptg01_hr_002-023.indd 2 10-11-2014 19:38:26
# 153120 Cust: Cengage Au: Dautrich Pg. No. 3 Title: The Enduring Democracy, 4e
C / M / Y / K Short / Normal
DESIGN SERVICES OF
S4carliSle Publishing Services
The More Things Change . . . The More They Stay the Same
Learning Objectives
1.1 HiSTory repeaTS iTSelf • Analyze current problems and issues in American government by applying
historical perspectives
1.2 forMS and funCTionS of GovernMenT • Explain the philosophical underpinnings of the American political system
through the exploration of important theories such as the “social contract” theory and the concept of the “natural law”
• Compare and contrast democracy with other forms of government
1.3 aMeriCan GovernMenT and poliTiCS • Assess the importance of the value of popular sovereignty, and how that value
is realized through “representative democracy” in the United States
1.4 aMeriCan poliTiCal CulTure • Define political culture and describe the unique combination of political beliefs
and values that forms the American political culture, including majority rule, liberty, limited government, diversity, individualism, and equality of economic opportunity
1.5 iS aMeriCan deMoCraCy in deCline? • Assess the health of American democracy and evaluate whether the
American system is in decline by applying an historical perspective on contemporary politics
• Evaluate contemporary problems by placing them in historical context
WATCH & LEARN for American Government Watch a brief “What Do You Know?” video summarizing The Democratic Republic.
O ne of the most profound developments in the recent history of the United States has been the skyrocketing growth of the nation’s Hispanic population. Hispanics have ex- panded from what was once a small, regionally concentrated population of fewer than
6 million in 1960 to a now widely dispersed population of more than 50 million (or 16 percent of the nation’s population) today. The recent explosion of immigrants from Mexico and Latin America is largely a product of the difficult economic and social conditions they face in their home countries, as well as the opportunity for a better life they believed was possible in the United States. Of course such a massive swelling in the ranks of Hispanics has the potential to create major political change in America: As depicted in Figure 1.1, in the recently concluded 2014 midterm elections, more than 25 million Hispanics were legally eligible to vote, up from just 7.5 million thirty years ago.Ma
rm ad
uk e
St . J
oh n/
A la
m y
53048_ch01_ptg01_hr_002-023.indd 3 10-11-2014 19:38:54
4 Chapter 1 The More Things Change . . . The More They Stay the Same Chapter 1 The More Things Change . . . The More They Stay the Same 5
# 153120 Cust: Cengage Au: Dautrich Pg. No. 4 Title: The Enduring Democracy, 4e
C / M / Y / K Short / Normal
DESIGN SERVICES OF
S4carliSle Publishing Services
Though both major parties have sought the endorsement of this large and growing portion of the American electorate, the Democrats have proven more successful in courting Latino voters at the national level. In presi- dential elections, Democratic candidate Barack Obama won more than 67% of Latino votes in 2008 and an impressive 72% in 2012. Obama’s en- dorsement of immigration reform was popular among Hispanics, though the Democrats have yet to deliver on those promises. By comparison, low voter participation among Hispanics in midterm elections (see Figure 1.2), such as in 2010 (when the GOP won back the House of Representa- tives) and 2014 (when Republicans won control of the Senate), has muted the Democratic advantage provided by the Hispanic vote in presidential contests. Both parties know that the great untapped prize will come in the form of younger Hispanic voters aged 18–29, who make up a third of all eligible Hispanic voters, but lag behind most other groups in turn- out. And as the Hispanic American population on the whole continues to grow, the next great ruling coalition in American politics will likely have Latino voters at its core.
Of course this modern surge in the size of the Hispanic electorate popula- tion is hardly the first case of an immigration trend impacting the American political landscape. From 1880 through 1920, a surge in immigration from southern and eastern Europe occurred, as Italians, Hungarians, Poles, and Greeks (among others) left the economic and political strife of Europe seek- ing jobs and opportunities in America.
This new immigrant population settled mostly in cities, which suffered disproportionately from the Great Depression. To be sure, neither party rushed to embrace America’s newest citizens at the outset, yet it was the Democratic Party that was first to formulate policies aimed at these city-dwellers. In 1932 Americans with eastern and southern European roots formed the core of Franklin D. Roosevelt’s New Deal coalition, which came to dominate the American policy agenda for the next half-century.
Stagnation in economic conditions for today’s working and middle class Hispanic Americans has been a source of frustration for this growing population. Exaggerating
their frustration is the current gridlock in Washington over immigration reform, which Latino voters identify as their chief policy concern. Just as the southern and eastern European immigrants eventually found a home in FDR’s New Deal coalition, the modern Democratic party’s willingness to embrace immigration reform has sent out a warning shot to Republican leaders nationwide: ignore this group’s policy demands only at the risk of finding your party on the outside looking in on the next great ruling coalition in American politics. Certainly if the Republicans place a Hispanic-American on their pres- idential ticket in 2016 (Senators Marco Rubio of Florida and Ted Cruz are possible contenders), the GOP would be taking an important step towards countering the Demo- crats’ advantage to date.
Historical context helps us understand not only how new immigrant populations help political parties forge new win- ning coalitions but many other aspects of American politics as well. This book explores the contemporary American po- litical system, and uses history as a guide to understanding the present and anticipating the future.
0 1986 1990 1994 1998 2002 2006 2010 2014
5
10 7.5 8.1 10.3
12.4 14.5
17.3 21.3
25.2
15
20
25
30
In millions of U.S. citizens ages 18 or older
Figure 1.1 A Record Number of Latinos are Eligible to Vote . . .
Note: Eligible voters U.S. citizens ages 18 and older.
Sources: For the top chart, for 1986 to 2010, Pew Research Center tabulations of the Current Population Survey November Supplements; for 2014, Pew Research Center tabulations of the August Current Population Survey. For the bottom chart, Pew Research Center tabulations of American FactFinder (2012 ACS 1-Year estimates, tables B05003 and B050031).
White Black Asian Hispanic
20 1986 1990 1994 1998 2002 2006 2010
30
40 38.0
31.2
45.6 44.0
50.7 48.6
50
60%
40.2
31.0
% of eligible voters that voted in each off-year election
Figure 1.2 Latino Voter Turnout Rates Consistently Below Whites, Blacks in Midterm Elections
Note: Hispanics are of any race. Whites, blacks and Asians include only non-Hispanics. Data for non-Hispanic Asians were not available in 1986.
Sources: Pew Research Center tabulations of the Current Population Survey November Supplements.
53048_ch01_ptg01_hr_002-023.indd 4 10-11-2014 19:38:55
4 Chapter 1 The More Things Change . . . The More They Stay the Same Chapter 1 The More Things Change . . . The More They Stay the Same 5
# 153120 Cust: Cengage Au: Dautrich Pg. No. 5 Title: The Enduring Democracy, 4e
C / M / Y / K Short / Normal
DESIGN SERVICES OF
S4carliSle Publishing Services
1.1 History Repeats Itself The patterns of history provide a powerful tool for understanding American government today. Let’s consider a few important dynamics of the political system today and the historical patterns that shed light on those dynamics.
A New Communications Medium Paves the Way to Electoral Victory
The Internet and social media have revo- lutionized American politics. In 2008, presidential candidate Barack Obama used Facebook to build extensive volun- teer networks and campaign donations to the tune of a half-billion dollars. Obama captured the attention of young people and those affected by the Great Recession of 2008, offering a message of hope and change. His campaign actively encour- aged social networking to mobilize vot- ers to his cause. The result: voter turnout and interest spiked, and helped to pave the way to victory. Other politicians have tried to duplicate Obama’s model; by 2012, social media began to dominate the campaign process. Voters of all politi- cal persuasions use social media to connect with their favorite campaigns. Consider the possibilities: in 2014 Facebook subscribed 134 million voting-age users in the United States. Not only is this a massive audience, but it is an active audience, as social networks allow users to trade and share information and opinions with their friends and families. In the past, political strategists were forced to rely on the paid TV spot as the primary way to communicate with voters. Today, however, there is a noticeable shift toward using social media to send messages, raise money, and mobilize voters. Why? A message from a friend is considered much more personal, powerful, and effective than an impersonal TV spot.
Of course social network sites like Facebook are not the only type of breakthrough technology to revolution- ize political campaigns. Although Barack Obama was the first candidate to win the presidency by making extensive use of social media, John F. Kennedy pioneered the use of television to win the White House over a half-century ago. When he ran for the presidency in 1960, TV was dramati- cally changing American society, just as social media are changing it today. As a relatively new medium with a mass audience in Kennedy’s time, TV provided prospective vot- ers with what no communications platform had offered ever before—the chance to see the candidates campaign on a daily basis. Television audiences could tune in to watch TV spots, and they could see the candidates actually de- bate each other live in their own living rooms; voters saw the candidates in action. Kennedy’s youth and enthusiasm made effective use of television commercials touting his candidacy. His ability to “out-charisma” Richard Nixon in
“Daisy Girl,” featured in the 1964 political commercial of the Lyndon Johnson campaign, is shown above. The ad cut to a mushroom cloud explosion of an atomic bomb as the girl pulled off the last petal of the daisy.
LB J
Li br
ar y
Ph ot
o by
D em
oc ra
tic N
at io
na l C
om m
itt ee
LISTEN & LEARN for American Government
Access Read Speaker to listen to Chapter 1.
© lu
m in
ai m
ag es
/S hu
tt er
st oc
k. co
m
Many Americans, including this college student, used social media to learn about the 2012 presidential campaign and to make donations to a candidate.
53048_ch01_ptg01_hr_002-023.indd 5 10-11-2014 19:39:45
6 Chapter 1 The More Things Change . . . The More They Stay the Same Chapter 1 The More Things Change . . . The More They Stay the Same 7
# 153120 Cust: Cengage Au: Dautrich Pg. No. 6 Title: The Enduring Democracy, 4e
C / M / Y / K Short / Normal
DESIGN SERVICES OF
S4carliSle Publishing Services
the 1960 debates led to a surge in turnout, and helped to pave the way for a Kennedy victory. Kennedy’s use of this new medium provided a model for how presidents would interact with voters over the next four decades. By 1964, candidates had mastered the art of the 30-second spot, as evidenced by Lyndon Johnson and his now-famous “Daisy Girl” commercial.
Although revolutionary, TV was not the first communications medium to transform political campaigns. Radio, which by 1932 had reached most U.S. households, enabled vot- ers to listen to the candidates’ voices, instead of just reading their speeches or statements. Franklin Delano Roosevelt (FDR) and President Herbert Hoover both used radio addresses and advertising extensively during the 1932 campaign. However, whereas Roosevelt’s voice on the radio inspired confidence and enthusiasm for tackling the ills of the Great Depres- sion, Hoover’s logical and monotone monologue was far less effective. From that point forward candidates could not just focus on the words that they used; they also had to excel in articulating those words with passion. FDR’s use of radio eventually mobilized voters, particularly those who were most negatively affected by the economic doldrums of the Great Depression. After winning the 1932 election, FDR continued to use radio to person- ally connect with voters and inspire them through his “fireside chats,” which he broadcast for the next 12 years.
One hundred years earlier, yet another communications revolution occurred that had a lasting impact on political campaigns. By the 1830s, newspapers were changing in a number of ways. The invention of the “rotary press” in 1815 facilitated the mass produc- tion of affordable newspapers, and eventually gave way to the so-called “penny press.” A decade later, the invention of the telegraph enabled penny-press papers to quickly produce stories on breaking news events. Further, the laying of railroads to all parts of the country to accommodate rapid westward expansion paved the way for mass distribution of news- papers. Americans gobbled up this new source of information, and Andrew Jackson used this medium to engage voters, bypass the political elite, and communicate his message of rugged individualism and “the rise of the common man” to help him capture the White House in 1832. The newspaper, which became a common person’s medium, enabled Jack-
son to distribute his message widely to an audience that was willing and eager to read what he had to say. Jackson’s use of the newspaper was critical to his success, just as Obama’s use of social media was critical to his own success. Never again would presidential political campaigns be targeted exclusively at political elites, thanks to Jackson’s use of the penny press to effectively appeal to the masses.
The Power of Incumbency
Perhaps the most salient lesson to be learned from the 2012 presidential elec- tion concerns the power of incumbency. President Barack Obama’s first term was plagued by soaring unemployment, stagnated wages, and a skyrocketing national debt. Still, the incumbent managed to secure a decisive electoral col- lege victory. Many were skeptical that Obama would win again during such fiscally distressed times. What could possibly allow Obama to win reelection under such conditions?
A broader view of American history, however, places this incumbent presi- dent’s victory into context. Just eight years earlier in 2004, President George W. Bush ran for reelection on a record that featured the decision to launch a con- troversial war in Iraq, one that was producing mounting numbers of casualties. And yet Bush was reelected. Similarly, Harry S Truman, thrust into the White House three years earlier upon the death of FDR, surprised pundits by winning the 1948 election. Earlier in the twentieth century, Woodrow Wilson defied
President Barack Obama campaigning in 2012 for a reelection to the White House.
JE W
EL S
A M
A D
/A FP
/G et
ty Im
ag es
53048_ch01_ptg01_hr_002-023.indd 6 10-11-2014 19:39:50
6 Chapter 1 The More Things Change . . . The More They Stay the Same Chapter 1 The More Things Change . . . The More They Stay the Same 7
# 153120 Cust: Cengage Au: Dautrich Pg. No. 7 Title: The Enduring Democracy, 4e
C / M / Y / K Short / Normal
DESIGN SERVICES OF
S4carliSle Publishing Services
expectations by winning reelection in 1916 amid a dif- ficult fiscal environment and the looming threat of war from Europe.
The incumbent-favored scenario of the 2012 elec- tion is one that has played out many times before in American history. Voters may express frustration with incumbents, but when the sitting president seeks re- election, he may well receive the benefit of the doubt. Thus President Obama’s success in 2012 should have surprised no one. Once elected, Americans tend to stand behind their leader—through good times and bad times as well. To be sure, some incumbents have fallen permanently out of the public’s favor. Yet that happened a mere three times in the past century com- pared to the 11 successful incumbent reelections (see Table 1.1). Historical context helps us understand not only presidential elections, but many other aspects of American politics. This book explores the current American political system, and uses history as a guide to the future.
In this book we examine the major topics and con- cepts in American government and politics. We attempt to answer sweeping questions about how American government works: How does public policy get made? Who are the major players and institutions that make laws? How do these major players achieve their posi- tion? How do disputes get settled? What is the role of the American people in governing? In this discussion, we draw on lessons learned from nearly 250 years of nationhood, and apply those lessons to better understand contemporary issues and controversies in politics. Contemporary American government is a product of American history.
Those who make it to the White House have been quite successful in getting reelected. During the past 100 years, 17 different men have served as president. Two died in their first terms (Harding and Kennedy). Three assumed office and ran for reelection (Coolidge, Truman, and Ford). Among the incumbents (either elected or appointed), 11 have won reelection, and only 4 have lost. Below are the incumbents since 1916 who have successfully secured reelection:
1916 Woodrow Wilson 1924 Calvin Coolidge 1936, 1940 and 1944 Franklin Roosevelt 1948 Harry Truman 1956 Dwight Eisenhower 1964 Lyndon Johnson 1972 Richard Nixon 1984 Ronald Reagan 1996 Bill Clinton 2004 George W. Bush 2012 Barack Obama
Table 1.1 Incumbent Presidents Who Secured Reelection
President Harry S Truman, campaigning by train in 1948 as part of his successful re-election bid.
G eo
rg e
Sk ad
di ng
/T im
e Li
fe P
ic tu
re s/
G et
ty Im
ag es
© 2
01 6
Ce ng
ag e
Le ar
ni ng
® .
53048_ch01_ptg01_hr_002-023.indd 7 10-11-2014 19:39:51
8 Chapter 1 The More Things Change . . . The More They Stay the Same Chapter 1 The More Things Change . . . The More They Stay the Same 9
# 153120 Cust: Cengage Au: Dautrich Pg. No. 8 Title: The Enduring Democracy, 4e
C / M / Y / K Short / Normal
DESIGN SERVICES OF
S4carliSle Publishing Services
1.2 Forms and Functions of Government Government is the collection of public institutions in a nation that establish and enforce the rules by which the members of that nation must live. Even the most primitive of societies have found government to be necessary. Without government, society would be in a state of anarchy, a situation characterized by lawlessness and discord in the political system. Thomas Hobbes, a seventeenth-century British political philosopher, wrote that without government, life would be “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short.”1 Government is necessary to make the rules by which citizens must abide, promoting order, stability, and protection for the society. It exists in part to resolve conflicts that naturally arise when people live in communities. Elaborating on the role of government, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, an eighteenth-century French philosopher, posited that in fact a “social contract” exists.2 A social contract is an agreement people make with one another to form a government and abide by its rules and laws. In return, the government promises to protect the people’s rights and welfare and to promote their best interests.
A government’s authority over its citizens refers to the ability of public institutions and the officials within them to make laws, independent of the power to execute them. People obey authority out of respect, whereas they obey power out of fear. Numerous different forms of government with governing authority can be found around the nations of the world. One such form—the form that will receive extended attention throughout this book—is democracy, defined as a government in which the people, either directly or through elected representa- tives, hold power and authority. The word democracy is derived from the Greek demos kratos, meaning “rule by the people.”
By contrast, an oligarchy is a form of government in which a small exclusive class, which may or may not attempt to rule on behalf of the people as a whole, holds supreme power. In a theocracy, a particular religion or faith plays a dominant role in the government; Iran is just one example of a theocratic nation in the world today. A monarchy is a form of govern- ment in which one person, usually a member of a royal family or a royal designate, exercises supreme authority. The monarch may be a king or queen, such as Queen Elizabeth II of Great Britain. In the past monarchies were quite common; today they are rarely practiced in the absolute sense. Although the United Kingdom continues to pay homage to its royalty, true political power rests in the Parliament, the members of which are elected by the people.
Many of the nations in the world today have an authoritarian form of government in which one political party, group, or person maintains such complete control over the nation that it may refuse to recognize, and may even choose to suppress, all other political parties and interests. The nation of Iraq, before the American military intervention in 2003, was considered by most to be an authoritarian government under the dictatorial rule of Saddam Hussein. North Korea under Kim Jong-un is an authoritarian government in existence today.
An important characteristic of any government, whether democratic or not, is its power to exercise authority over people. Power is the capacity to get individuals to do something that they may not otherwise do, such as pay taxes, stop for red lights, or submit to a search before boarding an airplane. Without power, it would be very difficult for a government to enforce rules. The sustained power of any government largely rests on its legitimacy. Legitimacy is the extent to which the people (or the “governed”) afford the government the authority and right to exercise power. The more that people subscribe to the goals of a government, and the greater the degree to which that government guarantees the people’s welfare (for example, by supporting a strong economy or providing protection from foreign enemies), the higher will be the government’s level of legitimacy. When the governed grant a high level of legitimacy to their government, the government wields its power to make and enforce rules more successfully.
government: The collection of public institutions in a nation that establish and enforce the rules by which the members of that nation must live.
anarchy: A state of lawless- ness and discord in the po- litical system caused by lack of government.
social contract: From the philosophy of Jean-Jacques Rousseau, an agreement people make with one another to form a government and abide by its rules and laws, and in return, the government promises to protect the people’s rights and welfare and promote their best interests.
authority: The ability of public institutions and the officials within them to make laws, independent of the power to execute them.
democracy: Form of govern- ment in which the people, either directly or through elected representatives, hold power and authority. The word democracy is derived from the Greek demos kratos, meaning “rule by the people.”
oligarchy: A form of government in which a small exclusive class, which may or may not attempt to rule on behalf of the people as a whole, holds supreme power.
theocracy: A form of govern- ment in which a particular reli- gion or faith plays a dominant role in the government.
monarchy: A form of govern- ment in which one person, usu- ally a member of a royal family or a royal designate, exercises supreme authority.
authoritarianism: A form of government in which one po- litical party, group, or person maintains such complete con- trol over the nation that it may refuse to recognize and may even suppress all other political parties and interests.
53048_ch01_ptg01_hr_002-023.indd 8 10-11-2014 19:39:51
8 Chapter 1 The More Things Change . . . The More They Stay the Same Chapter 1 The More Things Change . . . The More They Stay the Same 9
# 153120 Cust: Cengage Au: Dautrich Pg. No. 9 Title: The Enduring Democracy, 4e
C / M / Y / K Short / Normal
DESIGN SERVICES OF
S4carliSle Publishing Services
1.3 American Government and Politics Politics is defined as the way in which the institutions of government are organized to make laws, rules, and policies, and how those institutions are influenced. More than 70 years ago, political scientist Harold Lasswell proposed a brief but very useful definition of politics as “who gets what, when and how.” In American politics, the “who” includes actors within and outside the formal government, such as citizens, elected officials, interest groups, and state and local governments. The “what” are the decisions the government makes and take the form of what government funds, the way it raises revenue, and the policies it produces and enforces. The “when” relates to setting priorities about what government does. The concerns and issues that government addresses differ in importance, and issues of greater importance tend to be addressed more quickly. Finally, the “how” refers to the way in which the government goes about its work, based on the political institutions that exist and the formal and informal proce- dures and rules that define the governing process. In describing American politics, this book provides answers to Lasswell’s “who gets what, when and how?”3
Government in the United States is especially complex. It is organized into multiple layers (national, state, and local) and contains many governing units, as shown in Table 1.2. It en- compasses a number of political institutions that share power—the executive (the president), the legislature (Congress), and the judiciary (the courts); and it provides countless methods for individuals and groups to influence the decisions made by those institutions. In this book, we will examine this complex organization of American government, describe the political institutions that exercise power, and explore the varied ways that people and groups exert in- fluence. As we sort through this complexity of American government, we will seek to explain how and why the American political system has been able to endure the conflicts, both internal and external, that it has faced and currently faces. We will attempt to show how the American government is uniquely designed to stand up to its many challenges.
The strength and stability of the U.S. government are grounded in the high level of legitimacy it maintains with the American public. Americans may disagree vehemently with public officials, but rarely do they question their claim to authority. The Framers of the U.S. Constitution were
politics: The way in which the institutions of government are organized to make laws, rules, and policies, and how those institutions are influenced.
power: The ability to get indi- viduals to do something that they may not otherwise do, such as pay taxes, stop for red lights, or submit to a search before boarding an airplane.
legitimacy: The extent to which the people afford the government the authority and right to exercise power.
CoNNECT WITH YouR CLASSmATES
for American Government
Access The Democratic Republic Forum: Discussion—Rule of Law and the Constitution
Table 1.2 Governments in the United States The government of the United States might be more correctly described as a system of governments. In addition to the federal government, there are 50 state governments and thousands of local governments. The 2012 U.S. Census Bureau’s Census of Government’s listed these totals for the number of governments operating throughout the nation.
Government Number
Federal 1
State 50
County 3,013
Municipal 19,522
School district 13,051
Township/town 16,364
Special district 37,203
Total 89,004
Ba se
d on
d at
a fr
om : U
.S . C
en su
s Bu
re au
's C
en su
s of
G ov
er nm
en ts
, 2 01
2
53048_ch01_ptg01_hr_002-023.indd 9 10-11-2014 19:39:51
10 Chapter 1 The More Things Change . . . The More They Stay the Same Chapter 1 The More Things Change . . . The More They Stay the Same 11
# 153120 Cust: Cengage Au: Dautrich Pg. No. 10 Title: The Enduring Democracy, 4e
C / M / Y / K Short / Normal
DESIGN SERVICES OF
S4carliSle Publishing Services
keenly aware of the importance of the legitimacy of the system. They knew that if the govern- ment was to withstand the test of time, it must serve the people well. These ideas about legitimacy drew largely on the theories of seventeenth-century British political philosopher John Locke (1632–1704).4 Locke proposed that people are born with certain natural rights, which derive from natural law, the rules of conduct inherent in the relationship among human beings and thus more fundamental than any law that a governing authority might make. Government cannot violate these natural rights, which include life, liberty, and property. Therefore, government, or human law, must be based on the “consent of the governed.” That is, citizens are responsible for choosing their government and its leaders. This theory loomed large in the mind of Thomas Jefferson as he drafted the Declaration of Independence to justify the American colonies’ split with the British government: “All men . . . are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights . . . [and] whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it.” A government maintains legitimacy as long as the gov- erned are served well and as long as government respects the natural rights of individuals.
Drawing on this philosophy, the Framers drafted a Constitution that created a political system able to manage the inevitable conflicts that occur in any society. Mindful of Thomas Hobbes’s notion that the essence of government is to manage naturally occurring conflicts, the Framers de- signed a government that encourages conflict and competition rather than attempting to repress it. As we shall see in the chapters that follow, the U.S. Constitution includes a number of mechanisms that allow naturally occurring conflict to play out in as productive a manner as possible. Mecha- nisms are also in place to resolve conflicts and arrive at consensus on issues. Those who disagree and come up on the short side of political battles are guaranteed rights and liberties nonetheless. Further, the rules by which conflicts are settled are predicated on fairness and proper procedures.
The significance of what the Framers of the Constitution accomplished cannot be overstated. They not only addressed the short-term problems challenging the new nation, they also drafted a blueprint for how government should go about dealing with problems and conflicts into the future. The U.S. Constitution has served as the cornerstone of an American political system that routinely attempts to tackle some of the thorniest problems imaginable. In Chapter 2 of this book, we examine the enduring principles and processes outlined in the Constitution.
The Constitution provides a way for the American government to navigate through the many problems and conflicts that have faced the nation, including severe economic depres- sions, two world wars, nuclear confrontations with the former Soviet Union, and persisting questions of equality. Through all these difficulties, the American government has endured. The foresight of the Framers to create a Constitution that possesses the flexibility to adapt to changing times has served as a basis for the enduring democracy of the United States.
The preamble to the U.S. Constitution perhaps best summarizes the broad goals of American government:
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
It is no accident that the first three words of the Constitution are “We the People.” With this phrase the Framers acknowledged that the ultimate source of power rests with the people, a con- cept known as popular sovereignty. The U.S. Constitution provided for a form of representative democracy, under which regular elections are held to allow voters to choose those who govern on their behalf. In this sense, individual citizens do not directly make policies, rules, and other gov- erning decisions (that system of government is known as a direct democracy). Rather, representa- tive democracy, also referred to as indirect democracy or a republican form of government, rests on the notion that consent of the governed is achieved through free, open, and regular elections of those who are given the responsibility of governing. An important source of the legitimacy of the U.S. government is the nation’s commitment to representative democracy, which features the notion of majority rule. Majorities (more than 50 percent of the voters) and pluralities (the leading
natural law: According to John Locke, the most fundamental type of law, which supersedes any law that is made by govern- ment. Citizens are born with certain natural rights (including life, liberty, and property) that derive from this law and that government cannot take away.
popular sovereignty: The idea that the ultimate source of power in the nation is held by the people.
representative democracy: A form of government de- signed by the U.S. Constitu- tion whereby free, open, and regular elections are held to allow voters to choose those who govern on their behalf; it is also referred to as indirect democracy or a republican form of government.
direct democracy: A system of government in which all citizens participate in making policy, rules, and governing decisions.
CompARE WITH YouR pEERS
for American Government
Access The Democratic Republic Forum: Polling Activity—Defining Marriage in California
53048_ch01_ptg01_hr_002-023.indd 10 10-11-2014 19:39:51
10 Chapter 1 The More Things Change . . . The More They Stay the Same Chapter 1 The More Things Change . . . The More They Stay the Same 11
# 153120 Cust: Cengage Au: Dautrich Pg. No. 11 Title: The Enduring Democracy, 4e
C / M / Y / K Short / Normal
DESIGN SERVICES OF
S4carliSle Publishing Services
vote getters, whether or not they constitute absolute majorities) choose the winners of election contests, and so officeholders take their positions on the basis of whom most voters prefer. If officeholders fall from public favor, they may be removed in subsequent elections.
Legitimacy is also enhanced by broad public support for the specific purposes of government stated in the preamble to the Constitution: to “insure domestic tranquility” (produce laws that maintain a peace- ful and organized approach to living in the nation), to “provide for the common defense” (establish and maintain a military force to protect the nation from outside threats), to “promote the general welfare” (develop domestic policy programs to promote the welfare of the people), and to “secure the blessings of liberty” (guarantee basic freedoms, such as the rights of free expression and the ownership of property, even to those in the minority). Though people may have different opinions on how to achieve these broad goals, few in the United States would disagree with the ideals as stated in the abstract, or with the broad outlines of our republican form of government. Problems arise when public officials stray so far from these goals that their actions are deemed illegitimate by a near, if not absolute, majority. Yet the political system as a whole has been able to maintain its legitimacy, even under such trying circum- stances, because it has been flexible enough to eventually rid itself of those ineffective actors, whether through elections, impeachment, or some other means. The relatively high degree of legitimacy that is main- tained in the United States has helped the American government persist under the U.S. Constitution through good times and bad since 1789.
1.4 American Political Culture Political culture refers to the core values about the role of government and its operations and institutions that are widely held among citizens in a society. Political culture defines the essence of how a society thinks politically. It is transmitted from one generation to the next, and thus has an enduring influence on the politics of a nation. Every nation has a political culture, and the United States is no exception.
Whereas common ancestry characterizes the core of the political culture of many other nations, the United States has no common ancestry. Most other nations around the world, such as France, Britain, China, and Japan, are bound by a common birth lineage that serves to define the cultural uniqueness of the nation. For example, the Russian people share com- mon political values and beliefs as part of their ancestors’ historical experiences with czars, and then later with the communist regime. Britain, despite being a democracy, retains a monarchy as a symbolic gesture toward its historical antecedents. In many nations rich with such common ethnic traditions, these routines often serve to underscore the political culture of the nation.
The United States has no such common ancestry to help define its political culture. Its land was first occupied by many different Native American tribes, and then settled by people from many different parts of the world. Most of the immigrants who settled the colonies were seeking a better life from the political or religious persecution they experienced in their native countries, or they were seeking improved economic opportunities for themselves and their families. As America continued to grow through the centuries, it attracted immigrants from around the world, anxious to find a better life. These circumstances had a profound influence on the core values that have become engrained in the American political culture. The ideas
“I agree to this Constitution, with all of its faults, if they are such: because I think a general government necessary for us, and there is no form of government but what may be a blessing to the people if well administered. I doubt too whether any convention we can obtain may be able to make a better constitution. For when you assemble a number of men to have the advantage of their joint wisdom, you inevitably assemble with those men all their prejudices, their passions, their errors of opinion, their local interests, and their selfish views. From such an assembly can a perfect production be expected? It therefore astonishes me . . . to find this system approaching so near to perfection.” —Benjamin Franklin (1788)
A RP
L/ H
IP /T
he Im
ag e
W or
ks
political culture: The values and beliefs about government, its purpose, and its operations and institutions that are widely held among citizens in a so- ciety; it defines the essence of how a society thinks politically and is transmitted from one generation to the next.
53048_ch01_ptg01_hr_002-023.indd 11 10-11-2014 19:39:55
12 Chapter 1 The More Things Change . . . The More They Stay the Same Chapter 1 The More Things Change . . . The More They Stay the Same 13
# 153120 Cust: Cengage Au: Dautrich Pg. No. 12 Title: The Enduring Democracy, 4e
C / M / Y / K Short / Normal
DESIGN SERVICES OF
S4carliSle Publishing Services
1 9 6 2
1 9 7 1
1 9 1 3
1 9 2 0
1 9 6 1
1 8 7 0
Constitutional Amendments That Have Extended Voting Rights in the united States
THe MOre THeY STAY THe SAMe
THe MOre THiNgS CHANge,
I n several states, approval of the new U.S. Constitu- tion drafted in 1787 hinged on adding a bill of rights. Supporters of the Constitution agreed, and the first
10 amendments, which compose the formal Bill of Rights, were formally added to the Constitution in 1791. Since then, the Constitution has been amended 17 times. Six of these 17 amendments extend Americans’ voting rights, and no amendment has ever in any way restricted voting rights. Over the years, changes to the original Constitution have led to greater empowerment of the American people in determining the direction that government takes.
In 1870, the Fifteenth Amendment provided that the right to vote may not be denied on the basis of race.
In 1913, the Seventeenth Amendment changed the method of selection of U.S. senators from having state legislatures choose senators to having senators directly elected by the voters of a state.
In 1920, the Nineteenth Amendment provided voting rights to women by not allowing states to deny women the right to vote.
In 1961, the Twenty-third Amendment provided resi- dents of the District of Columbia with electoral votes in presidential elections.
In 1962, the Twenty-fourth Amendment prevented states from levying a tax on people in order for them to vote in federal elections. Some states used a poll tax to discourage poor people and African Americans from voting.
In 1971, the Twenty-sixth Amendment provided voting rights to those who are 18 years of age by not allowing states to deny the franchise to those who have obtained this age.
For Critical Thinking and Discussion 1. What are the values in American political culture
that have spurred constitutional changes promot- ing the extension of the franchise?
2. Can you think of any other possible amendments that might further promote voting rights?
generated by democratic political philosophers such as Thomas Hobbes and John Locke also significantly contributed to American political culture. These ideas were used by the Found- ers to justify the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution, and they continue to underlie American political culture today.
The circumstances surrounding America’s first and current immigrants, as well as the great ideas generated by Enlightenment philosophers, form the core set of values that define the American political culture. One of these core values is majority rule. From its earliest times, the American nation has been committed to the notion that the “will of the people” ought to guide public policy, thus underscoring the importance of popular sovereignty in the thinking of the Founders. Majority rule is the way in which popular sovereignty is actually exercised. Rarely will all of the people agree all of the time; and so it is what the majority of people prefer that generally guides decision making. Early local governments, such as town governments in some of the New England colonies, relied on town meetings, where all citizens were invited to attend, discuss, and vote, to make governmental decisions. Elections for most local and state offices, and elections for the U.S. Congress, are all based on the idea that those who make and enforce laws are duly elected by majorities. A more recent aspect of U.S. commitment to
majority rule: The notion that the will of the majority should guide decisions made by American government.
53048_ch01_ptg01_hr_002-023.indd 12 10-11-2014 19:40:03
12 Chapter 1 The More Things Change . . . The More They Stay the Same Chapter 1 The More Things Change . . . The More They Stay the Same 13
# 153120 Cust: Cengage Au: Dautrich Pg. No. 13 Title: The Enduring Democracy, 4e
C / M / Y / K Short / Normal
DESIGN SERVICES OF
S4carliSle Publishing Services
majority rule is its heavy reliance on public opinion polling as a gauge for assessing the per- formance of elected leaders, and to ensure that leaders respect public preferences for certain policy positions.
Although the preferences of the majority rule the day, another core value in the American political culture is minority rights. Those in the minority enjoy certain rights and liberties that cannot be taken away by government. The idea of the natural law (e.g., that people are “endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights” that government cannot deny) is an important corollary to majority rule. The rights to speak freely, to choose a religion, or to decide not to practice religion at all are among the many liberties that are protected by the U.S. Bill of Rights, and are widely endorsed by the American public.
These rights are intended to inspire debate on issues, to guarantee religious freedoms, and to afford due process rights to those accused of crimes. The American political culture places a high value on individual liberty. The fact that many immigrants came to this country for the promise of greater freedom adds further credence to this proposition. Certainly there are some terrible black marks in American history that belie this claim. Among them are the perpetu- ation of slavery in the country up until the Civil War, the internment of Japanese Americans during World War II, and the treatment of early 1960s civil rights protesters in the South. Still, many Americans today view their nation as the world’s “garden” of freedom and liberty, even if it has come to this status only slowly and sometimes with reluctance during its more than two centuries of existence.
Another core value in American political culture is the idea of limited government. Americans have generally supported the idea expressed by Thomas Jefferson that “the gov- ernment that governs least governs best.” From the days of the American Revolution, the colonists believed that the corruptive power of King George III and the British Parliament led to unfair treatment of the colonies. Suspicion of the government and those with power is firmly rooted in the psyche of American political culture. The “watchdog” function of the press, the separation of powers and the system of checks and balances among political insti- tutions, and the rather negative connotation of the word “politics” all reflect an appreciation for limits and checks on those with authority. Corresponding to the value of limited govern- ment is the notion that communities and the private sector should take a role in helping
limited government: The value that promotes the idea that government power should be as restricted as possible.
Table 1.3 Daniel Elazar’s Typology of American Political Culture Many observers of American politics have used different approaches and typologies to describe American political culture. The late political scientist Daniel Elazar described three competing political subcultures, which he believed differentiated American political culture from that found in any other country in the world:*
Subculture Description
Individualistic Subculture Is skeptical of authority, keeps government’s role limited, and celebrates the United States’ general reliance on the marketplace
Moralistic Subculture Has faith in the American government’s capacity to advance the public interest and encourages citizens to participate in the noble cause of politics
Traditionalistic Subculture Maintains a more ambivalent attitude toward both government and the marketplace, believing that politicians must come from society’s elite, whereas ordinary citizens are free to stand on the sidelines
According to Elazar, different subcultures can be found in different geographic areas, and sometimes within a single area itself. For example, he described the political subculture in Texas as part traditionalistic (as manifested in the long history of one-party dominance in state politics) and part individualistic (as seen in the state government’s commitment to support for private business and its opposition to big government).
*See Daniel J. Elazar, American Federalism: A View from the States (New York: Thomas Y. Crowell, 1966).
53048_ch01_ptg01_hr_002-023.indd 13 10-11-2014 19:40:03
14 Chapter 1 The More Things Change . . . The More They Stay the Same Chapter 1 The More Things Change . . . The More They Stay the Same 15
# 153120 Cust: Cengage Au: Dautrich Pg. No. 14 Title: The Enduring Democracy, 4e
C / M / Y / K Short / Normal
DESIGN SERVICES OF
S4carliSle Publishing Services
fellow citizens. Problems that may be solved without gov- ernment should be solved that way. The French journal- ist Alexis de Tocqueville observed this tradition when he visited the United States in the early 1800s and credited the success of the American political system in part to citizens’ strong interest in community and helping one another apart from government.5
Because the United States has no common ancestral or cultural bloodline, American political culture recognizes the value and strength derived from the diversity of its population— another important core value. At the base of the Statue of Liberty in New York Harbor is inscribed a poem by Emma Lazarus beginning with the phrase “Bring me your huddled masses, yearning to be free.” Until the U.S. government adopted a restrictive immigration policy in the early 1920s, those huddled masses arrived in waves from different parts of the world, as the United States be-
came the chosen destination for those seeking a better life. Joining freed African American slaves who were originally brought here against their will were legions of Italians, Irish, Ger- mans, and other immigrants from Europe and elsewhere. The United States today is one of the most racially and ethnically diverse nations in the world. Integrating these many people into a united nation has not come easy; in fact, resistance to the notion of a “melting pot” has been common. The nation has been wracked at times with racial and ethnic strife to a degree that more homogeneous countries can more easily avoid. Government officials occasionally exac- erbate these tensions by promoting policies that discriminate against various groups, includ- ing Native Americans, African Americans, Asian Americans, and Hispanic Americans. No stranger to ethnic and racial tensions himself, German dictator Adolph Hitler calculated that the diversity of the United States would eventually hamper its resistance against Germany’s totalitarian aggression; in fact, American soldiers of different backgrounds, ethnicities, and religions fought in World War II. Much to Hitler’s chagrin, U.S. diversity proved to be a source of strength, rather than weakness. Indeed, many Americans today believe that the heterogene- ity of our society enhances the quality of our culture and helps guarantee the fairness of the government.
Americans also generally subscribe to the notion that individuals are primarily responsible for their lot in life—a value referred to as individualism. The seeds of this value were sown hundreds of years ago with the Puritans and their commitment to a strong work ethic that stressed that “what one sows determines what one reaps.” In other words, hard work and intel- ligence should be rewarded. Although the U.S. government has assumed some responsibility to provide a safety net for citizens who suffer economically, the American political culture, through its primary reliance on a capitalist economic system, free markets, and individual ef- fort, is one that promotes individual initiative and responsibility. Figure 1.3 depicts the height- ened importance of the value of individualism in the American political culture, compared to other European democracies.
The value of individualism promotes another core value—equality of opportunity, or the idea that the role of government is to set the stage for individuals to achieve on their own, and that everyone should be given the same opportunity to achieve success. Indeed, America has been an attractive place for highly motivated individuals from around the world to immigrate so that they might have a fair chance of achieving personal success. Many immigrants today, particularly from Asia and Latin America, are attracted to the United States for the opportuni- ties to achieve individual success.
The United States has long set itself apart from those nations whose histories include tradi- tions of a rigid class system of privileged aristocracies and oligarchies and peasants with few or no rights or freedoms. In the United States there is no formal recognition of a class system; nor
individualism: The value that individuals are primarily responsible for their own lot in life and that promotes and rewards individual initiative and responsibility. This value underlies America’s reliance on a capitalist economy and free market system.
President Barack Obama speaks to a gathering of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) at the group’s 100th anniversary celebration in July 2009.
SA U
L Lo
EB /A
FP /G
et ty
Im ag
es
53048_ch01_ptg01_hr_002-023.indd 14 10-11-2014 19:40:16
14 Chapter 1 The More Things Change . . . The More They Stay the Same Chapter 1 The More Things Change . . . The More They Stay the Same 15
# 153120 Cust: Cengage Au: Dautrich Pg. No. 15 Title: The Enduring Democracy, 4e
C / M / Y / K Short / Normal
DESIGN SERVICES OF
S4carliSle Publishing Services
is there a tradition of royalty, nobility, or monarchy. Indeed, Article I of the Constitution specifi- cally prohibits both the federal government and the state governments from granting any title of nobility upon its citizens. Instead, American political culture values the so-called Horatio Alger myth. Alger was a popular writer in the late 1800s whose characters came from impoverished backgrounds but through pluck, determination, and hard work achieved huge success. Although this idealistic rags-to-riches notion often ignores the many harsh economic disparities that exist in the United States, it remains central to the American political culture. The stories of Benjamin Franklin and Abraham Lincoln exemplified this road to success, as do the more recent examples of Presidents Bill Clinton and Ronald Reagan, both of whom came from less-than-privileged circumstances to win the nation’s highest political office and become leaders of the free world. Perhaps it is because of these success stories that so many Americans believe that they have boundless opportunities to better their lot on the basis of diligence and hard work.
These core values provide a window into American political culture. To be sure, there is plenty of room for disagreement as to how these values might be applied to specific situations, which we address in Chapter 10. In addition, these values are often in conflict. At the heart of the debate over affirmative action, for example, lies the value conflict pitting individualism against equality of opportunity. Those who oppose affirmative action in hiring claim that in- dividuals should be evaluated exclusively based on who they are and what they can do rather than on their gender, race, or other demographic characteristic. Those supporting affirmative action claim that historical discrimination has led to a current job market that provides un- equal opportunities for certain groups, such as racial minorities and women. Although these values do not always solve problems and policy debates, they do lay the groundwork for how American politics goes about settling problems and debating issues.
Figure 1.3 Individualism as a Value in the United States Compared to Other Democracies A recent Pew Global Survey shows that Americas are more likely than their European counterparts to believe that “it is more important to pursue life’s goals without government interference” and to disagree with the statement “success in life is determined by forces outside our control.”
U.S.
Britain
Germany
France
Spain
U.S.
Britain
Germany
France
Spain
35%
64%
67%
36%
41%
50%
57%
72%
36%
30%
47%
55%
62%
Which is more important?
Percent disagreeing that success in life is determined by forces outside our control
55% 38%
62% 36%
Freedom to pursue life’s goals without state interference
State guarantees nobody is in need
DisagreeAgree
43%
27%
58%
Fre wi
Ag Di
p
St is
Ba se
d on
d at
a fr
om P
ew G
lo ba
l S ur
ve y,
2 01
1.
53048_ch01_ptg01_hr_002-023.indd 15 10-11-2014 19:40:18
16 Chapter 1 The More Things Change . . . The More They Stay the Same Chapter 1 The More Things Change . . . The More They Stay the Same 17
# 153120 Cust: Cengage Au: Dautrich Pg. No. 16 Title: The Enduring Democracy, 4e
C / M / Y / K Short / Normal
DESIGN SERVICES OF
S4carliSle Publishing Services
1.5 Is American Democracy in Decline? The old saying that “those who ignore the problems of the past are destined to repeat them” holds as true in American politics as it does in any other context. Certainly new issues and problems may arise, requiring innovative new thinking to address them. But many other dif- ficulties the United States faces can be effectively addressed by casting an eye on the distant or not-so-distant past. A historical view can help place modern dilemmas in proper perspective.
The Case for Decline
Some recent observers of American politics have suggested that the American political system is in decline. Are we currently witnessing a deterioration of democracy in the United States? Is the American political system in jeopardy? Are the problems that the American system of government faces today beyond repair? To try to answer these questions, let’s first look at the factors some cite as contemporary indicators of the decline of American democracy. 1. The decline of the United States as an economic superpower? The growth of the
national economy from the Industrial Revolution through the post–World War II era es- tablished the United States as the preeminent fiscal power in the world for much of the twentieth century. This fiscal strength enabled the United States to establish the dollar as the benchmark unit of currency for the world, to defeat the Soviet Union in the Cold War, to build a military capability vastly superior to that of other nations, and to provide the leadership that brought democracy to many other nations. However, the significant growth of the Chinese economy over the past decade, coupled with the exploding U.S. national debt (and the willingness of China to underwrite much of that debt) has raised serious questions about the future of U.S. dominance over the world’s economy. Concerns over the economic rise of China and decline of the United States are summarized in a recent study by the Congressional Research Service: “. . . the emergence of China as a major economic superpower has raised concern among many U.S. policymakers . . . that China will overtake the United States as the world’s largest trade economy in a few years and the world’s largest economy within the next two decades. In this context, China’s rise is viewed as America’s relative decline.”6 This report offers evidence of a decline in economic power citing projec- tions of U.S. and Chinese gross domestic product (GDP), depicted in Table 1.4.
Table 1.4 Projections of U.S. and Chinese Gross Domestic Product (GDP), in Billions (from Global Insight)
China U.S.
2015 22,210 20,169
2020 35,734 27,584
2025 57,145 35,963
2. The death of capitalism? The collapse of many of the largest financial institutions in the United States in 2008, and the subsequent “Great Recession,” has raised questions about the viability of the free market system in contemporary society. In large part, the finan- cial industry’s drive in the 1990s and 2000s to capitalize on rising real estate markets drove financial institutions to rely on increasingly risky lending practices. Risky loans were bundled and sold off to investors in the form of real estate securities. Multibillion- dollar financial institutions, such as Citibank, Morgan Stanley, Lehman Brothers, Coun- trywide Mortgage, and AIG, among many others, found themselves in the red at the exact same time that the real estate market collapsed, thus freezing credit in the United States. The stock market tumbled, and the U.S. government needed to bail out many of the largest financial institutions just to keep the nation’s financial system from collapse.
Co ng
re ss
io na
l R es
ea rc
h Se
rv ic
e re
po rt
"I s
Ch in
a a
Th re
at to
th e
U .S
. E co
no m
y, " J
an ua
ry 2
3, 2
00 7,
pa
ge 1
5, T
ab le
8 fr
om G
lo ba
l I ns
ig ht
s da
ta .
53048_ch01_ptg01_hr_002-023.indd 16 10-11-2014 19:40:18
16 Chapter 1 The More Things Change . . . The More They Stay the Same Chapter 1 The More Things Change . . . The More They Stay the Same 17
# 153120 Cust: Cengage Au: Dautrich Pg. No. 17 Title: The Enduring Democracy, 4e
C / M / Y / K Short / Normal
DESIGN SERVICES OF
S4carliSle Publishing Services
The frantic drive for profits among the largest of these companies was identified as the source of economic ills not only in the United States, but around the world. Greed, in- spired by capitalism, seemed to be the culprit of the world’s economic woes, thus leading to questions about the viability of the free market system in the modern age.
3. Policy paralysis caused by partisan gridlock? Relations between the two major parties tend to ebb and flow with changing political moods and circumstances. Still, cross-party relations between Republicans and Democrats seemed to have reached such a low by 2011 that policymaking ceased to function. In recent years, whichever party has carried the White House has been forced to brace for a Senate opposition that uses the filibus- ter freely and without any limitation to impose a supermajority requirement of 60 sena- tors for all legislative enactments. Many other bills can never even get out of committee. Meanwhile, in the House of Representatives, the president’s opposition has ruled with an iron hand, rendering matters that had in the past proven perfunctory (such as the routine raising of the nation’s debt ceiling) into a knockdown, drag-out fight between the two parties in Congress. The prospect of a government shutdown has loomed over every bud- get fight, and in October of 2013 partisan tensions did in fact lead to a shutdown of many federal government functions for more than two weeks. Party-line votes in Congress on most major legislative initiatives indicate a lack of any common ground whatsoever.
4. Weak candidates for high office? The relentless media hordes, 24-hour news cycles, and other impositions on the privacy of public figures has scared off nearly all of the most qualified public servants from seeking high public office. Whereas the prospect of a reduced income was once the primary disincentive to individuals taking on the burdens of public service, today a prospective politician must live a perfect life or risk being raked over the coals by his or her political rivals, media figures, and others. With so many experienced public servants reluctant to run, it is no wonder that a movie star (Arnold Schwarzenegger) and a WWF wrestler (Jesse Ventura) could rise to power in two of the most populated states in the union. Those Democrats who were looking for an alternative to Barack Obama in 2012 had to accept the reality that Obama had scared off all potential party challengers. Republican constituents who expressed frustration with their choice of candidates in the Republican primaries of 2012 were left to wonder why such popular Republican figures as New Jersey Governor Chris Christie and Indi- ana Governor Mitch Daniels never even joined the 2012 race. Democrats saw numerous party luminaries such as New Mexico Governor William Richardson and former Senate Majority Leader Thomas Daschle banished from the Obama administration for trans- gressions that might have been ignored in years past. Americans used to celebrate the proposition that in this country “anyone can grow up to be president”—today perhaps what’s wrong with America is that “anyone can grow up to be president.” Among the most qualified individuals, few do.
5. Has money ruined American politics? “Big money” now dominates American elec- tions, in the form of contributions from those who seek to influence future officials, personal expenditures from candidates themselves, and general expenditures by politi- cal parties. The Supreme Court’s landmark decision in Citizens United v. FEC (2010) seemed to cement the role that big money plays in determining election outcomes, paving the way for independent-expenditure political action committees (often called “super-PACs”) to accept unlimited contributions from individuals, unions, and corpo- rations for the purpose of making so-called “independent expenditures” on behalf of candidates; it thus enabled wealthy individuals to dominate the process. In 2011, just 22 donors provided the money for half of the $67 million funded by super-PACs! In some instances, anonymous outside groups poured millions of dollars into the pro- cess. Others were willing to stand up and be counted: consider that billionaire Sheldon Adelson singlehandedly kept Newt Gingrich’s struggling presidential campaign afloat in 2012 with his donation of $10 million to a pro-Gingrich super-PAC. With a handful of individuals responsible for a large percentage of the donations in these campaigns, the corruptive influence of money appears to have reached new, dangerous heights.
53048_ch01_ptg01_hr_002-023.indd 17 10-11-2014 19:40:18
18 Chapter 1 The More Things Change . . . The More They Stay the Same Chapter 1 The More Things Change . . . The More They Stay the Same 19
# 153120 Cust: Cengage Au: Dautrich Pg. No. 18 Title: The Enduring Democracy, 4e
C / M / Y / K Short / Normal
DESIGN SERVICES OF
S4carliSle Publishing Services
But Do These Problems Really Signify a Decline?
If we reexamine some of the criticisms of contemporary American politics with the benefit of historical perspective, we may reach far different conclusions about whether American de- mocracy is now in a state of decline. 1. The U.S. will remain an economic superpower. Challenges to U.S. fiscal dominance,
such as the current challenge of China, are nothing new. Forty years ago, for example, many policymakers expressed similar concerns about the imminent decline of U.S. economic power. In this era the concern was focused not on China, but on Japan. The Japanese economy flourished in the decades after World War II. A latecomer to modern- ization, Japan was able to avoid the pitfalls of industrialization experienced by the United States and other advanced democracies prior to World War II. Once converted to a free market system after the war, Japan’s economy took off quickly. By the 1970s, Japan had the world’s second largest economy and appeared to be closing in on the United States. Gross domestic product (GDP) in Japan grew from $8 billion in 1955, to $32 billion in 1965, to $148 billion in 1975, to $323 billion in 1985. By 1990 Japan’s per capita GDP ex- ceeded per capita GDP in the United States. The sharp upward trajectory alarmed many U.S. policymakers, who felt that Japan’s rise would ultimately derail the U.S. dominance of world fiscal policy. Yet today Japan offers no significant threat to the economic power of the United States. The rapid rise of Japan’s economy left it unable to effectively deal with a recessionary period of any length. Consequently, the dire predictions of the U.S. economic fall to Japan were never realized. Furthermore, in 2014 China’s economy was already showing signs of slower growth, leading economists to recognize the likely con- tinued dominance of the United States well into the twenty-first century.6
2. Capitalism is not dead. The Great Recession of 2008 and the events that led up to it certainly do not mark the first time that speculation in free markets led to economic catastrophe. A panic in 1837 led to stymied economic growth for more than three years, a severe recession in 1873 retracted growth for six years, and an economic panic in 1893 set off a series of bank failures. A stock market crash in 1929 produced a decade-long
Trading on the floor of the New York Stock Exchange remains an important symbol of American capitalism.
St an
H on
da /A
FP /G
et ty
Im ag
es
53048_ch01_ptg01_hr_002-023.indd 18 10-11-2014 19:40:36
18 Chapter 1 The More Things Change . . . The More They Stay the Same Chapter 1 The More Things Change . . . The More They Stay the Same 19
# 153120 Cust: Cengage Au: Dautrich Pg. No. 19 Title: The Enduring Democracy, 4e
C / M / Y / K Short / Normal
DESIGN SERVICES OF
S4carliSle Publishing Services
“Great Depression.” These and many other economic downturns in U.S. history, aggra- vated by speculation and overly exuberant investors, have led to extremely tough eco- nomic times. But the ills of the free market have never limited the ability of capitalism to provide the medicine for recovery, and then some. Panics, recessions, and depressions have always been corrected by bull markets, opportunities, and resurgences. Capitalism has been declared dead many times in U.S. history. The approach of each economic downturn was accompanied by claims that the U.S. experiment with a free market sys- tem had finally failed. In fact, the free markets operate in natural cycles of growth and retraction. Just as the free market system was declared dead at earlier times in American history, so too were many claiming that the Great Recession of 2008 was the last nail in the coffin of American capitalism. However, just as the cyclical nature of free market growth calmed the fears of the skeptics before, so too has the recent growth of the U.S. stock market and decline in unemployment quieted the naysayers once again.
3. The polarization of the two major political parties has not paralyzed the lawmaking process. The political parties’ recent polarization is hardly unprecedented: at various times in history (e.g., during the Civil War, the New Deal) the parties have stood in stark contrast on nearly all the major issues of the time. Some democratic theorists argue that a marked differentiation between the two parties may actually contribute to democracy under a “responsive theory of democracy”: the two parties disagree on the issues and then allow the public to express its opinion through elections. For all the talk of polariza- tion, the 111th Congress passed 43 major pieces of legislation in 2009–2010, including the Obama administration’s centerpiece, health care reform. Since the 2010 midterm elections, Republicans and Democrats have managed to approve hundreds of bills and resolutions. The parties may be growing more distinct, but government continues to make decisions.
4. The pool of candidates who run for high office is strong. The dream of exercising po- litical power continues to attract many of the most qualified individuals to run for presi- dent and other powerful positions in government. In recent years the Senate has been described as an institution of 100 men and women, “all of whom want to be president,” and many have tossed their hats in the ring only to be rejected by voters. Meanwhile, those who are successful can hardly be deemed unqualified for the position: Of the last five men to hold the presidency, four sported degrees from Harvard or Yale; two of those chief executives (Reagan and George W. Bush) sported experience running two of the largest states in the nation (California and Texas, respectively). That elite group also in- cluded among them a Rhodes Scholar (Clinton) and a two-term vice president (George H. W. Bush). Americans frustrated with the choice of candidates must face up to the reality that stars of the two political parties tend to lose their luster the moment they run for high office. Consider that public opinion polls showed Rudolph Giuliani as a popular candidate for the presidency in 2008; yet when Giuliani finally joined the fray during the early primary season, Republican primary voters soured on his candidacy. Perhaps the grass always seems greener somewhere else . . . in truth, candidates for the presidency today are as qualified as ever.
5. The influence of money does not spell the end of American politics. American elec- tions have always been dominated by individuals with immense power and influence. For much of this nation’s history, political machines all but controlled the nomination process and wielded heavy influence on politicians who benefitted from their respective handouts and other forms of largesse. Whether it was Boss Tweed and Tammany Hall in New York City, the Thomas Prendergast political machine in Missouri, or the Daley machine in Chicago, power has always been wielded by a relatively few, elite individuals. The recent dominance of money in politics has shifted the source of power from those machines to the extremely wealthy, but that may actually represent a positive develop- ment of sorts, as both parties have enjoyed their share of big donors and fundraising prowess in recent years. Those who think money corrupts politics might want to con- sider the far less attractive alternative that used to mark the elections process.
53048_ch01_ptg01_hr_002-023.indd 19 10-11-2014 19:40:36
20 Chapter 1 The More Things Change . . . The More They Stay the Same
# 153120 Cust: Cengage Au: Dautrich Pg. No. 20 Title: The Enduring Democracy, 4e
C / M / Y / K Short / Normal
DESIGN SERVICES OF
S4carliSle Publishing Services
* * * * * *
History does not literally repeat itself. The specific people, circumstances, and events cer- tainly change. But history can help us identify patterns, recurring problems, and trends in how the American political system functions and resolves conflicts. The preceding discussion of some of the contemporary arguments for why American democracy may be in a state of decline helps us frame current conditions. In doing so, we may gain a greater understanding of the challenges facing the nation today. Certainly, many contemporary challenges are no less daunting than problems the nation has encountered over the past two centuries. Throughout this book, a historical perspective on contemporary problems offers a sense of how the past might help us understand politics today.
FrOM YOur PerSPeCTiVe
Courting the Youth Vote
Pictured here are college students participating in the “Rock the Vote” campaign in 2012.
C andidates and political parties often try to in- crease turnout as a means of enhancing their prospects in an election. However, numerous
nonpartisan organizations also engage in special ef- forts to encourage the so-called youth vote in particular. These organizations may target young voters primarily for two reasons: (1) young voters represent the future of American democracy, and (2) youth turnout has tended to be lower than turnout among older Americans. Even in 2008 and 2012—when the youth vote increased substantially as compared to past presidential elec- tions—barely more than half of eligible voters aged 18 to 29 voted, leaving that group well behind turnout rates of the electorate as a whole (more than 60 percent or more of eligible Americans voted in 2008 and 2012).
Among the many organizations that run programs to encourage young voters to exercise their voting rights are the following:
• Rock the Vote, which claims to have registered more than 2 million new voters in 2008 alone (see rockthevote.com);
• CIRCLE (Center for Information and Research on Civic Learning and Engagement), which conducts research on the dynamics of young people’s voting behavior (see www.civicyouth.org); and
• Youth Vote.org, a Web site that provides a plethora of information for young people to learn how to register to vote and why it is important to do so.
For Critical Thinking and Discussion 1. Which of the presidential candidates do you think
won the vote among college students in 2012? Why did this candidate appeal more to students?
2. Why do you think college-age students turn out in relatively lower numbers, as compared to older voters?
3. How effectively did the candidates in 2012 address issues that were important to college students?
A nn
H er
m es
/T he
C hr
is tia
n Sc
ie nc
e M
on ito
r/ G
et ty
Im ag
es
53048_ch01_ptg01_hr_002-023.indd 20 10-11-2014 19:40:50
# 153120 Cust: Cengage Au: Dautrich Pg. No. 21 Title: The Enduring Democracy, 4e
C / M / Y / K Short / Normal
DESIGN SERVICES OF
S4carliSle Publishing Services
1.1 History Repeats Itself • The patterns of history provide a powerful tool for understanding American government today.
1.2 Forms and Functions of Government • The development of the American political system is grounded in the philosophy of John Locke and Jean-Jacques
Rousseau, who argued that government is necessary and that it exists for the purpose of protecting the people that it serves. The “social contract” theory states that natural law gives people certain unalienable rights that government cannot take away, and that the people give government authority to rule, but the people can withdraw that authority if government does not serve the people’s interests.
• Democracy may be distinguished from other forms of government in that it is a form of government in which the people, either directly or through elected representatives, hold power and authority.
1.3 American Government and Politics • Democracy includes at its core the idea of popular sovereignty. The United States practices a form of democracy known
as “representative democracy,” where the people indirectly rule by electing leaders who are responsible for making and carrying out policies and laws.
1.4 American Political Culture • The political culture in America is reflected in the Constitution and the way in which the political system deals with and
decides political debates. Among the core values guiding the American political culture are majority rule, liberty, limited government, diversity, individualism, and equality of economic opportunity.
1.5 Is American Democracy in Decline? • Although the current American government has been in place for more than 200 years, questions have been raised about
whether this political system is in a state of decline. Lower voter turnout, confusing election outcomes, negativity in politics, and the influence of money in policy outcomes have been offered as evidence of a decline. However, a review of historical patterns in American politics suggests that these seemingly contemporary problems are chronic, and the American political system has effectively dealt with these and many other problems in the past.
• Viewing American government from a historical perspective may enrich our understanding of how the political system works. History can help us identify patterns, recurring problems, and trends in how the American political system functions and resolves conflicts. Many contemporary challenges are no more significant than problems the nation has encountered over the past two centuries.
SuMMArY: PuTTiNg iT ALL TOgeTHer
anarchy (p. 8) authoritarianism (p. 8) authority (p. 8) democracy (p. 8) direct democracy (p. 10) government (p. 8) individualism (p. 14)
legitimacy (p. 8) limited government (p. 13) majority rule (p. 12) monarchy (p. 8) natural law (p. 10) oligarchy (p. 8) political culture (p. 11)
politics (p. 9) popular sovereignty (p. 10) power (p. 8) representative democracy (p. 10) social contract (p. 8) theocracy (p. 8)
KeY TerMS
Chapter 1 The More Things Change . . . The More They Stay the Same 21
53048_ch01_ptg01_hr_002-023.indd 21 10-11-2014 19:40:50
# 153120 Cust: Cengage Au: Dautrich Pg. No. 22 Title: The Enduring Democracy, 4e
C / M / Y / K Short / Normal
DESIGN SERVICES OF
S4carliSle Publishing Services
1. The “social contract” theory between the governing and the governed was first developed by a. Thomas Jefferson. b. Socrates. c. Thomas Hobbes. d. Jean Jacques Rousseau.
2. A form of government in which one political party, one group, or one person maintains control and suppresses the views of outsiders is a. theocracy. b. an oligarchy. c. authoritarian. d. in anarchy.
3. Distinguish between the political concepts of “power” and “legitimacy.”
4. The form of government that best describes that in the United States is a. direct democracy. b. representative democracy. c. oligarchy. d. monarchy.
5. Which of the following documents establishes the principle of popular sovereignty? a. The preamble to the Constitution b. The Bill of Rights c. The Declaration of Independence d. Article I of the Constitution
6. What did John Locke mean by the term natural law, and how is that concept reflected in the Declaration of Independence?
7. Which of the following of Elazar’s “subcultures” in the United States is characterized by a skeptical view of authority and a desire to limit the role of government? a. Individualistic b. Moralistic c. Traditionalistic d. Rationalistic
8. The notion of popular sovereignty is best supported by which of the following values? a. Minority rights b. Diversity c. Individualism d. Majority rule
9. Individualism and equality are two values that underlie the American political culture. Define each and describe how these values may come into conflict on a specific policy issue.
10. Today many policymakers are concerned that China will soon overtake the role of the world’s leading economic power. In the 1970s and 1980s, which nation was the subject of similar fears? a. Germany b. Brazil c. Japan d. Pakistan
11. The U.S. Supreme Court ruling in 2010 that paved the way for the so-called “super-PACs” was a. Citizen’s United v. F.E.C. b. Miller v. California. c. Miranda v. Arizona. d. U.S. v. Davis.
12. What are the key arguments in support of and in oppo- sition to the notion that partisan gridlock has paralyzed policymaking over the past few years? Which side of the argument do you support? Why?
TeST YOurSeLF
1. d. (LO 1-2); 2. c. (LO 1-2); 4. b. (LO 1-3); 5. a. (LO 1-3); 7. a. (LO 1-4); 8. d. (LO 1-4); 10. c. (LO 1-5); 11. a. (LO 1-5)
22 Chapter 1 The More Things Change . . . The More They Stay the Same
53048_ch01_ptg01_hr_002-023.indd 22 10-11-2014 19:40:52
# 153120 Cust: Cengage Au: Dautrich Pg. No. 23 Title: The Enduring Democracy, 4e
C / M / Y / K Short / Normal
DESIGN SERVICES OF
S4carliSle Publishing Services
MASTer THe CONCePT OF THe DeMOCrATiC rePuBLiC wiTH FOr AMeriCAN gOVerNMeNT
REVIEW for American Government Access Key Term Flashcards for Chapter 1.
STAY CuRRENT for American Government Access the KnowNow blog and customized RSS for updates on current events.
TEST YouRSELf for American Government Take the Wrap It Up Quiz for Chapter 1.
STAY foCuSEd for American Government Complete the Focus Activities for The Democratic Republic.
Chapter 1 The More Things Change . . . The More They Stay the Same 23
53048_ch01_ptg01_hr_002-023.indd 23 10-11-2014 19:40:53
-
- 2014-11-10T19:50:23+0530
- Preflight Ticket Signature
